[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13194-13255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2863.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) to assume the chair temporarily.

[[Page 13195]]



                              {time}  1407


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Boozman (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to the House that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been a partner in this effort from 
day one in preparing and presenting this national defense bill. It is a 
truly bipartisan appropriations bill to provide for the security of our 
Nation and to provide for the troops who serve our Nation and to 
provide them with the equipment and the technology necessary to 
accomplish their mission and to protect themselves while they do that. 
I extend my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I also thank 
Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee for the support that he 
has given us as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.
  This appropriations bill is a good bipartisan bill, a nonpartisan 
bill. There are no politics involved at all. It is simply to provide 
for maintaining our security and to provide for our troops. Copies of 
this legislation have been available for several weeks now. There have 
been reports distributed to all of the Members. Although this bill is 
$3.3 billion less than the budget resolution provided for us, we were 
able to use some skillful oversight and be able to produce this bill at 
$3.3 billion less than the President's request and less than the budget 
had provided.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to come to the floor to present the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This 
legislation includes $363.7 billion in the base appropriations bill, of 
which $363.4 billion is new discretionary budget authority.
  In addition, $45.3 billion is provided in a bridge fund to support 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; this is consistent with 
authority provided in the budget resolution, and follows the lead of 
the Armed Services Committee, which authorized $49 billion for this 
purpose in the House-passed version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  The Subcommittee allocation for the base bill is $3.3 billion below 
the President's request. This presented us with some difficult 
challenges, but I believe we have made appropriate choices given our 
allocation.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, was a full partner in 
this process. This bill was developed with bipartisan support and 
deserves bipartisan support.
  Let me discuss some of the major funding highlights in the base bill:
  For military personnel, we fully fund the pay raise of 3.1 percent as 
requested by the President, and we fully support quality of life and 
family-oriented programs.
  To support our soldiers and their families, we have added $30 million 
for Impact Aid and increased Family Advocacy programs by $20 million.
  In operation and maintenance, the base bill provides funding for 
critical training, readiness and I maintenance activities at roughly 
the historic level for these programs; the overall increase is $3.2 
billion over the 2005 level.
  In the Army acquisition accounts, we fully fund the request of $882.4 
million for 240 Stryker vehicles. We also fully fund the request of 
$443.5 million for modifications and improvements to the M1 Abrams 
tank, an increase of $326.5 million over the 2005 level.
  In Naval aviation we fully fund the request for 130 aircraft, 
including 42 F/A-18's, compared to 115 total aircraft provided in 
fiscal year 2005. In addition, 8 aircraft are shifted back to the Air 
Force consistent with the restoration of the C-130J multiyear 
procurement contract.
  In shipbuilding we make some significant adjustments to the 
President's request:
  We are funding the new construction of 8 ships, as opposed to 4 new 
ships as proposed in the budget.
  We continue production of an additional DDG-51 destroyer, which was 
proposed for termination in the budget.
  Funds are provided to acquire 2, rather than just 1, T-AKE ammunition 
ships, consistent with the authorization bill.
  In addition, we're providing funds for 3 littoral combat ships, 2 
more than were included in the President's budget request.
  For the Air Force:
  We are fully funding the budget request for procurement of 24 F/A-22 
Raptors in 2006, and advance procurement for 29 aircraft in 2007.
  We are restoring funding for the C-130J multiyear procurement program 
by transferring funding from the Navy to the Air Force. The Air Force 
will procure 9 aircraft; the Navy will procure 4 tanker variants.
  Full funding is recommended for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft, 
with advance procurement for 7 additional aircraft in 2007.
  In the research and development accounts:
  We follow the lead of the Armed Services Committee in recommending no 
funds for advance procurement for the DD(X) destroyer, but are keeping 
the program alive by providing $670 million in R&D.
  We are accelerating development of the CG(X) cruiser, by increasing 
funding from $30 million to $80 million.
  Full funding of $935.5 million is provided for 5 V-XX helicopters.
  We provide a total of $4.9 billion, as requested by the President, 
for research and development associated with the Joint Strike Fighter 
program.
  As I mentioned earlier, the bill also includes $45.3 billion in 
fiscal year 2006 funding to sustain the war effort in a bridge fund. 
The 2006 budget resolution reserves $50 billion for contingency 
operations in support of the global war on terrorism. In addition, the 
Armed Services Committee proposed, and the House has approved, an 
authorization of over $49 billion for the same purposes. This bill has 
slightly lower levels for the military personnel accounts and the 
procurement accounts based on more recent information we have received 
from the Department of Defense.
  I believe the $45 billion bridge fund in this bill for contingency 
operations is the responsible thing to do to support our troops. It 
will ensure they face no interruption in funding for the first six 
months of fiscal year 2006 as they face our enemies abroad.
  Over 80 percent of the funds in title IX are provided for military 
personnel, and operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, $2.5 
billion is for intelligence activities; $2.1 billion is for fuel and 
war consumables; and $2.9 billion is for procurement to replace war 
losses and provide force protection for our men and women in uniform.
  Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the major elements of the 
recommendations before you. We have not been able to meet all the needs 
identified by the Defense Department and by Members of Congress. 
However, within the budget constraints we faced, I think we struck a 
fair balance that deserves the support of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this legislation.

[[Page 13196]]

TH20JN05.001



[[Page 13197]]

TH20JN05.002



[[Page 13198]]

TH20JN05.003



[[Page 13199]]

TH20JN05.004



[[Page 13200]]

TH20JN05.005



[[Page 13201]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I say that I agree with the chairman completely. It is the best we 
could do with the amount of money they gave us. It is completely 
bipartisan. It takes care of the troops. It has been distributed to 
everybody. We will go right to the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to pay 
tribute to a longtime staffer of this defense subcommittee. This is the 
first time that I have had the opportunity to bring a defense 
appropriations bill to the floor without having Kevin Roper sitting 
here beside me and providing the staff assistance that he has provided 
so eloquently.
  He served this committee for 20 years, first as the aide to the then-
ranking member, Congressman Joe McDade. Prior to the 20 years that he 
served this committee in the minority status and the majority status, 
he served 10 years in the United States Air Force. Kevin Roper is just 
a very, very special patriot. His knowledge of the defense 
establishment, his knowledge of the defense appropriations bill is 
extremely unique. I am just really proud to call him a friend. I am 
very, very heavyhearted to announce that he is leaving the committee to 
move on to spending more time with his family, his wife, and his 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the fact that this Kevin 
Roper that I am speaking about, everyone on the floor should recognize 
him. He has been here so long. Kevin Roper, God bless you for the good 
work you have done. Thank you very much. We appreciate you.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have brought a Defense 
Appropriations Bill to the floor that I haven't had Kevin Roper by my 
side as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee and as he leaves the 
Committee staff to pursue other interests, I wanted to let the record 
show how much we all have valued his counsel over the years.
  Kevin served the Appropriations Committee for more than 20 years, and 
he had a distinguished career in the Air Force for 10 years before 
that. He came to the committee in August of 1984 when he served as 
Congressman and Ranking Minority member Joe McDade's associate staff 
for Defense matters. Joe appointed him to be the Minority staff 
director in 1988 when our dear friend George Allen, his predecessor, 
passed away during an official mission overseas.
  When the Republicans became the majority party in 1995, Kevin became 
the Majority staff director serving both me and Chairman Jerry Lewis 
for the past 10 years in that capacity. During that period of time he 
assisted me and Chairman Lewis in the preparation, passage, and 
conference of 10 annual Defense Appropriation bills and more than 21 
Supplemental and wrap up bills which contained Defense Chapters.
  Kevin to this day loves his work and worked tirelessly to assist us 
in providing our men and women in uniform the tools they need to carry 
out their mission. He joined us when we were at the height of the cold 
war and assisted us in bringing that era to a successful conclusion. He 
was at his best when we were at war through two Gulf Wars, Panama, 
Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and probably would have left a couple of 
years ago had it not been for the terrorist attacks before and on 
September 11th.
  Kevin always made great contributions and we wish him well as he 
plans a career which will allow him to spend more time with his family. 
He doted on his family and our loss is the gain of his wife Klytia and 
his children Katie, Audrey and Matthew.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, this measure--the Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006, H.R. 2863--is the most significant component 
of our wartime budget for America. It funds the bulk of the national 
defense commitment, particularly the global war against terrorism. As 
Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am also pleased to report that the 
measure is consistent with the levels established by the conference 
report to H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2006.
  The budget resolution called for $441.6 billion in discretionary 
budget authority for the national defense function in 2006, and an 
additional $50 billion under a special Exemption of Overseas 
Contingency Operations that would not count against the Defense 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. In this way the budget resolution 
anticipated costs for continuing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A 
portion of the budget resolution's total national defense funding went 
toward the recently passed military quality of life and energy and 
water bills.
  This bill provides the balance of $363.4 billion in new discretionary 
budget authority towards funding the President's February defense 
budget request. It includes $45.3 billion that has been designated 
pursuant to section 401(a) of the budget resolution for Overseas 
Contingency Operations which are thereby exempt from the 302(b) 
allocations. These funds will, however, be counted against the 
discretionary totals identified in the budget resolution.
  Excluding the emergency portion, the bill's funding shows a 3.5-
percent increase from the previous year, and it builds on a 5-year 
average annual growth rate of 10.5 percent for defense appropriations. 
The base amount is equal to the 302(b) allocation to the House 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. I should note that the bill 
includes rescissions of prior year funds in the amount of $634 million 
which enable it to meet this allocation.
  Accordingly, the bill complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays 
established in the budget resolution.
  One factor I wish to note is that the bill reduces funding for 
operations and maintenance considerably from the President's February 
request. Although there is a widespread belief that any potential 
operations and maintenance shortfall can simply be made up for with 
supplemental spending, Congress should avoid making a regular practice 
of budgeting by supplemental for predictable events. There is also a 
risk that cutting Defense spending may lead to a commensurate increase 
in discretionary non-defense spending. This would be inconsistent with 
the President's request to put the Nation's security first by reducing 
non-defense non-homeland security domestic discretionary growth to less 
than 1 percent.
  With that, I wish to reiterate my support for H.R. 2863.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, terrorist events have brought this 
point to light, dramatically illustrating how the security of the 
United States is dependent upon its strength in the area of foreign 
language competency. If the United States is truly committed to 
continuing as the leader in the global economic community, as well as 
in the on-going fight against terrorism dictated by the global war on 
terrorism, some very serious commitments will have to be made in 
support of language study. Our history, and particularly our recent 
history, has repeatedly illustrated the consequences of not having 
adequate foreign language expertise available in times of crisis.
  In 1988 the satellite communications language training activities 
(SCOLA) became the first broad-scale provider of authentic foreign 
television and today provides this resource from 75 countries. From the 
beginning the Federal Government has recognized the importance of 
authentic foreign programming as a tool to help teach foreign 
languages. By watching and listening, students are able to actually 
experience the foreign culture and develop their language skills in the 
native real-life environment. This programming is also a vital 
intelligence resource since it provides significant insight into the 
internal happenings of the various countries.
  Throughout its long-time relationship with the Defense Language 
Institute (DLI), National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence 
Agency (CIA), State Department, military and other government sectors, 
SCOLA has been particularly responsive to requests for programming from 
specific areas of the world, with a major portion of its current 
programming schedule developed as a direct result of specific requests. 
In addition SCOLA offered this resource from regions of the world that 
never really had a significant presence in the United States before.
  SCOLA is a unique satellite-based language training activity that 
provides television programming in a variety of languages from around 
the world. Language students and seasoned linguists have found this 
augmentation of their normal language training to be very helpful. 
SCOLA also has an Internet-based streaming video capability that 
greatly increases the availability of this training medium to military 
and civilian linguists, virtually anywhere they can obtain an Internet 
connection. In addition, SCOLA is developing a digital archive that 
will allow users anywhere to review and sort language training 
information on demand. The development of these capabilities will make 
SCOLA training assistance much more widely available, but requires 
additional

[[Page 13202]]

investment. The committee is concerned that even after three years of 
encouragement from the Congress, and in an operational environment 
where the value of language training is of great importance to the 
nation, the Department of Defense has not fully funded the innovative 
language training concepts that can help sustain and significantly 
improve the skills of military and civilian linguists in the 
Department.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate FY 2006 Defense Authorization, S. 1042, 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in Operations Maintenance--Army, 
for the Defense Language Institute, for funding of SCOLA related 
training activities. In light of current events, the significance of 
SCOLA's widespread availability to the U.S. military and other 
government users cannot be overstated.
  It is my hope that with the House and Senate appropriators will 
ensure that vital funding for SCOLA is included in the final H.R. 
2863--Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recoginize the continuing 
role that the Government of Japan is playing to promote peace and 
democracy in Iraq and around the world. The determination and 
commitment of Japan, one of our Nation's most important allies, is 
particularly significant, especially at this time. We all read news 
stories about the difficulties and tensions that the United States has 
with our allies and even with coalition partners in Iraq, but we rarely 
read about the good news.
  As the House debates funding for our troops at home and abroad, I 
believe it is timely and important to highlight several recent 
developments in Japan's contributions to these efforts.


                          iraq and afghanistan

  In April, the Government of Japan decided to extend for an additional 
6 months, until November 1, 2005, the operation of Japan's Self Defense 
Forces (SDF) in support of ``Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).'' As 
part of these operations, Japan has dispatched destroyers and supply 
ships to the Indian Ocean to provide at-sea refueling to U.S. and other 
allied naval vessels in the campaign. As of March 29, the Maritime SDF 
has completed more than 500 refueling operations for those naval 
vessels. As a result, Japan supplies about 30 percent of all fuel 
consumed by U.S. and allied naval vessels. Since last November, the 
Maritime SDF has begun to supply water and fuel for helicopters to the 
allied countries.
  Japan has also sent their SDF forces to Iraq. The operations have 
included ground troops, naval vessels and aircraft, all involved in 
reconstruction and humanitarian projects. At one point, the total 
number of Japanese SDF forces in the Iraq theater was approximately 
1,000, including about 600 ground troops. These are historic 
operations, the first of their kind by Japan since the end of World War 
II.
  In addition, the Air SDF of Japan has provided airlift support to the 
U.S. Forces with C-130 transport aircraft and other planes. The Air SDF 
has completed more than 400 transport missions both in Japan and 
overseas in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
  Further, Japan is the second largest donor in Iraq after the United 
States, with over $5 billion dollars for humanitarian, infrastructure 
and reconstruction projects. Japan also hosted a donor's conference 
last October, and continues to play an active role in the core group of 
donors.
  With respect to the reconstruction for Afghanistan, Japan has 
committed, in total, $1 billion of assistance, of which about $900 
million have been disbursed so far.


            japan's efforts in the middle east peace process

  Japan is actively involved in advancing the Middle East peace 
process, including the provision of assistance to the Palestinians. To 
support Palestinians' peace efforts, Japan announced at the summit 
meeting between Prime Minister Koizumi and Mr. Abbas, the President of 
the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, that it will provide 
additional assistance of approximately 100 million U.S. dollars to the 
Palestinians for the immediate future, in addition to the 90 million 
U.S. dollars it already provided in the last fiscal year.


                     bilateral security cooperation

  It is significant that Secretary of State Rice and Japanese Foreign 
Minister Machimura have already held 3 bilateral meetings, the most 
recent being on May 2 here in Washington. Among the issues discussed 
were the creation of a Japan-U.S. strategic dialogue led by the two 
ministers, increased security cooperation, North Korea and United 
Nations Reform. During her visit to Tokyo in March, Secretary Rice 
cited Japan as a model for political and economic progress in all of 
East Asia and praised Japan's partnership with the United States in the 
global war on terror.


                              north korea

  Japan continues to work closely with the United States on the issue 
of the North Korean nuclear crisis and has played an important and 
constructive role in the Six-Party talks. Japan supports an early 
resumption of these talks with an emphasis on the role of China.


                   weapons of mass destruction (wmd)

  Japan is a strong supporter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime 
and has reached out to other countries, especially in Asia, to build a 
broader coalition against the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction. 
Last fall, Japan hosted Australia, France and the United States (as 
well as 44 observer countries) in the first Proliferation Security 
Initiative (PSI) Maritime Interdiction exercise. The PSI is a global 
effort among governments to prevent the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction and other missiles. Japan again showed its commitment to 
the global war on terror by using its Maritime Self Defense Forces to 
counter proliferation in this multinational exercise.


                               conclusion

  Mr. Chairman, these initiatives by Japan are but a few examples of 
the growing role that Japan is playing in the maintenance of 
international peace and security. And it is a powerful reminder of the 
importance and strength of the Japan-U.S. security relationship. I 
believe it is therefore appropriate that the House of Representatives 
recognize these actions and commend the Government of Japan.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  I cannot support legislation that throws more money at President 
Bush's quagmire in Iraq without the Bush Administration providing a 
withdrawal date or exit strategy. Even with bipartisan Congressional 
calls for this timetable, President Bush still has provided no such 
strategy.
  The Administration also refuses to estimate the true costs of the 
war. The war has already cost $208 billion, including an additional 
$80.5 billion approved by Congress just this year. In fact, Congress 
was forced to add in another $45.3 billion for the war in Iraq in this 
bill, against the President's wishes. While the funding will only cover 
6 months of costs, at least my colleagues across the aisle are willing 
to level with the American people as to the cost of the war even if the 
leader of their party is not.
  As we all know, these additional funds are not helping the situation 
in Iraq. Insurgents continue to kill scores of American soldiers and 
Iraqi civilians and security forces. More than 1,700 young Americans 
and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. As long as the 
United States is in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency will continue to have a 
justification to carry out their savage attacks on Iraqi security 
forces and American soldiers.
  I also oppose provisions in this bill that continue the Republican 
tradition of funding wasteful weapons systems. It appropriates $7.6 
billion on pie-in-the-sky Star Wars missile defense. This system has 
been proven to be inoperable. It seems like the real purpose of 
building this system is to provide corporate welfare to defense 
contractors rather than to protect American lives or make the world a 
safer place.
  The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has 
not requested and military airplanes that are unnecessary and 
redundant. For instance, it adds $3.2 billion, on top of the $40 
billion already used, to build 22 F/A-22 Raptors that were justified as 
necessary in order to compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters. 
Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that 
has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as the ones the 
U.S. Air Force currently uses in combat. The recent conflicts in Iraq, 
Kosovo and Afghanistan have shown the superiority of current U.S. 
fighters to other nation's combat aircraft. Not only is there no need 
for the F/A-22, the GAO adds further rationale for its demise by 
reporting that its costs have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than 
budgeted for by the Air Force.
  Finally, this bill wrongly encourages the development of nuclear 
weapons. As we fight terrorism and nuclear proliferation overseas, it 
is reckless to believe that more nuclear bombs at home will result in 
fewer bombs abroad. In fact, expanding our own nuclear capability will 
encourage terrorists and nations, like Iran, to build nuclear programs 
to match U.S. firepower, thus making them more of a threat to U.S. 
national security.
  I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that encourages the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, continues to place our troops in 
harms way with no plan to bring them home and provides billions of 
dollars in gifts to defense contractors. I urge my colleagues to vote 
down this defense bill that does nothing to keep our Nation safe and, 
in fact, makes the world a much more dangerous place.

[[Page 13203]]


  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support to H.R. 
2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. I commend the 
Subcommittee Chair, my good friend, Bill Young for tackling many 
important, yet difficult issues.
  For the past few years, I have been deeply troubled by the Navy's 
shipbuilding budgets. Each year when the President's Budget is 
submitted, the number of ships procured in that year is always lower 
than the year before, however the amount of ships planned for the out 
years keeps growing and growing. For example in this year's budget, the 
Navy had requested 4 new ships for a total amount of $6.2 billion, but 
believes that they can sustain a shipbuilding budget of $17.7 billion 
for 12 ships in Fiscal Year 2011. As a man with an investment banking 
background, I can tell you that you can never rely on the certainty of 
the out years.
  I believe this budgeting trend will continue not because the Navy 
needs fewer ships, but because our shipbuilding programs have become 
unaffordable. Unless the Navy makes some radical changes to the way 
they budget and account for new ship construction, our ship numbers 
will continue to drop. We talk about transformational technologies and 
weaponry everyday in Congress, we need to begin talking about 
transformational and innovative accounting.
  According to a GAO audit published earlier this year, simple business 
accounting practices such as independent cost estimates and uncertainty 
analysis could have saved the Navy millions in cost growth from a 
number of shipbuilding programs, including our most expensive ship, the 
nuclear aircraft carrier.
  This Committee on Appropriations has recognized this dangerous trend 
and the need for change. In addition to doubling the amount of ships 
procured in Fiscal Year 2006 from 4 to 8, the committee report contains 
strong language and direction that will hopefully stop cost overruns 
from draining our future ship resources.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee Chairman 
to see if we, on Appropriations, can begin to transform the way this 
Nation builds and procures ships. We will need innovative thoughts and 
practices from corporate America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and its innovative 
approaches to our national defense.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, two long years have passed since our 
soldiers left for Iraq. We all have constituents serving overseas now 
and it's these brave men and women and their families that I keep in 
mind these days.
  I wish that we had more people on their way home, than on their way 
to Iraq right now. Last week, soldiers from the Triple Deuce--a field 
artillery battalion headquartered in my district--left home for final 
training at Camp Shelby. After that they'll be sent to Iraq for the 
next year.
  Members of the Triple Deuce include a small town mayor, a local fire 
chief and many ordinary citizens who--when we are not at war--make up 
the fabric of everyday life in Utah.
  These Americans are in the infantry. They're going to serve our 
country in a dark corner of the Middle East and I'm very worried about 
them. But I do know that they have lots of loved ones and fellow Utahns 
back home thinking about them and praying for them.
  I heard that their family and friends lined the streets of St. George 
today to say goodbye and I wish I could have been there too.
  This is a good bill--I'm proud to support it. My vote will go towards 
more armor, more vehicles, better weapons, and better compensation for 
the countless soldiers who are serving our country.
  We all want these brave Americans to return home as soon as possible. 
I believe that we need to accurately measure our progress in Iraq and 
continue taking care of our troops.
  Passage of this legislation demonstrates our commitment to our brave 
men and women in uniform and acknowledges that they need resources in 
order to accomplish their mission and return home safely. It also 
offers support for the families when a loved one pays the ultimate 
sacrifice in the cause of fighting for freedom.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, our highest duty as Members of this Congress 
is to ensure our national security, to protect our homeland and to 
defend our people.
  We must use every tool in our arsenal--including military force--to 
capture, kill or disrupt international terrorists who are intent on 
striking the United States and our interests overseas. We must do 
whatever it takes to prevent the unthinkable--a nuclear, biological or 
chemical attack--from occurring on American soil. We must ensure that 
the American military remains the finest fighting force in the history 
of the world. And, we must succeed in Iraq--for the sake of our own 
national security, the stability of Iraq and the Middle East region, 
and our global standing and credibility.
  This defense appropriations bill will help us accomplish most of our 
national security objectives, and I will vote for it. It provides $409 
billion for defense functions for fiscal 2006, including $45.3 billion 
in so-called emergency spending for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan--bringing the total appropriation from this Congress for 
these two missions to $314 billion.
  However, even though I support this bill, I believe it is simply 
Orwellian to call this new funding for Iraq and Afghanistan an 
``emergency.'' Emergencies are unforeseen events that are difficult, if 
not impossible, to plan for. The idea that this administration cannot 
predict and budget for the costs of our on-going military efforts in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan is ludicrous.
  Furthermore, this budgetary sleight of hand epitomizes this 
administration's failure to level with the American people on many 
aspects of this military action, as well as the unwillingness of this 
Republican Congress to fulfill its Constitutional duty to exercise 
real, effective oversight on the administration's policies.
  We are simply not asking the tough questions that voters expect us to 
ask on national security. In Iraq, it is obvious that our mission is 
not accomplished, let alone succeeding. More than 1,700 American 
soldiers have lost their lives there. Americans account for 85 percent 
of the coalition forces in Iraq, but represent 98 percent of the 
casualties.
  And, as Tom Friedman wrote last week in the New York Times:

       Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's 
     disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade 
     Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has 
     been obvious that we did not have enough troops there.

  Mr. Friedman added:

       Almost every problem we face in Iraq today . . . Flows from 
     not having gone into Iraq with the Powell doctrine of 
     overwhelming force. We cannot even secure the two miles of 
     highway that separates the Baghdad Airport and the Green 
     Zone.

  Yet, this Congress has not conducted effective oversight on the 
administration's refusal to heed the advice of senior military 
officials, who said more troops would be needed to secure Iraq; on the 
costs of this action; on the incompetent post-war reconstruction 
effort; or, on detainee abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.
  Effective Congressional oversight need not be adversarial. I believe 
that every American wants our Nation to succeed in Iraq. But the truth 
is, this administration has failed to articulate a convincing, 
compelling success strategy.
  And, even as I vote for this defense appropriations bill today, I 
believe it is imperative that this Congress embrace its legislative 
duty, work with this administration, and ensure that such a strategy is 
implemented immediately. Our troops--and the American people--deserve 
no less.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that Tom Friedman's column from 
June 15 in the New York Times be admitted into the record of this 
debate.

                [From the New York Times, June 15, 2005]

                         Let's Talk About Iraq

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       Ever since Iraq's remarkable election, the country has been 
     descending deeper and deeper into violence. But no one in 
     Washington wants to talk about it. Conservatives don't want 
     to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think 
     their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does. 
     Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few 
     exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down 
     don't want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is 
     drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by 
     our military. The rest of the country has gone shopping, 
     which seems to suit Karl Rove just fine.
       Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give 
     up--this is still winnable--but it is time to ask: What is 
     our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching 
     toward a dangerous tipping point--the point where the key 
     communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their 
     own militias for a scramble for power--when everything falls 
     apart, rather than investing their energies in making the 
     hard compromises within and between their communities to 
     build a unified, democratizing Iraq.
       Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's 
     disastrous decision--endorsed by President Bush--to invade 
     Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has 
     been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We 
     have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem 
     we face in Iraq today--the rise of ethnic militias, the 
     weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and 
     electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class 
     professionals--flows from not

[[Page 13204]]

     having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of 
     overwhelming force.
       Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the 
     battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is 
     training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are 
     doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is 
     overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and 
     soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where 
     you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an 
     army punching a clock.
       Where do you get motivated officers and soldiers? That can 
     come only from an Iraqi leader and government that are seen 
     as representing all the country's main factions. So far the 
     Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. The Kurds 
     have been great. But the Sunni leaders have been shortsighted 
     at best and malicious at worst, fantasizing that they are 
     going to make a comeback to power through terror. As for the 
     Shiites, their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, 
     has been a positive force on the religious side, but he has 
     no political analog. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged.
       ``We have no galvanizing figure right now,'' observed Kanan 
     Makiya, the Iraqi historian who heads the Iraq Memory 
     Foundation. ``Sistani's counterpart on the democratic front 
     has not emerged. Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes, 
     but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The 
     burden is on Iraqis. And we still have not risen to the 
     magnitude of the opportunity before us.''
       I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and 
     democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital 
     U.S. interest to find out. But the only way to find out is to 
     create a secure environment. It is very hard for moderate, 
     unifying, national leaders to emerge in a cauldron of 
     violence.
       Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why 
     not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on 
     the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in 
     those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to 
     the death those who don't. As Stanford's Larry Diamond, 
     author of an important new book on the Iraq war, ``Squandered 
     Victory,'' puts it, we need ``a bold mobilizing strategy'' 
     right now. That means the new Iraqi government, the U.S. and 
     the U.N. teaming up to widen the political arena in Iraq, 
     energizing the constitution-writing process and developing a 
     communications-diplomatic strategy that puts our bloodthirsty 
     enemies on the defensive rather than us. The Bush team has 
     been weak in all these areas. For weeks now, we haven't even 
     had ambassadors in Iraq, Afghanistan or Jordan.
       We've already paid a huge price for the Rumsfeld Doctrine--
     ``Just enough troops to lose.'' Calling for more troops now, 
     I know, is the last thing anyone wants to hear. But we are 
     fooling ourselves to think that a decent, normal, forward-
     looking Iraqi politics or army is going to emerge from a 
     totally insecure environment, where you can feel safe only 
     with your own tribe.

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Defense 
Appropriations subcommittee's decision to provide $4 million for a 
conventional earth penetrator in the fiscal year 2006 Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Many rogue nations, unable to face the threat of our awesome 
firepower and precision bombs, are increasingly hiding their military 
assets under hard geologies, making it more difficult for us to hold 
them at risk and undermining our ability to protect the nation.
  I believe it is vitally important that we do all we can to provide 
our military with the right weapons to destroy these buried targets.
  This, however, does not include nuclear weapons.
  Nuclear bunker busters advocated by the administration and by their 
allies in Congress are the dangerous fantasy of a few who are desperate 
to find new missions for nuclear weapons.
  Using a nuclear weapon to try to destroy a buried bunker or other 
target would produce significant civilian casualties and radioactive 
fallout.
  A recent National Academy of Sciences report states that a nuclear 
earth penetrator ``could . . . kill up to a million people or more if 
used in heavily populated areas.''
  In addition, U.S. military personnel operating in the area would be 
at risk of death and injury.
  The President's repeated requests for funding a robust nuclear earth 
penetrator undermines the United States' leadership role in 
nonproliferation.
  We cannot credibly ask other countries to restrain their nuclear 
weapons programs while we aggressively advance work on new weapons.
  I applaud and share Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha's 
concern with defeating hard and deeply buried targets while reducing 
fallout and collateral damage.
  It is vital that Congress send a strong message that we reject the 
administration's rush to find new uses for nuclear weapons.
  The appropriations committee's decision to focus taxpayer dollars on 
perfecting conventional means of defeating hardened targets instead of 
investigating nuclear option is the right thing to do.
  The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, Linton 
Brooks has testified that a nuclear earth penetrator would cause 
massive radioactive fallout and our own uniformed military does not 
want a nuclear device that would put at risk our own troops.
  Even the Defense Science Board that advises the Pentagon recently 
stated that ``US interests are best served by preserving into the 
future the half century plus non-use of nuclear weapons.''
  I agree.
  Until we have exhausted all conventional mean to defeat hardened 
targets and there is a true military requirement for an RNEP, it would 
be irresponsible for Congress to rush to find new uses for what should 
always be a weapon of last resort.
  I am pleased that the funds in this bill are only to be used to study 
the effectiveness of a conventional device to defeat hard and deeply 
buried targets.
  I urge my colleagues to ensure that the language achieved by the 
appropriators be preserved in conference.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of a provision in 
this bill that will help us start to get a handle on cleaning up 
unexploded ordnance (UXO). I want to thank Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Murtha and their staff for providing an additional $10 million 
for the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) 
for research and development of unexploded ordnance cleanup technology. 
I also want to thank my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, for 
his leadership on this issue.
  The safety and environmental hazards of unexploded ordnance are a 
national problem. Bombs and shells that failed to explode during 
military training or testing may be found on or buried under the 
surface of more than 39 million acres of former military properties.
  According to the Department of Defense, the cost of cleaning up these 
sites will be at least $16.3 billion, and possibly as much as $35 
billion. At an annual funding level of $106 million, cleanup at the 
remaining munitions sites in DOD's current inventory will take at least 
150 years to complete. An increase in funding for UXO research and 
development will allow the DOD to more quickly develop safer and 
cheaper technology for dealing with UXO.
  The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on UXO quantified the 
potential impact advanced technology can have to reduce these costs. 
They concluded that the cost of cleanup could be reduced to one-third 
of what we now expect through the development and application of 
advanced technologies for the detection of UXO. The DSB report called 
on the DOD to take two critical steps to reduce the costs of UXO 
cleanup and improve the efficiency of the current program: first, 
conduct a wide area assessment of possibly-contaminated land to allow 
for rapid transfer of uncontaminated land and, second, develop and use 
technologies that can differentiate between a bomb and hubcap to 
drastically reduce the cost of cleanup.
  Congress directed the Department to conduct an initial pilot project 
of wide area assessment technologies in the FY 05 Defense 
Appropriations bill. Early results indicate that this approach shows 
great promise. The $10 million in this bill will allow this effort to 
continue and expand to test these technologies over a wider variety of 
contaminated sites to assess their applicability across the nation.
  Addressing the UXO issue, brings many clear benefits: it will 
preserve the ability of our armed forces to train effectively and 
ensure the safety of our armed forces as new military housing is 
constructed on closed ranges. It will release more acreage for other 
uses, including private development that will generate tax revenues and 
free up thousands of acres for recreational uses. Finally, it will 
allow the development of new technologies than can be used to clean-up 
land mines and other ordnance that threatens our troops in Afghanistan 
and Iraq and innocent civilians everywhere.
  I am also pleased that we are beginning to see partial funding for 
the war in Iraq contained within the regular budget and appropriations 
process, though not to the extent that it should be. I have always 
opposed funding for the war in Iraq because I believed it gave too much 
money to the wrong people to do the wrong things. I hope that we can 
continue to make progress on this issue and this bill takes the small 
step to begin doing just that.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This bill appropriated 
$408.9 billion for the Department of Defense. This included a $45.3 
billion appropriation for the ongoing U.S. military operations in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.

[[Page 13205]]

  I am pleased that this bill helps keep our faith to our service 
members by providing them with a much needed pay increase. It 
authorizes a 3.1 percent across-the-board pay raise for our active duty 
and reserve troops. This is the seventh consecutive year that Congress 
has provided a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. This will 
help to reduce the pay gap between average military and civilian pay.
  I am glad that this bill does not fund the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator. While I understand the threat that certain underground 
bunkers or facilities may pose, creating these weapons would only serve 
to undermine our global counterproliferation goals. Moving forward with 
a new generation of nuclear weapons would send a simple message to 
Iran, North Korea and other emerging or potential nuclear-armed states: 
``We want new nuclear weapons, and you should, too.'' I am glad this 
program has thus far been rejected and I will continue to oppose any 
efforts to fund it.
  The bill also provides $416 million for the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program, to help prevent the nuclear weapons of the former 
Soviet Union from falling into the hands of terrorists or others who 
would wish to do us harm. I am pleased that we are providing more than 
we did last year for this important program, but we have a lot of work 
remaining to do, and I regret that we did not provide more money to 
help secure, dismantle and eliminate WMD's and WMD facilities.
  I am glad that after three years, we have finally started to fund the 
ongoing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal 
legislative process. I believe we should not be funding military 
operations that are foreseen through emergency supplemental 
appropriations, as we have done in the past. We have soldiers in the 
field, and we know that we'll be continuing military operations against 
al Qaeda and its surrogates for the foreseeable future. The bridge 
funding provided for Iraq and Afghanistan in this bill recognizes this.
  I am, however, concerned by some of the provisions contained within 
this bill.
  First, I am deeply troubled that this bill again contains funding for 
missile defense. Under this bill, $7.6 billion would be appropriated 
for ballistic-missile defense programs within the Missile Defense 
Agency. The total includes funding for the initial deployment of a 
national missile-defense system based in Alaska and California. Not 
only has this program continually failed to work even under less-than-
real-world test scenarios, but it is a dangerous system that could 
jeopardize our national security.
  While I support providing our troops in harm's way with the best 
equipment possible, I am troubled by the ever increasing human toll the 
Iraq war is inflicting on our nation. Last week, some of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle introduced legislation calling for the 
withdrawal of American forces, and a clear majority of Americans 
understand that things are badly off track in Iraq.
  Indeed, there is good reason to believe that the centerpiece of the 
Bush administration's exit strategy for Iraq--the program to train and 
equip the Iraqi security forces to take over the domestic security 
mission from our troops--is in grave peril.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement regarding the 
importance of investing in fundamental research at the Department of 
Defense. This statement would have been offered as a colloquy, but 
unfortunately my flight was delayed and I was unable to participate in 
a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Defense.
  Scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased 
innovation, economic vitality and national security. In 2001, the Hart-
Rudman Commission concluded that, ``. . . the inadequacies of our 
systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. 
national security over the next quarter century than any potential 
conventional war that we might imagine.''
  While our focus on immediate national security threats is certainly 
warranted, it is necessary for us also to consider longer-term threats. 
Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military 
applications and continued economic prosperity. In fact, the 
development of cancer therapies, global positioning system (GPS), 
laser-guided missiles, and the Internet are all products of DOD 
fundamental research endeavors. Who could have imagined that 
physicists' experimentation with the atomic clock in the 1950s and 
1960s would provide the foundation for a technology that allows any 
soldier to know his precise location no matter where he or she is on 
this planet? The diversity of the basic science research portfolio 
ensures discoveries that lay the foundation for advances in defense. As 
a Nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research.
  Historically, a fifth of DOD basic and applied research has been 
performed by universities and colleges. This year, we see a continuing 
disturbing trend of cutting the fundamental research budget at DOD in 
favor of focusing funds toward more applications-oriented research, or 
away from research altogether and shifting toward development. I 
recognize that this committee worked to restore many of the proposed 
cuts to these areas, and sincerely appreciate those efforts. However, 
we are still faced with a 4 percent reduction in our fundamental 
research budget at DOD. We can't expect to defend our nation twenty or 
fifty years from now if we focus only on the needs of today. We have to 
prepare for the future, and that investment takes place through 
university partnerships.
  I hope that in the event that any additional funds may become 
available in the future, that the Committee and Chairman would be 
willing to examine the possibility of devoting such funds to the basic 
research budget. I believe the support in these areas must remain 
strong to foster new ideas generated by the unique intellectual 
resources of our universities and colleges.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, despite its claims to the contrary, the 
Bush Administration continues to be dishonest with the American people 
about the situation in Iraq. First, it leads our country into war with 
Iraq under false pretenses--a war that has already cost more than 1,700 
American lives and thousands more Iraqi lives. The Administration then 
refuses to admit that it does not have a viable plan to win the peace 
in Iraq and possesses no strategy for a withdrawal of United States 
troops. And most recently, while the President campaigns as a so-called 
``War President,'' he refuses to request funding for military 
operations in Iraq in his own budget, instead funding it through the 
emergency appropriations process, a tactic that allows the President to 
keep the high costs of war out of his budget.
  Although today Congress has the opportunity to insert some much-
needed accountability into the funding process, it will--like it has so 
many other times--function as a rubber stamp and approve another large 
funding bill--$45 billion--for Iraq without demanding answers from the 
Administration. Once this is approved, total funding for the military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will reach a mind-boggling $322 
billion. And this certainly won't be the last of it. In fact, at 
current expenditure rates, the $45 billion will only cover the first 
six months of 2006, which means that Congress will be forced to approve 
tens of billions more in funding for Iraq in a matter of months.
  I believe it is critical that our country properly fund the 
operations in Iraq to ensure that our soldiers in the field have the 
equipment, munitions and protection they need and the benefits they so 
rightfully deserve when they return home. The majority of the $45 
billion will go directly to support our troops in the form of 
equipment, body armor, increased pay and improved benefits for them and 
their families. While I will vote for this $45 billion funding package, 
I am concerned that the Majority in Congress has once again rebuffed 
efforts to require the Administration to be honest with the people 
about the situation in Iraq. To date, despite repeated requests from 
members of Congress, the Administration refuses to provide any sort of 
timeline for the withdrawal of United States troops, will not account 
for much of the current funding to Iraq, and resists coming clean about 
the full cost of future military efforts in Iraq.
  At the same time the Administration and the Republican Majority in 
Congress unabashedly spend billions of dollars in Iraq without 
question, they make cuts to crucial domestic programs in the name of 
fiscal responsibility--cuts, which compared to the budget for Iraq, 
have a negligible impact on our country's deficit. In fact, funding for 
this misguided war so significantly dwarfs funding for domestic 
programs that if we were to take just a fraction of this spending 
package for Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind, the Small 
Business Administration loan program, Head Start, Medicaid, and 
numerous other programs that make a daily difference in the lives of 
Americans.
  I find it truly ironic that Congress will spend a good portion of 
this week discussing the alleged lack of accountability at the United 
Nations, but refuses to acknowledge the abrogation of all 
accountability and responsibility that has been allowed to occur for 
too long in its own backyard--at 16th and Pennsylvania. It is time that 
the Administration owns up to the situation it has needlessly thrust 
our country in--it needs to formulate and disseminate a strategy for an 
eventual U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and must be upfront with Congress 
and the American people about the future costs of military operations 
in Iraq.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I commend the following comments 
and questions,

[[Page 13206]]

posed by the National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
Missing in Southeast Asia, to my colleagues as they consider relations 
between the aforementioned organization and the Defense POW/Missing 
Persons Office. I also ask that you note my June 20, 2005 floor 
colloquy with Mr. Young on this subject.

                         Congressional Requests

       Prime Minister of Vietnam is visiting the U.S. June 21. The 
     focus seems to be on economics, trade and religious rights. 
     What about accountability?
       1. Vietnam is NOT cooperating in ``full faith''. We have 
     never had access to the Central Highlands since the War was 
     over where hundreds of our Americans are Missing--no chance 
     to interview witnesses who are dying who might have valuable 
     information on crash and grave sights plus documents.
       2. Two U.S. war ships have been allowed to come into 
     Vietnamese ports but never a salvage ship that could recover 
     remains from known crash sights off the coast. We have 
     offered to make this an educational venture but denied 
     access.
       Accountability should be a priority especially in a time of 
     war--not just rhetoric but action. The families should be 
     treated with respect.
       Why does Jerry Jennings, head of the Defense POW/MIA Office 
     still have a job? He has been under investigation for sexual 
     harassment and hostile environment charges by his staff + 
     alleged misappropriation of government funds. He has tried 
     for over a year to undermine the family organizations. Three 
     groups have released a vote of No Confidence in Jerry and his 
     leadership staffers.
       The league is very concerned over policy being pursued by 
     the office assigned the responsibility within the Defense 
     Department, headed by DASD Jerry Jennings.
       The President in 2002 and Secretary of State in 2004 
     defined criteria expected of Vietnam, namely unilateral 
     actions that Vietnam should take to be fully cooperative, 
     including on cases of Americans missing in Laos and Cambodia 
     controlled by Vietnamese forces during the war.
       These pertain to unilateral provision of relevant archival 
     records from ALL ministries and unilateral repatriation of 
     remains that can't be recovered in the field with joint 
     operations, for example Last Known Alive (LKA) cases where 
     Americans were captured on alive on the ground in immediate 
     proximity to hostile forces.
       If dead, their remains should be readily available to the 
     Vietnamese, but could be sensitive in view of the many years 
     withheld on manner of death, readily determined by the 
     experts at CIL.
       We'd appreciate your reading this ``End-of-Year Policy 
     Assessment,'' prepared at our request by our Policy Adviser 
     Richard Childress, a retired U.S. Army COL who served on 
     President Reagan's NSC staff as Director Political Military, 
     then Director for Asian Affairs from 1981--1989
       League is not interested re-fighting the war or placing 
     blame; we just want answers for the families, not 
     recriminations, on all possible cases, and we base our 
     expectations on USG intelligence and logic.
       We're also deeply concerned over Mr. Jennings' handling of 
     the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA Affairs, a 
     presidential commission that has been reduced in stature and 
     effectiveness, despite having extremely talented staff within 
     DPMO, the Joint Commission Support Directorate, or JCSD.
       The league has great confidence in JCSD's abilities, plus 
     has been working hard to get active Senate and House 
     replacements for vacancies or positions held by inactive 
     Members of the House and Senate.
       We just succeeded in convincing Senator Saxby Chambliss to 
     accept the Senate Republican position, but the Democrat 
     Senator position is held by Senator John Kerry who has not 
     participated at all in plenary or internal U.S. sessions.
       The House Democrat position is held by Rep. Lane Evans, but 
     we understand his tragic illness impeded active 
     participation, and we need active committed Members to signal 
     the Russians that the U.S. is serious.
       Recently, Mr. Jennings' was reportedly appointed by the 
     White House to assume the role of U.S. Chairman, an 
     appointment that is too low level and without the prestige 
     required for the Russian Government to take it seriously; 
     they stated this fact to U.S. officials.
       Mr. Jennings was the Commissioner representing DOD, and 
     that was fine, but he is not the appropriate level to be a 
     Presidential Envoy serving as U.S. Chairman; thus, we also 
     oppose him in this second position.
       The League has received countless complaints from DPMO 
     staff members and we are VERY concerned about internal 
     disruption, even implosion, of this organization that would 
     not exist if were not for the League's efforts over the years 
     that raised the priority.
       We've been informed that there are at least six official 
     complaints against Mr. Jennings for hostile workplace 
     environment, including one for sexual harassment, that are 
     now under investigation by the DOD Inspector General's 
     office.
       Our Executive Director Ann Mills Griffiths was interviewed 
     a couple of weeks ago, and the Chairman of the Korea/Cold War 
     Families of the Missing was reportedly being called today; we 
     strongly oppose Mr. Jennings continuing as DPMO Director, his 
     third position.
       Our objections to Mr. Jennings are focused 1st on policy 
     weaknesses and the manner in which he develops policy without 
     substantive interagency integration and dismisses Vietnam's 
     ability to provide answers, 2nd on his hostility toward the 
     families, and 3rd his attempts to take total control of our 
     annual meetings AND operations of the Joint POW/MIA 
     Accounting Command and all DOD-related organizations.
       Mr. Jennings plan is increasing DPMO control over 
     operations, and he has several senior personnel assigned to 
     this task, already having published an innocuous-sounding 
     Strategic Plan, but the real agenda is fussy in its 
     portrayal.
       Close attention by Congress is his greatest fear, as 
     careful scrutiny would reveal greater intrusion into 
     operations, inappropriate behavior toward DPMO staff and 
     employees, mismanagement of tax-payer funds allocated for the 
     POW/MIA accounting effort, implementing plans to circumvent 
     GS guidelines and attempts to subvert the League and other 
     nonprofit, humanitarian organizations.
       Our Board of Directors unanimously voted NO CONFIDENCE in 
     DASD Jennings and the current leadership of DPMO; we are 
     joined by unanimous vote of the Korea/Cold War Families of 
     the Missing Board of Directors, headed by Irene Mandra, New 
     York.
       Both have provided our separate views to Dep. Sec. of 
     Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary, International 
     Security Affairs, Peter Rodman, as has The Chosin Few, the 
     organization of Korean War veterans who survived the horrible 
     battles at the Chosin Reservoir; their vote was 
     straightforward--to seek Mr. Jennings' removal.
       DPMO staff were directed to revise their charter documents 
     to ensure that DPMO is the sole USG organization to negotiate 
     with foreign governments, speak to Congress, the media, the 
     veterans' community and the families on the issue, take 
     control of all field operations worldwide, and to find a way 
     to control and take over all annual meetings of POW/MIA 
     families.
       They cite one provision of the DOD regulations pertaining 
     to the ethics code to back their plan to take control of the 
     League's annual meetings, but ignore the provision that 
     allows all DoD elements to respond to invitations to 
     participate in non-government conferences and events, as they 
     routinely do for the Legion, VFW, DAV and countless other 
     community groups, never seeking to control them, or their 
     agenda and program.
       In S. 1245/H.R. 2996, the Defense Authorization Bill of 
     1983, Congress amended 157 of title 10, U.S. Code, to 
     ``authorize the Sec. of Defense to provide transportation for 
     next-of-kin of certain persons who are unaccounted for to 
     attend annual national meetings sponsored by the National 
     League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in 
     Southeast Asia.
       That authorization was amended by the 107th Congress to 
     include the Korea/Cold War families by noting families of 
     American military and certain civilians unaccounted for since 
     the end of World War II, are entitled to DOD transportation 
     to attend the annual meetings (plural).
       When we raised this to Assistant Secretary for 
     International Security Affairs Peter Rodman, Mr. Jennings, 
     who had joined the meeting, stated that ``Congressional 
     intent is irrelevant.''
       For the past year, the League has endured repeated attempts 
     by Mr. Jennings and his immediate front-office staff to take 
     total control of our annual meetings, not only the agenda 
     during which the briefings are presented, but even selecting 
     the hotel, setting the date, and holding Congressionally-
     authorized transportation as leverage to force the League to 
     accede to DPMO's demands.
       Mr. Jennings has now gone too far, insisting on total 
     control, contracted with another hotel in Crystal City, set 
     the date one day earlier, has distributed his plan to all 
     Vietnam War POW/MIA families and given instructions to the 
     Military Services about transportation.
       For the good of the issue and our system of checks and 
     balances, as well as unity in pursuing answers from what are 
     mostly communist-controlled countries, Mr. Jennings' control 
     mentality must stop.
       The League and the Korea/Cold War Families of the Missing 
     have called for his removal, or resignation, in the best 
     interest of the issue, the families and the USG, particularly 
     DPMO employees, but also JPAC and other operational 
     organizations and the Military Service Casualty Offices.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation.
  The Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006 funds our 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other things. 
It is very similar to the Defense Authorization bill that I supported 
in the Armed Services Committee and on the House floor.
  In general, the bill fully funds military pay, benefits, the pay 
raise for the base force, and all military readiness programs, 
including all requested increases for Special Operations Forces.

[[Page 13207]]

  The bill also includes $45.3 billion of unrequested emergency 
supplemental funding (the ``bridge fund'') to cover contingency 
operations and personnel costs during the first six months of the 
fiscal year that begins on October 1st. This comes on the heels of the 
$75.9 billion FY05 supplemental funding bill that the Congress passed 
only a month ago.
  I think this is realistic and necessary, because we must support our 
men and women in uniform, but I also believe the administration must 
begin to take responsibility for the full cost of the war in Iraq and 
consider these costs through the regular appropriations process. There 
is no ``emergency'' here--we know that since this bridge fund would 
take us only halfway through FY06, we should be expecting another 
request of about $40 billion before the year is over. The American 
people deserve greater candor from the administration about both the 
predictable costs as well as the anticipated benefits of our 
undertakings in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Once this bill is signed into law, defense spending in FY06 will 
total about 55 percent of the entire Federal discretionary budget. 
Overall defense spending, in real terms, will be more than 20 percent 
higher than the average Cold War budget. The administration needs to 
clearly recognize these realities and be open with the American people 
about its spending priorities.
  I want to briefly discuss a few other specific parts of the bill.
  I am pleased that the bill does not include funding for earth-
penetrating nuclear weapons, which a recent National Academy of 
Sciences report found would destroy military targets underground but 
also cause massive casualties above ground. The bill strikes a 
compromise, providing $4 million for the Air Force for work on a 
conventional (non-nuclear) version of the bunker buster.
  Importantly, it also includes cost-containment measures on a number 
of weapons systems that have yet to be fully funded. This is critical 
at a time when costs of our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 
are also increasing exponentially.
  In the area of operation and maintenance, the bill provides important 
funding for added fuel costs and body armor, and $147 million for Army 
National Guard recruiting. The measure contains $2.9 billion for 
various procurement accounts, including $170 million for up-armored 
Humvees, $20 million for bolt-on armor kits for trucks, and $35 million 
for roadside bomb jammers.
  The bill also provides $8 billion in extra funding for military 
personnel accounts, including funds for incremental wartime costs of 
pays and allowances for active-duty and reserve personnel, for 
recruiting and retention, and for an expanded death gratuity.
  I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee accepted and the House 
approved an amendment on the floor to lift the $500 million cap in the 
bill on training the Iraqi National Army. Since the timing of the draw-
down of U.S. forces is linked to the ability of Iraqi troops to defend 
themselves and their country, we shouldn't impose an arbitrary limit on 
this funding.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides the president's request of 
$416 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, known as CTR 
or Nunn-Lugar, to assist in the denuclearization and demilitarization 
of the states of the former Soviet Union. The total is $6 million more 
than the current level.
  Finally, I would like to comment on amendments offered by 
Representatives Duncan Hunter and David Obey.
  As it came to the floor, the bill included language approved by the 
full Appropriations committee expressing the sense of Congress that the 
expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the U.S. military, 
``but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the U.S. Air 
Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the academy. . . . as has 
been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards 
required of those who serve at the academy.'' The bill directed the Air 
Force to develop a plan to ensure that the academy maintains a climate 
free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate 
proselytizing.
  As a Coloradan and a Member of the Armed Services Committee, I have 
been following this matter closely and have noted that Lt. Gen. John 
Rosa, the Academy's superintendent, has said that the problem is 
``something that keeps me awake at night,'' and estimated it will take 
6 years to fix.
  The good news is that several reviews of the situation at the Academy 
are underway, and a task force report is due this week. I am also 
appreciative that the Academy has already begun taking steps to address 
the issue by holding classes on religious tolerance. But it is 
important to remember that an unwillingness to tolerate other cultures 
and faiths is not only inconsistent with our constitutional principles, 
but detrimental to the mission of the Air Force and of the military in 
general. Our men and women in uniform need to work together to be 
successful, and can only inspire others to serve and serve well if they 
are able to demonstrate tolerance toward all.
  Representative Hunter's amendment removed the language calling for 
corrective action. His amendment appeared to downplay the seriousness 
of a problem that Air Force Academy officials themselves have 
acknowledged. In response, Representative Obey offered an amendment 
that slightly revised the language adopted by the Appropriations 
Committee but retained its essential elements.
  I voted for that Obey amendment, and regret that it was not approved 
and that the Hunter amendment prevailed. I hope that the Air Force does 
not make the mistake of concluding that adoption of the Hunter 
amendment means that they should lessen their efforts to respond to the 
problem they have identified.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I strongly disagree with 
the defense policy of the Bush Administration. While I disagree with 
the policy, I do not believe we should deprive our troops in the field 
and our military of the funds they need to protect our country.
  Since 2003, Congress has appropriated almost $250 billion for the war 
efforts by passing supplemental appropriations bills in 2003, 2004 and 
2005. U.S. spending in Iraq will be at least $75 billion to $80 billion 
this year and could approach $400 billion by 2006, according to 
Congressional Quarterly. This approaches the $406 billion cost of the 
Korean War. Last month we passed a fiscal year 2005 supplemental 
appropriation that totaled $82 billion, the second largest supplemental 
in history. Only one month has passed, and we find ourselves voting for 
another $45 billion for war funding for the first 6 months of the 2006 
fiscal year.
  Assuming the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will remain at approximately the same level through 2006, 
the war costs will require another $40 to $45 billion. No money will be 
spent that is not directly related to the war. No money under the $45 
billion supplemental portion of the bill will be spent on the Army's 
modularity initiative or to increase the permanent end strength of 
active duty forces.
  I am a strong advocate for developing a plan for withdrawing U.S. 
forces from Iraq. We should keep in mind that the FY05 supplemental 
contained language that requires the Defense Department to provide 
Congress with a set of performance indicators and measures of stability 
and security in Iraq and a timetable for achieving these goals. The 
first report is due in July. We look forward to how DoD will define its 
strategies for success.
  This bill is framed principally by our missions in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. In my judgment the forces we have on the ground in Operations 
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom are doing a fabulous job, but the 
size of our Army and Marine Corps is just too small to do the job we 
are asking them to do. I hope the funds in the bill will provide for 
that shortfall.
  I support this bill in order to properly equip our troops with body 
armor, vehicle armor and other equipment to protect them from insurgent 
attacks. As much as I regret the War in Iraq, I cannot ignore the fact 
that we are a Nation at war. This bill recognizes and provides our 
troops with the tools they need to do their job.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, for the past few years, I have voted to 
redirect funding in support of smart bombs and other weapons that are 
actually usable against hardened, deeply buried targets. I'm pleased to 
see that this appropriations bill provides funding for conventional 
studies to defeat hard and deeply buried targets. I also understand 
that the funding provided within this bill for B2 bomber integration 
efforts is also intended for non-nuclear earth penetrators.
  Last month, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the use 
of a nuclear ``bunker buster'' would cause massive civilian causalities 
if used. That's assuming we can overcome serious design problems and 
assuming we can live with the consequences of putting U.S. troops in 
danger from radioactive fallout if we ever used an RNEP or a similar 
weapon.
  In the past, Utahns suffering from cancer as a result of radioactive 
fallout exposure had to wait to receive compensation because federal 
funds ran out. It's wrong to spend precious dollars on unusable fantasy 
weapons that our military doesn't seem to need or want.
  We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns 
dominate the political landscape, as well they should. We should

[[Page 13208]]

focus limited funding dollars on usable warheads that can actually make 
a difference in combating our enemies.
  I have always been a strong supporter of the military and I'm well 
aware of the unconventional war we face against terrorists. However, 
the threats we face as a nation provide the best reason for Congress to 
fund only the best usable weaponry to support American soldiers.
  Many of my colleagues in the House recognize the importance of this 
issue and they share my concerns about competing efforts in the Senate 
to fund RNEP. I hope that during conference negotiations on this bill, 
the conferees maintain this language.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2863

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty, (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $24,357,895,000.


          Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       On page 2, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
       On page 3, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
       On page 3, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       On page 4, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
       On page 4, line 15, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 5, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 5, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 6, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 6, line 19, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 7, line 8, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       On page 29, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion on which 
amendment this is. I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Clerk to read 
a portion of the amendment because we know that there is no point of 
order on this, so if she could read so that I can understand the 
gentleman has the right one.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will read the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk proceeded to read the amendment.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, 
acknowledge the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
subcommittee; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking 
member, and thank them for their due diligence on behalf of the United 
States military. Though there have been those who have tried to divide 
our commitment to the personnel of the United States military, it is 
very clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are united as Americans, as Members 
of Congress, local elected officials and families and supporters on 
behalf of our military.
  As I flew in today, I watched a number of our returning military 
arrive at their destination and be embraced by their family members. 
Besides acknowledging the love extended, I thought about the commitment 
that we owe to those families. And so I bring to the attention the 
headline in my newspaper ``Troops' Best Gift: Family Support'' of the 
Sunday Chronicle, and I would say that the best gift we can give to 
those families is the compensation of our particular personnel.
  I rise today to offer the amendment to the Defense appropriation 
which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1 billion 
overall. This amendment would have been necessary in order to better 
compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation. The 
appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military 
personnel, equal to the President's request and extends certain special 
pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. Our men and women in the Armed 
Forces deserve these pay increases, but the simple truth is that they 
deserve much more for the sacrifice that they are making for our 
Nation. This amendment would result in funds for military pay increases 
of $300 million for the Army, $250 million for the Navy, $50 million 
for Marine Corps, $250 million for Air Force, $25 million for Army 
Reserves, $25 million for Navy Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps 
Reserves, $25 million for Air Force Reserves, $25 million for Army 
National Guard, and $25 million for Air Force National Guard personnel. 
The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this amendment not 
only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases 
outlays by $215 million.
  The offset for this amendment would come from missile defense 
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile 
defense systems are not new. In fact, they have been discussed for 
decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be 
overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe 
dream. I believe our military personnel deserve our first priority, 
affection, admiration, and love. And I frankly believe we owe this to 
their families, the many thousands that are in Texas, reservists, 
National Guard, and enlisted and active duty. Why in good conscience in 
this time of budget constraints and increased need would we allocate 
even more money for these failed programs?
  This amendment does not end research for the missile defense program. 
It simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order to pay for 
the best defense system in our entire military system: our American 
troops.
  Missile defense systems are great in theory. They were especially 
important during the Cold War, but now, in fact, the world has changed. 
In fact, the war is considered the war on terrorism. I hope we will 
never forget the sacrifices of our troops made on behalf of all of

[[Page 13209]]

us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000 soldiers in 
Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan.
  So I would ask any colleagues to consider paying tribute to these 
soldiers by considering an amendment in this category.
  I rise today to support my amendment to this Defense Appropriation 
bill, which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1 
billion overall. This amendment is necessary in order to better 
compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation 
abroad. This appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase 
for military personnel in fiscal year 2006, equal to the President's 
request, and extends certain special pay and bonuses for reserve 
personnel. Our men and women in the Armed Forces deserve these pay 
increases, but the simple truth is tha they deserve much more for the 
sacrifice they are making for our Nation abroad. This amendment would 
result in funds for military pay increases of $300 million for Army, 
$250 million for Navy, $50 million for Marine Corps, $250 million for 
Air Force, $25 million for Army Reserves, $25 million for Navy 
Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps Reserves, $25 million for Air 
Force Reserves, $25 million for Army National Guard, and $25 million 
for Air Force National Guard personnel. The Congressional Budget Office 
has declared that this amendment not only does not increase revenues in 
this bill, but actually decreases outlays by $215 million.
  The offset for this amendment would come from missile-defense 
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile 
defense systems are not new; in fact they have been discussed for 
decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be 
overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe 
dream. Why in good conscience, in this time of budget constraints and 
increased need, would we allocate even more money for these failed 
programs? This amendment does not end research for missile-defense 
programs it simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order 
to pay more for the best defense system in our entire military system: 
our American troops. Missile-defense systems are great in theory, they 
were especially important during the Cold War, but now the world has 
changed and we need troops more than we need overly complex defense 
systems that may never work.
  I hope we never forget the sacrifices our troops make on behalf of 
all of us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000 
soldiers in Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. I hear people 
in Washington complaining about how hot its been recently, just imagine 
how uncomfortable our Armed Forces feel, they have to suffer the heat 
under their Kevlar helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. They can't sit 
inside and enjoy themselves, these days they are on constant high alert 
because of the Iraqi insurgency. Just last week a roadside bomb blast 
killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat 
operation near Ramadi. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans 
including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this 
war in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action and 
yet we play politics with giving them due compensation?
  This amendment is about our national defense, we are only as strong 
as our men and women in the Armed Forces. In the end, this amendment is 
about shifting some money from a defense system that may never work to 
a group of Americans who have never stopped working for this Nation.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I would hope that the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment. We 
have worked so hard to balance this out. And I understand her 
sentiments, and we appreciate that, but I would hope that we could take 
a look at this in conference.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I 
have spoken to him about this amendment, and staff. I have reviewed 
what we have done in the appropriations, and I am prepared today to 
withdraw the amendment. I am appreciative of the fact that he is 
willing to work with me in conference. I think that this is a tough 
job, but I also know that we all believe in our personnel.
  So with the commitment to be able to work with the conferees or to 
work through this process, I know that the commitment of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), I am willing and would like to be able to work with them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman 
that we are willing to work with her as we go to the conference, and in 
view of her willingness to withdraw the amendment, I withdraw my point 
of order that I reserved.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to add my words of thanks and praise 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his great leadership in 
making our Nation's defense strong and secure and extend that praise 
also to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who does such a 
wonderful job on this Defense Subcommittee.
  I rise for the purpose now of engaging in a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Defense 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, regarding the 
penetrator study for Hard and Deeply Buried Target defeat authorized in 
the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization bill passed by the 
House last month.
  Mr. Chairman, during hearings and briefings in support of the fiscal 
year 2006 budget request, the House Committee on Armed Services heard 
from General Cartwright, Commander United States Strategic Command, and 
Secretary Rumsfeld, on the importance of exploring all options for 
holding Hard and Deeply Buried Targets at risk. The United States 
currently does not have any viable options to put at risk many of these 
targets which may contain chemical, biological, nuclear, or command and 
control capabilities. And, very simply, the people who would pull the 
trigger on a military operation are typically those, the leadership 
people, who would go to the bunkers. And it is very important to deter 
those people, and sometimes that means having the ability to reach them 
with a deep bunker penetrator.
  Both General Cartwright and Secretary Rumsfeld felt that it was 
important to explore all options, conventional as well as nuclear, 
against these targets that pose a threat to our national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with that. As the gentleman knows, the 
House Committee on Armed Services mark recommended in the fiscal year 
2006 National Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1815, authorized $4 
million within the Department of Defense for research into various 
options of penetrators that could hold Hard and Deeply Buried Targets 
at risk.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget requested funds for only a nuclear 
penetrator option under the Department of Energy. In order to explore 
all options and specifically to include conventional in addition to 
nuclear options, the defense authorization bill moves this penetrator 
study from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense, 
broadens its scope to include both the conventional and nuclear 
penetrator options, and authorizes $4 million for the study.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the authorizing 
committee intended that this penetrator study include exploring the 
feasibility of various options for penetrators that could hold Hard and 
Deeply Buried Targets at risk, and as we all know, there are many of 
those. As the gentleman knows, H.R. 2683 would appropriate $4 million 
for a study. We want to work with the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Hunter), the very strong leader of the authorizing committee, 
and his colleagues and our colleagues to do our

[[Page 13210]]

best to reflect the understandings and intent of the Committee on Armed 
Services on this matter as we move forward to conference with the 
Senate Appropriations Committee on this legislation.
  In that regard, I pledge to continue to work closely with the 
gentleman from California on this issue and many others in the weeks 
ahead, and I thank him for clarifying the intent of the Committee on 
Armed Services, which he so ably chairs.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman and thank the ranking member for their commitment to work 
with us on this matter and all matters of national security and we 
appreciate their dedication.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $19,417,696,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $7,839,813,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of 
     the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $20,083,037,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $2,862,103,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,486,061,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $472,392,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,225,360,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,359,704,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,028,215,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $11,478,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $22,432,727,000: Provided, That of funds 
     made available under this heading, $2,500,000 shall be 
     available for Fort Baker, in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions as provided under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', in Public Law 107-117.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,003,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $28,719,818,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $3,123,766,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $28,659,373,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $18,323,516,000: Provided, That not 
     more than $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10, 
     United States Code, and of which not to exceed $40,000,000 
     can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of 
     Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds provided in this Act for Civil Military programs 
     under this heading, $500,000 shall be available for a grant 
     for Outdoor Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support 
     the Youth Development and Leadership program and Department 
     of Defense STARBASE program: Provided further, That of the 
     funds made available under this heading, $5,000,000 is 
     available for contractor support to coordinate a wind test 
     demonstration project on an Air Force installation using wind 
     turbines manufactured in the United

[[Page 13211]]

     States that are new to the United States market and to 
     execute the renewable energy purchasing plan: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement 
     the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison 
     office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office 
     of the Secretary of a military department, or the service 
     headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a legislative 
     affairs or legislative liaison office: Provided further, That 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended, is available 
     only for expenses relating to certain classified activities, 
     and may be transferred as necessary by the Secretary to 
     operation and maintenance appropriations or research, 
     development, test and evaluation appropriations, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same time period as the 
     appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     any ceiling on the investment item unit cost of items that 
     may be purchased with operation and maintenance funds shall 
     not apply to the funds described in the preceding proviso: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,791,212,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,178,607,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $199,929,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $2,465,122,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $4,142,875,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; 
     transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized 
     by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and 
     issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished 
     from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department 
     of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same 
     basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel 
     on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $4,547,515,000.

            Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency 
     Operations by United States military forces, $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary 
     of Defense may transfer these funds only to military 
     personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within 
     this title; procurement accounts; research, development, test 
     and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: 
     Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged 
     with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part 
     of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere 
     in this Act.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $11,236,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation 
     purposes.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $61,546,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.

              Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise, and for 
     defense and military contacts, $415,549,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2008.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Page 15, line 12, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $83,900,000)''.
       Page 29, line 17, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $83,900,000)''.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, before mentioning my amendment, let me also 
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member. There are not two Members of the House for whom I have 
greater respect. This is a good bill. I intend to support it. But I 
have an amendment which I think will make it a better bill.
  My amendment is simple and it is straightforward. It would take $84 
million in funding for missile defense that is not needed and add it to 
an area where it is woefully in need, to the nonproliferation of 
nuclear weapons and nuclear materials.
  Everyone here remembers the first debate between Senator Kerry and 
President Bush last year. They agreed on one thing for sure, that the 
gravest threat facing the United States is that of terrorists armed 
with nuclear weapons. Our front line in the defense of this threat is 
variously called Cooperative Threat Reduction, nonproliferation, or 
Nunn-Lugar. Whatever we call it, its object is to stop, secure, and 
dispose of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials at the source if at 
all possible.
  I referred to the President. Just this past February, he met with the 
President of the Russian Federation, and together they cited the fact 
that nuclear nonproliferation is a matter of compelling importance for 
both countries. Five years ago we appointed a bipartisan commission 
headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler. They came back after 1\1/2\ 
years of lengthy study and recommended to us that we take these 
accounts dealing with nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and increase 
them to $3 billion over the next 10 years.

                              {time}  1430

  Here is how they sized up the threat 4 years ago: ``The most urgent, 
unmet national security threat to the United

[[Page 13212]]

States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-
usable materials in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or 
hostile nation states and used against American troops abroad or 
citizens at home.''
  That was 4 years ago. And DOD's nonproliferation budget, together 
with the DOE budget and the State Department budget today, all together 
come to $1.9 billion, way short of what was recommended 4 years ago by 
Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler.
  The DOD program called Cooperative Threat Reduction, CTR, Nunn-Lugar, 
was launched in 1991 to secure, to deactivate, to dispose of weapons of 
mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and in other countries. 
Since then, it has racked up quite a scorecard. Since 1991, the CTR 
program has deactivated 6,564 warheads, destroyed 570 ICBMs, eliminated 
543 SLBMs, retired 142 bombers, and I could go on with a host of other 
potentially threatening missile and nuclear components which this 
program has eliminated.
  Despite these successes, the CTR program has been virtually flat-
funded since its inception at around $400 million a year. This year, 
the budget request of $416 million falls $27.6 million below the level 
at which this program was funded on 9/11; $26 million less than 9/11.
  My amendment makes a modest correction to this shortfall. It 
allocates an additional $84 million to Cooperative Threat Reduction to 
bring total funding to $500 million. It pluses up the CTR budget, 
allowing DOD, the Department of Defense, to do something it has 
urgently wanted to do: upgrade security at Russian weapons storage 
sites.
  DOD has indicated that to get all of the upgrades needed at Russian 
sites, to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear components, it will need 
funding each year that is about $150 million more than the budget 
provides for the next 5 to 7 years. My amendment puts up about half of 
that shortfall.
  We make this funding possible by an offset that I think we can all 
accept. My amendment reduces the Ground-Based Missile Defense budget by 
$84 million. Now, here is how it does it. It would do so by limiting 
the funding for silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, to 26 silos this year, 
and Vandenberg to four silos. In other words, my amendment would 
permit, would fund 30 ground-based GBIs and silos. The Missile Defense 
Agency is planning to provide 34 silos for the first 30 GBIs. The extra 
four silos are referred to as ``swing space,'' additional, nice to 
have; but this is a cost, nearly $16 million, that we can avoid per 
silo that we can avoid for now and spend more wisely elsewhere. So my 
amendment does just that. It withholds funding for these four extra 
swing silos and saves $63 million.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget also includes $20.7 million as an 
advanced payment on 10 additional silos, even though the chairman's 
mark cuts the funding for the missiles that would actually go in these 
silos. My amendment, therefore, eliminates this funding at least for 
2006.
  If the interceptors work, 30 silos should be sufficient for defense 
against a rogue nation like North Korea, and 30 silos should be 
sufficient for now for the ground-based interceptor until testing has 
finally shown that it works.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and 
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. In any event, let me suggest simply that we ask 
ourselves, which is a more likely threat, that we be attacked by ICBM 
with a return signature on it, or by some stealthy terrorist in the 
back of a paneled truck with some hidden device in Lower Manhattan or 
Los Angeles? I think the answer is obvious.
  That is why I think our money is better spent putting it into 
nonproliferation to avoid that threat as opposed to putting more money 
on top of the $7.8 billion into ballistic missile defense.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, when I went down to Austin after the 
election, but before the inauguration, I said to President Bush, 
President-elect Bush, we should worry more about terrorism and nuclear 
nonproliferation than worry about missile defense.
  But we worked out the best we can work out. I mean, we know they have 
not spent nearly the money they have, and I think the gentleman just 
stated that, I do not remember an exact amount, but I think it is only 
1 or 2 percent of what we have already appropriated for 
nonproliferation.
  So I would appreciate it if the gentleman would consider letting us 
work on it and seeing what we can do. But we are just about to the 
point where I do not think we can put any more money in that they will 
spend. If it looks like we can work out a deal where they are going to 
spend more money, then it would be well worth considering what the 
gentleman has in mind. But, as it is, I feel the same way; but we tried 
to work out a balance where we knew we could get a bill signed, and I 
think we have come pretty well where it is. But I still think we would 
be quite willing to work with him.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, there is $7.8 billion provided for this 
program, vastly more than any other program in the budget. We are 
shaving it at the edges and putting it into an area where I think we 
would all agree there is a critical threat and a real need.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I said when I went 
down to Austin is exactly what I am repeating now. We have to worry 
about nonproliferation and terrorism and not as much about missile 
defense. But I am saying, and the gentleman knows the bill we put 
together, we have to be realistic. So I am asking the gentleman to just 
desist and let us see what we can work out.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment; and I do so 
reluctantly, because there are some interesting points that he makes. 
However, the program that his amendment would add money to already has 
$465 million in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations, so 
the money really is not needed; and we fully funded the President's 
request, which is millions over last year.
  Now, where he would take the money from, again, we have already taken 
money from the Missile Defense Agency. We reduced funding for the 
agency in this fiscal year 2006 budget. The President's budget request 
itself was a reduction of over $1 billion from last fiscal year, and 
the committee recommendation trimmed that by another $143 million.
  So we brought down the money that the gentleman's amendment would 
take away, and we have increased over last year the money that he would 
add it to.
  So the amendment really is not necessary, and I think the committee 
has done a good job in having to very delicately balance the gives and 
the takes on these various accounts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and let me commend 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership in 
offering it, because he has been such a noted expert on this entire 
area, and I think that this is a step in the right direction.
  As he has noted, in the very contentious Presidential debate, the two 
candidates agreed on one crucial thing. They agreed that the most 
dangerous threat facing our Nation was nuclear weapons in the hands of 
terrorists. Yet funding for the program to secure nuclear materials in 
the former Soviet Union does not reflect the magnitude of this threat.
  The Department of Defense requested $415 million for the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction program this year, roughly the same as it was last 
year. The Spratt amendment would recognize we need to take this threat 
much more seriously by putting the resources into it that would allow 
us to secure more sites faster.
  President Bush and President Putin have met in Bratislava; and last 
February, they pledged to further their cooperation on nuclear security 
by establishing a plan for security upgrades of

[[Page 13213]]

nuclear facilities through and beyond 2008. Funding this amendment 
would help in that agreement.
  The amendment does this without doing harm to our missile defense 
capability. The Spratt amendment will not affect the deployment of the 
30 ground-based intercept missiles scheduled for 2006.
  I have supported a strong ballistic missile defense system. I 
strongly believe that this amendment allows that capability to go 
forward, but I also believe that our ability to protect this Nation 
from terrorists wielding weapons of mass destruction is much stronger 
if we put all of our resources into it that we possibly can.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Spratt amendment to the 
defense appropriations bill.
  This amendment, as he told us, will take $84 million from the missile 
defense program, the single largest defense program in our Nation's 
history, and add it to an area that we have neglected for far too long: 
nonproliferation.
  The missile defense program has never been proven successful, but the 
nonproliferation programs have proven extremely successful.
  In particular, we need to ramp up funds for the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program, CTR. This successful nonproliferation program has 
succeeded at reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the states of 
the former Soviet Union. In November 1991, to address the massive 
quantity of nuclear material left over in the former Soviet Union as a 
result of ending the Cold War, Congress initiated Cooperative Threat 
Reduction, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, which gives the 
Department of Defense the task of dismantling nuclear warheads, 
reducing nuclear stockpiles, and securing nuclear weapons and materials 
in the states of the former Soviet Union.
  In 1991, an estimated 30,000 nuclear weapons existed throughout the 
former Soviet Union. These conditions raised the serious concern that 
nuclear materials could be smuggled beyond the borders of the former 
USSR. Fortunately, CTR was created to help secure these nuclear 
weapons. Under CTR, more than 20,000 Russian scientists, formerly 
tasked to create nuclear weapons, now work to dismantle them.
  Since 1991, CTR has dismantled nearly 6,000 nuclear warheads, not to 
mention nearly 500 ballistic missiles, over 300 submarine-launched 
missiles, and nearly 500 missile silos. This program clearly works, and 
that is what we need to support it through the annual appropriations 
process. Unfortunately, CTR has been funded at the same level since its 
creation in 1991, about $400 million per year. The total amount we have 
spent on CTR equals around 1 year of spending on missile defense.
  Unfortunately, this year's defense appropriations bill provides $27.6 
million less for CTR than it did before September 11. So while the 
threat of nuclear terrorism has increased, our efforts to prevent it 
have diminished.
  The smart response to this threat is to fund the peaceful Cooperative 
Threat Reduction, Nunn-Lugar, all the programs to reduce the world's 
supply of nuclear weapons, and not promote the aggressive and expensive 
missile defense programs which have never tested successfully. That is 
why I urge Members of this House to vote for the Spratt amendment which 
will take money out of the missile defense system and put it into the 
nonproliferation programs. In the long run, Americans will be far safer 
if Congress promotes and properly funds good nonproliferation 
initiatives like CTR.
  I urge all of my colleagues to keep Americans and the world safe. 
Vote for the Spratt amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, my good friend (Mr. Murtha), he is offering us a deal, 
namely, if we will withdraw the amendment, he will endeavor to raise 
nonproliferation to a level that is commensurate with the need, 
particularly for upgrading nuclear storage areas in the former Soviet 
Union. With that commitment to go to conference and try to improve the 
allocation within this bill for nonproliferation, with that 
understanding, I will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $2,879,380,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $203,500,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve: Provided, That 
     $75,000,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph are 
     available only for the purpose of acquiring four (4) HH-60L 
     medical evacuation variant Blackhawk helicopters for the C/1-
     159th Aviation Regiment (Army Reserve): Provided further, 
     That three (3) UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters in addition to 
     those referred to in the preceding proviso shall be available 
     only for the C/1-159th Aviation Regiment (Army Reserve).

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,239,350,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $150,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor- 
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $1,670,949,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2008, of which $614,800,000 
     shall be available for the Army National Guard and Army 
     Reserve.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,753,152,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $119,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat

[[Page 13214]]

     vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; communications and electronic equipment; 
     other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and 
     accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training 
     devices; expansion of public and private plants, including 
     the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $4,491,634,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $765,400,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $9,776,440,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2008, of which $57,779,000 
     shall be available for the Navy Reserve and the Marine Corps 
     Reserve.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $2,596,781,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $885,170,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $19,562,000 shall be available 
     for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $564,913,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine, $1,637,698,000;
       Virginia Class Submarine (AP), $763,786,000;
       SSGN Conversion, $286,516,000;
       CVN Refueling Overhauls, $1,300,000,000;
       CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP), $20,000,000;
       SSN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $39,524,000;
       SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls, $230,193,000;
       SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $62,248,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer, $1,550,000,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer Modernization, $50,000,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship, $440,000,000;
       LHD-1, $197,769,000;
       LPD-17, $1,344,741,000;
       LHA-R (AP), $200,447,000;
       Service Craft, $46,000,000;
       LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $100,000,000;
       Prior year shipbuilding costs, $394,523,000; and
       Outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $385,000,000.
       In all: $9,613,358,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2010: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2010, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $5,461,196,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $43,712,000 shall be available 
     for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,426,405,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $12,424,298,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $380,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $5,062,949,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,031,907,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $164,800,000 shall be available 
     for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and

[[Page 13215]]

     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $13,737,214,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2008, of which $135,800,000 shall be 
     available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; expansion of public and private plants, 
     equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway, $2,728,130,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2008.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $28,573,000, to remain available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $10,827,174,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2007.

                              {time}  1445


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In title IV, under ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Army'', insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000) (increased by 
     $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes his 
statement, I would like to advise him that we have reviewed this 
amendment. And since you did make a change that was agreeable to both 
of us, we are prepared to accept this amendment at any time that you 
wish.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) very much and thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) as well, and just to say 
briefly that this budget neutral amendment will improve the health of 
veterans past, present and future, by funding research on Gulf War 
Illnesses.
  I am proud to do so with my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I 
want to thank both of the cosponsors for their commitment to veterans 
health.
  Mr. Chairman, I would include for the Record my entire statement, 
along with statements of support from veterans groups.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget-neutral amendment will improve the health 
of veterans past, present and future by funding research on Gulf War 
illnesses. I am proud to do so with my colleagues, Mr. Shays, and Mr. 
Sanders. I thank both of the cosponsors for their commitment to 
veterans' health.
  I would also like to point out that this amendment is endorsed by the 
American Legion, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Gulf War 
Resource Center, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign 
Wars.
  Mr. Chairman, fourteen years after the 1990-1991 Gulf War, between 26 
and 32 percent of those who served in that war continue to suffer from 
serious and persistent health problems--typically multiple symptoms 
that include severe headaches, memory problems, muscle and joint pain, 
severe gastrointestinal problems, respiratory problems, skin disorders 
and other problems. These conditions are often called ``Gulf War 
illnesses'' or Gulf War syndrome.
  In the early years after the war, little was understood about this 
problem. In fact, many attributed the problems to stress or 
psychological trauma incurred on the battlefield. So in the late 
1990's, Congress authorized a scientific research program and created a 
committee to advise the VA on how to prioritize that research. That 
committee, the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' 
illnesses, released their report last November. It had several landmark 
findings.
  First, they determined that the existence of these serious and often 
debilitating problems could not be scientifically explained by stress 
or psychiatric illness.
  Second, they noticed that we are starting to find that the veteran's 
are having problems with their neurological and immunological systems. 
For example, ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, which is a rapidly 
progressive, fatal neuromuscular disease, occurs in Persian Gulf 
veterans with twice the frequency of peer veterans that were not 
deployed.
  Third, they found that there are several possible causes of these 
diseases. A list of potential exposures demonstrates the complexity of 
what we are dealing with. A short list includes chemical weapons, 
biological weapons, drugs to protect from biological and chemical 
weapons, oil-well-fire smoke, pesticides, insect repellants, individual 
or multiple vaccines, and many, many more.
  Fourth, the Committee found that this type of research is important 
not only for ill veterans, but for current military personnel and for 
homeland security. This research can prepare us to counter or treat 
chemical weapons exposures and tell us whether our existing 
countermeasures may do long term harm.
  Finally, they found that there is still no effective treatment for 
those suffering from Gulf War illnesses.
  The result of the collective findings of the VA report is this: 
Significant scientific progress has been made and more research is 
needed.
  Our amendment earmarks $10 million out of the account called Army 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. The money would go to a 
research program administered by the Army Medical Research and Materiel 
Command in the DoD, for identifying the biological mechanisms behind 
the illnesses--particularly the neurological and immunological ones; 
the chronic disease effects; better diagnostic criteria for the 
illnesses; and identification of treatments. The MRMC will design a 
research plan for that purpose, relying heavily on the expertise 
outside DoD and the VA. It will be subject to peer review by experts, a 
significant number of which will be independent of DoD.
  $10 million will have a large impact on veterans who rely on the 
government to take care of them after they have taken care of us.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kucinich-Shays-Sanders amendment. 
Vote ``yes'' to restore research funding for Gulf War Illnesses.
  I wish to insert letters of support from Veteran's groups into the 
Record.

                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2005.
     Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Kucinich: On behalf of the 2.8 million 
     members of The American Legion, I would like to offer full 
     support of your proposed amendment to the Department of 
     Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act for FY 2006, specifically 
     designating $15 million for research on chronic illnesses 
     affecting thousands of veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.
       More than fourteen years have passed since the end of the 
     first Gulf War and we have failed to identify effective 
     treatments for ill Gulf War veterans. Lack of solid research 
     identifying causes for these illnesses has also prevented a 
     large number of ill veterans from receiving the service-
     related compensation they deserve.
       Historically, DOD has provided over 75 percent of the 
     funding for Gulf war-related research. Just as there is a 
     real opportunity for breakthroughs, as highlighted in the 
     September 2004 report of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses, 
     your colleagues plan to eliminate funding for Gulf War 
     illness research. Clearly, DOD has more expertise in this 
     area and is able to fund the most promising researchers. 
     Without question, this research has major national security 
     implications against future threats to military forces and 
     civilians. Recently, your colleagues cut $9 million from 
     medical and prosthetics research in the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs' FY 2006 appropriations--another fiscal blow 
     to America's veterans.
       Again, we appreciate your efforts on behalf of this 
     nation's ill Gulf War veterans. Your amendment acknowledges, 
     that while we are at war in the Middle East once again, there 
     are still thousands of ill veterans from the first Gulf War 
     waiting for answers, treatment, and cures--that must not be 
     forgotten or simply ignored.

[[Page 13216]]

       Sincerely,

                                              Steve Robertson,

                                                         Director,
     National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____



                                  Vietnam Veterans of America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2005.
     Hon. Dennis Kucinich,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Kucinich, Vietnam Veterans of America 
     (VVA) strongly endorses your amendment to the Defense 
     Appropriations bill which would mandate that $15 million of a 
     $10.8 billion Army research account be dedicated to research 
     on Gulf War illnesses.
       Passage of this amendment, which we understand is being co-
     sponsored by Congressmen Chris Shays and Bernie Sanders, 
     should go a long way toward identifying neurological and 
     immunological abnormalities in many Gulf War veterans and the 
     chronic health effects of exposure to these neurotoxic 
     substances; and toward identifying promising treatments. 
     Enactment of this amendment also would help fulfill one of 
     the recommendations in the 2004 report of the VA Research 
     Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses.
       It is our collective obligation to do what we can to ease 
     the physical and psychological burdens experienced by too 
     many Gulf War veterans, who served our nation with honor and 
     dignity. Additional research that might help them is long 
     overdue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Thomas H. Corey,
     National President.
                                  ____

       Dear Honorable Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich: Please let 
     it be known to your fellow members of Congress that the Order 
     of the Silver Rose, a 501(c)(3) Veterans Organization fully 
     endorses the amendment that directs $15 million out of a 
     $10.8 billion Army research account be dedicated to Gulf War 
     illnesses research, in accordance and compliance with the VA 
     Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' illnesses 
     recommendation in their 2004 report.
       It is hoped that the appropriation for research on chronic 
     illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War be used for 
     a coherent research program focusing on:
       (1) identification of mechanisms underlying Gulf War 
     illnesses,
       (2) chronic effects of neurotoxic substances to which 
     veterans were exposed during deployment;
       (3) studies that expand on earlier research identifying 
     neurological and immunological abnormalities in ill Gulf War 
     veterans;
       (4) identification of promising treatments. The primary 
     objective of the research program will be to elucidate 
     pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses, 
     which may subsequently be targeted to developing treatments 
     for these conditions. A further objective will be to identify 
     and evaluate treatments which currently exist and which hold 
     promise for treating these illnesses.
       The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command shall, 
     in consultation with experienced research scientists in 
     relevant fields, establish a list of research questions to 
     address the above topics, and design a program of specific 
     research studies that together constitute a coherent plan to 
     answer these questions, each identified study to be conducted 
     by the most qualified researcher, which may include consulted 
     scientists. As part of this process, there shall be a public 
     solicitation of research proposals (which may include concept 
     exploration and pilot projects) on these questions and at 
     least twenty-five percent of the program (measured by amount 
     funded) shall be made up of proposals selected from this 
     solicitation, as modified if necessary to increase the value 
     of the proposed research to the overall program. At least 
     twenty percent of the program (measured by amount funded) 
     shall address the objective of identifying and evaluating 
     promising existing treatments, such as observation and pilot 
     studies. The program shall be submitted for determination of 
     scientific merit through independent peer review.''
           Respectfully submitted,

                                               Nancy Rekowski,

                                               National Commander,
     Order of the Silver Rose.
                                  ____


  Language for the Congressional Record Regarding the Kucinich-Shays-
Sanders Amendment to the FY06 Defense Appropriations Bill for Gulf War 
                       Illnesses Research Funding

       ``It is intended that the appropriation for research on 
     chronic illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War be 
     used for a coherent research program focusing on (1) 
     identification of mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses, 
     (2) chronic effects of neurotoxic substances to which 
     veterans were exposed during deployment; (3) studies that 
     expand on earlier research identifying neurological and 
     immunological abnormalities in ill Gulf War veterans; and (4) 
     identification of promising treatments. The primary objective 
     of the research program will be to elucidate 
     pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Gulf War illnesses, 
     which may subsequently be targeted to developing treatments 
     for these conditions. A further objective will be to identify 
     and evaluate treatments which currently exist and which hold 
     promise for treating these illnesses.
       The U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command shall, 
     in consultation with experienced research scientists in 
     relevant fields, establish a list of research questions to 
     address the above topics, and design a program of specific 
     research studies that together constitute a coherent plan to 
     answer these questions, each identified study to be conducted 
     by the most qualified researcher, which may include consulted 
     scientists. As part of this process, there shall be a public 
     solicitation of research proposals (which may include concept 
     exploration and pilot projects) on these questions and at 
     least twenty-five percent of the program (measured by amount 
     funded) shall be made up of proposals selected from this 
     solicitation, as modified if necessary to increase the value 
     of the proposed research to the overall program. At least 
     twenty percent of the program (measured by amount funded) 
     shall address the objective of identifying and evaluating 
     promising existing treatments, such as observation and pilot 
     studies. The program shall be submitted for determination of 
     scientific merit through independent peer review.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $18,481,862,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2007: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Cobra Judy program.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $22,664,868,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2007.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $19,514,530,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2007.


          Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 29, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 102, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.
       Page 112, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $500,000,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know and my 
colleagues to know that I am trying to engage in discussions with the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have 
mentioned this one to the chairman.
  I would like to have the opportunity to discuss, in a very lucid 
manner, my great concern, recognizing that we have tried to fund the 
support system for the Iraqi nationals.
  It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that a number of us are concerned 
about the ongoing violence in Iraq and the front line, if you will, 
attacks and loss of life that our brave men and women are accumulating 
in Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan.
  USA Today recounts for us that over the weekend, a bomb killed at 
least 23 in Baghdad. If you talk to families around America whose young 
men and women and Reservists and National Guard are over in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, their concern, of course, is the continued violence of the 
insurgents

[[Page 13217]]

and the IEDs. Our soldiers are on the front lines.
  And beyond the question of bringing our soldiers home, which the 
American people have gone enthusiastically on record for, recognizing 
the bravery of those young men and women, Reservists and National 
Guard, we have got to find a way to transition this war to Iraqis. In 
the Houston Chronicle, the headline reads: American sacrifices buying 
time for Iraqis.
  So my amendment is simple--$500 million from the missile defense to 
go into the Iraqi Freedom Fund. Allow me to read this one anecdotal 
story, and I would ask my colleagues to listen, because I would like to 
work with you on this.
  This is about Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Crowe, one of the highest 
ranked soldiers in the United States military. He was a senior U.S. 
military advisor to Iraqi forces, and he was ambushed while leading 
Iraqi soldiers on June 7.
  Through the bravery of Sergeant First Class Gary Villaboso, who is 
now being recommended for a Silver Cross, this brave sergeant was able 
to drag, while fighting off alone, the Iraqi snipers, this brave 
wounded Lieutenant Colonel, Terrence Crowe, out of harm's way, at least 
to get him out.
  He performed heroically in extricating the mortally wounded Crowe, 
while wiping out Iraqi attackers. The 17 Iraqi soldiers broke rank and 
fled the scene. We realize they may have been well-intentioned, but 
most of the 17 Iraqis in the patrol broke rank during the initial 
outbreak of the gunfire and faded from the street fight.
  Villaboso, a fine soldier in his own right, did not want to condemn, 
and he said these words: He is unsure if Crowe, 44, who was hit 
instantly several times as the shooting began, could have survived if 
the Iraqis had effectively returned fire and swiftly evacuated the 
wounded officer.
  But what he did say is, I think he would have been able to be helped, 
if we could have gotten him out in a few minutes instead of 15. 
Training, training, training and transition. This is a simple question 
and equation. We need to provide the resources, and I know the 
distinguished gentlemen have had a number of dollars that went out into 
the original authorization, and, of course, $500 million, I believe, 
that are in this particular appropriation.
  But I ask my colleagues to consider, if we are going to move, we have 
got to move on behalf of our soldiers and provide the resources for the 
Iraqi nationals to serve our military personnel for Iraq.
  Finally, my deepest respect and sympathy to the family of Lt. Colonel 
Terrence Crowe; and to Sgt. Villaboso, thank you for your commitment.
  I rise today to support my Amendment to this Defense Appropriation 
bill, which increases funding for training the Iraqi National Army by 
$500 million. This Amendment would double the amount of money 
appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq 
Freedom Fund. In addition, it will reinforce the point that the best 
way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take 
care of their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only 
train these inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to 
pay troops to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they 
face. At this time of increased danger for our troops, this Amendment 
reiterates the fact that we need to be transferring more responsibility 
upon the Iraqis to take care of their nation and develop a plan to 
remove our U.S. troops.
  Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who 
were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this 
very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military 
base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly, 
this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very 
much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi 
National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their 
people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi 
National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds 
too simple, I but the truth is we have no other solution, that is 
unless you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. 
There is an old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the 
best way to maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National 
Army supplementing the heroic effort of our troops.
  The offset for this Amendment would come from missile-defense 
programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $17.9 billion. Missile 
defense systems are not new; in fact they have been talked about, 
researched and tested for decades. The sad truth is that missile 
defense systems have proven to be overly complex, unreliable, and often 
been little more than a pipe dream. Why in the world can't we shift a 
little bit of this money to train the Iraqi National Army and relieve 
much of the burden on our own troops? This Amendment does not end 
research for missile-defense programs it simply pares it down slightly 
to offer hope for the Iraqi people that one day soon they can rule 
their own nation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this Amendment not 
only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases 
outlays by $30 million. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq 
and their mission is not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a 
total of 1,713 Americans including 159 people from Texas alone have 
lost their lives since this War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have 
been wounded in action. We must move to the obvious solution, that the 
Iraqi National Army must soon take over their own nation and provide 
for the protection of their people.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have said for the last year and a half, 
if you remember I said a year ago, we are not going to be able to 
prevail unless we get the Iraqis to take over the fighting themselves.
  Now, we put $5.7 billion in. I think we are going to consider a 
little bit later lifting the cap on the $500 million so it can be 
spent. So if the gentlewoman would withdraw this amendment, we will try 
to work this thing out. Because it is such a delicately balanced bill, 
if we go through a long harangue about something we are already trying 
to do; in other words, we put $5.7 billion in. We have $500 million in 
this bill. We just remove the limitation if the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) prevails. I think that will solve your problem.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman. As you well know, I hopefully will have three bites of the 
apple of working with you on the military pay, and, of course, I did 
not offer the amendment dealing with armor, and I want to thank you for 
the work that has been done with providing our soldiers the armor.
  Let me say that this is a passionate desire of many of my 
constituents, as well as the military families around America. I would 
very much like to, I hope I will have the opportunity, to work with the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) as well.
  I would very much like to be concretely, though not a member of your 
august body, the Committee on Appropriations, to at least try to get a 
slice, if we remove the cap, to increase the dollars, because leaving 
our soldiers bare like this, losing the senior advisor of the Iraqi 
forces is really devastating.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that we can really focus on how we 
align the funds as well in training these Iraqi forces.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to say to the gentlewoman that I agree with her and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) that it is extremely important 
that we prepare the Iraqi security forces to meet their own 
responsibilities so that we can bring our soldiers home.
  That is in the forefront of what we are doing. But, we have 
delicately written this bill. And we will be very happy to work with 
gentlewoman as we go through the whole process. But, as I

[[Page 13218]]

said earlier, we bring a bill that is $3.3 billion less than the 
President requested, and less than the budget resolution provided for. 
So we had to balance. And we are very happy to work with the 
gentlewoman, because we understand the importance of getting the Iraqis 
ready to provide for their own security.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that I have 
joined a number of my colleagues in asking for soldiers to come home in 
the fall of 2006.
  But I think the priority of my amendment, or at least the focus of my 
amendment today is, of course, the safety and security of our troops. I 
welcome both gentlemen. They are men of their word. I thank you very 
much. I would like to be able to pursue this with staff and with the 
committee. And I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) will be accepted, that we will have the 
opportunity to increase those numbers, because I think we owe it to the 
families of Lieutenant Colonial Terrence Crowe and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith, $168,458,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2007.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,154,340,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the 
     necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $1,599,459,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides 
     for the acquisition of any of the following major components 
     unless such components are manufactured in the United States: 
     auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard 
     services; propulsion system components (that is; engines, 
     reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and 
     spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the 
     exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the 
     obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be 
     considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the military department 
     responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions 
     in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $1,355,827,000, of which $1,191,514,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance; $116,527,000 shall be 
     for Procurement to remain available until September 30, 2008; 
     $47,786,000 shall be for Research, development, test and 
     evaluation to remain available until September 30, 2007; and 
     not less than $119,300,000 shall be for the Chemical 
     Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, of which 
     $36,800,000 shall be for activities on military installations 
     and $82,500,000 shall be to assist State and local 
     governments.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $906,941,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this 
     Act.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $209,687,000, of which 
     $208,687,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $1,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2008, shall be for 
     Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding 
     level for continuing the operation of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
     $244,600,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $376,844,000 of which $27,454,000 for the 
     Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008 and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided further, That 
     the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the 
     personnel and technical resources to provide timely support 
     to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community 
     by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials 
     collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and 
     national security investigations and operations.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in 
     this Act which are limited

[[Page 13219]]

     for obligation during the current fiscal year shall be 
     obligated during the last 2 months of the fiscal year: 
     Provided, That this section shall not apply to obligations 
     for support of active duty training of reserve components or 
     summer camp training of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $4,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That a request for multiple re-
     programmings of funds using authority provided in this 
     section must be made prior to June 30, 2006: Provided 
     further, That transfers among military personnel 
     appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes 
     of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be 
     transferred under this section.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act 
     may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such 
     contract--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a 
     budget request for full funding of units to be procured 
     through the contract;
       (2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include 
     consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the 
     contractor associated with the production of unfunded units 
     to be delivered under the contract;
       (3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor 
     under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred 
     costs on funded units; and
       (4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment 
     based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
       UH-60/MH-60 Helicopters;
       Apache Block II Conversion; and
       Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night 
     Vision Sensor (MTADS/PNVS).
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and 
     maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and 
     similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust 
     Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated 
     states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free 
     Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the 
     Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical 
     education programs conducted at Army medical facilities 
     located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize 
     the provision of medical services at such facilities and 
     transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2006, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2007.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act may be used to initiate a new installation overseas 
     without 30-day advance notification to the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member 
     of the Army participating as a full-time student and 
     receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when 
     time spent as a full-time student is credited toward 
     completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to those members who have 
     reenlisted with this option prior to October 1, 1987: 
     Provided further, That this subsection applies only to active 
     components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor 
     Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available to convert to contractor performance an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by 
     more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees 
     unless--
       (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
     private competition that includes a most efficient and cost 
     effective organization plan developed by such activity or 
     function;
       (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over 
     all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers 
     for performance of the activity or function, the cost of 
     performance of the activity or function by a contractor would 
     be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that 
     equals or exceeds the lesser of--
       (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's 
     personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or 
     function by Federal employees; or
       (B) $10,000,000; and
       (3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a 
     proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of 
     Defense by--

[[Page 13220]]

       (A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan 
     available to the workers who are to be employed in the 
     performance of that activity or function under the contract; 
     or
       (B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health 
     benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less 
     towards the premium or subscription share than the amount 
     that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits 
     for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection 
     (a) of this section or subsections (a), (b), or (c) of 
     section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and 
     notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement, 
     or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter 
     into a contract for the performance of any commercial or 
     industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--
       (A) is included on the procurement list established 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 
     U.S.C. 47);
       (B) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified 
     nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals 
     in accordance with that Act; or
       (C) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an 
     Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in 
     section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(15)).
       (2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or 
     contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469 
     and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
       (c) Treatment of Conversion.--The conversion of any 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense under the 
     authority provided by this section shall be credited toward 
     any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement 
     that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and 
     is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in 
     compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, 
     United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of 
     commercial activities.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8018. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8019. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime 
     contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a 
     subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined 
     in 25 U.S.C. 1544 or a small business owned and controlled by 
     an individual or individuals defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9) 
     shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being 
     allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the 
     Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the 
     prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and 
     involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act 
     making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with 
     respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 41 U.S.C. 430, this section shall be 
     applicable to any Department of Defense acquisition of 
     supplies or services, including any contract and any 
     subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial items 
     produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any 
     subcontractor or supplier defined in 25 U.S.C. 1544 or a 
     small business owned and controlled by an individual or 
     individuals defined under 25 U.S.C. 4221(9): Provided 
     further, That businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small 
     Business Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of 
     Public Law 85-536, as amended, shall have the same status as 
     other program participants under section 602 of Public Law 
     100-656, 102 Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development 
     Reform Act of 1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies 
     of the Department of Defense.
       Sec. 8020. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8021. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8022. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8023. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8024. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $33,767,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which--
       (1) $24,376,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol 
     Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug 
     activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving 
     youth programs;
       (2) $8,571,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force''; and
       (3) $820,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement, 
     Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive 
     reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for 
     counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies.
       Sec. 8025. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2006 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2006, 
     not more than 5,537 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in the 
     National Intelligence Program.

[[Page 13221]]

       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2007 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs is hereby 
     reduced by $40,000,000.
       Sec. 8026. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8027. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8028. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8029. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2006. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8030. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year, and at the 
     end of each fiscal year hereafter, as a result of energy cost 
     savings realized by the Department of Defense shall remain 
     available for obligation for the next fiscal year to the 
     extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 2865 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8031. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for that fiscal year for salaries and 
     expenses related to administrative activities of the 
     Department of Defense, the military departments, and the 
     defense agencies.
       Sec. 8032. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available during the current fiscal year and hereafter 
     for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
     Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines program.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8033. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8034. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey 
     at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian 
     tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units 
     located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force 
     Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing 
     units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for 
     such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the 
     Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes 
     located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, 
     and Minnesota.
       (c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation 
     Walking Shield Program shall resolve any conflicts among 
     requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection 
     (a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air 
     Force under subsection (b).
       (d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included 
     on the current list published by the Secretary of the 
     Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian 
     Tribe Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 
     U.S.C. 479a-1).
       Sec. 8035. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $250,000.
       Sec. 8036. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2007 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2007 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8037. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and 
     development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert 
     action programs authorized by the President under section 503 
     of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2007.
       Sec. 8038. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8039. Of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $10,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8040. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless

[[Page 13222]]

     the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the Buy 
     American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term ``Buy 
     American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8041. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of 
     less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of 
     equipment that is in development or production, or contracts 
     as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense, 
     who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the 
     award of such contract is in the interest of the national 
     defense.
       Sec. 8042. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8043. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the 
     Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense, 
     may use funds made available in this Act under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants 
     and supplement other Federal funds in accordance with the 
     guidance provided in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives accompanying 
     this Act, and the projects specified in such guidance shall 
     be considered to be authorized by law.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8044. Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2005/2007'', $60,500,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2005/2011'', 
     $325,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', 
     $10,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', $3,400,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2005/
     2006'', $21,600,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2005/
     2006'', $5,100,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2005/2006'', $142,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     2005/2006'', $65,950,000.
       Sec. 8045. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8046. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8047. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands 
     and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of 
     pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be 
     incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and 
     Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve 
     provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to 
     Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence 
     Activities, including the activities and programs included 
     within the National Intelligence Program, the Joint Military 
     Intelligence Program, and the Tactical Intelligence and 
     Related Activities aggregate: Provided, That nothing in this 
     section authorizes deviation from established Reserve and 
     National Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8048. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8049. Appropriations available under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for the current 
     fiscal year and hereafter for increasing energy and water 
     efficiency in Federal buildings may, during their period of 
     availability, be transferred to other appropriations or funds 
     of the Department of Defense for projects related to 
     increasing energy and water efficiency, to be merged with and 
     to be available for the same general purposes, and for the 
     same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which 
     transferred.
       Sec. 8050. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction 
     shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as 
     defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball 
     or roller bearings purchased as end items.
       Sec. 8051. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8052. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8053. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Department of Defense who approves or 
     implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or 
     budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity 
     financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal 
     agency not financed by this Act without the express 
     authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for 
     in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts 
     providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense.
       Sec. 8054. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of

[[Page 13223]]

     the funds available to the Department of Defense for the 
     current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to transfer 
     to another nation or an international organization any 
     defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8055. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8056. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8057. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8058. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8059. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence 
     Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8061. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F/A-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.
       Sec. 8062. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8063. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to support any training 
     program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible 
     information from the Department of State that the unit has 
     committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all 
     necessary corrective steps have been taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible 
     information available to the Department of State relating to 
     human rights violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of 
     any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
     describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and 
     duration of the training program, the United States forces 
     and the foreign security forces involved in the training 
     program, and the information relating to human rights 
     violations that necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8064. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the 
     main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
     manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
     entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes or there exists a significant cost or 
     quality difference.
       Sec. 8065. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such

[[Page 13224]]

     military family housing units that may be used for the 
     purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8066. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new 
     start advanced concept technology demonstration project may 
     only be obligated 30 days after a report, including a 
     description of the project, the planned acquisition and 
     transition strategy and its estimated annual and total cost, 
     has been provided in writing to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the 
     congressional defense committees that it is in the national 
     interest to do so.
       Sec. 8067. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a 
     classified quarterly report to the House and Senate 
     Appropriations Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on 
     certain matters as directed in the classified annex 
     accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 8068. During the current fiscal year, refunds 
     attributable to the use of the Government travel card, 
     refunds attributable to the use of the Government Purchase 
     Card and refunds attributable to official Government travel 
     arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management Centers 
     may be credited to operation and maintenance, and research, 
     development, test and evaluation accounts of the Department 
     of Defense which are current when the refunds are received.
       Sec. 8069. (a) Registering Financial Management Information 
     Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a 
     mission critical or mission essential financial management 
     information technology system (including a system funded by 
     the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A 
     system shall be considered to be registered with that officer 
     upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system, 
     together with such information concerning the system as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management 
     information technology system shall be considered a mission 
     critical or mission essential information technology system 
     as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
       (b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management 
     automated information system, a mixed information system 
     supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system 
     improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone 
     A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with 
     respect to that milestone, that the system is being developed 
     and managed in accordance with the Department's Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense 
     (Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as 
     appropriate, with respect to any such system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1).
       (c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen 
     Act.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated 
     information system may not receive Milestone A approval, 
     Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that 
     milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance 
     with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 
     The Chief Information Officer may require additional 
     certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such 
     system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification 
     shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and 
     milestone schedule for each system covered by such a 
     certification and confirmation that the following steps have 
     been taken with respect to the system:
       (A) Business process reengineering.
       (B) An analysis of alternatives.
       (C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (D) Performance measures.
       (E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the 
     Department's Global Information Grid.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology system'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section 
     5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       Sec. 8070. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8071. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing 
     demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under 
     a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing 
     projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by 
     the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture 
     ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of 
     Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant 
     to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military 
     Articles issued by the Department of State.
       Sec. 8072. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under 10 U.S.C. 2667, in the case 
     of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of 
     1 year to any organization specified in 32 U.S.C. 508(d), or 
     any other youth, social, or fraternal non-profit organization 
     as may be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 
     or his designee, on a case-by-case basis.
       Sec. 8073. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages 
     only for military installations in States which are not 
     contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.
       Sec. 8074. Funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year 
     may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the 
     satellite and ground control segments of such system's 
     modernization program.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8075. (a) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act 
     under the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $90,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense is 
     authorized to transfer such funds to other activities of the 
     Federal Government.
       (b) Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $147,900,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other 
     activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and 
     carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property, 
     construction, personal services, and operations related to 
     projects described in further detail in the Classified Annex 
     accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2006, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth 
     therein: Provided further, That contracts entered into under 
     the authority of this section may provide for such 
     indemnification as the Secretary determines to be necessary: 
     Provided further, That projects authorized by this section 
     shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local law to 
     the maximum extent consistent with the national security, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 8076. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection

[[Page 13225]]

     101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 
     113 note) shall continue in effect to apply to disbursements 
     that are made by the Department of Defense in fiscal year 
     2006.
       Sec. 8077. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $2,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense, to remain available for obligation until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, these funds shall be available only for a grant to 
     the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction 
     and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs 
     of military family members when confronted with the illness 
     or hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
       Sec. 8078. Amounts appropriated in title II of this Act are 
     hereby reduced by $264,630,000 to reflect savings 
     attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in 
     the funding of miscellaneous or other contracts in the 
     military departments, as follows:
       (1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $12,734,000.
       (2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $91,725,000.
       (3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', 
     $1,870,000.
       (4) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', 
     $158,301,000.
       Sec. 8079. The total amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act is hereby reduced by $167,000,000 to 
     limit excessive growth in the procurement of advisory and 
     assistance services, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $24,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $19,000,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $74,000,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $50,000,000.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8080. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $77,616,000 shall be made available for the 
     Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That of this amount, 
     $15,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing 
     Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow 
     missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's 
     defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, 
     regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this provision for production of missiles and 
     missile components may be transferred to appropriations 
     available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be 
     merged with and to be available for the same time period and 
     the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     contained in this Act.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8081. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', 
     $394,523,000 shall be available until September 30, 2006, to 
     fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That 
     upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the 
     amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
       To: Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1998/2007'':
       NSSN, $28,000,000.
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2009'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, $25,000,000; and
       NSSN, $72,000,000.
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2000/2009'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship, $41,800,000.
       Under the heading, ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2001/2007'':
       Carrier Replacement Program, $145,023,000; and
       NSSN, $82,700,000.
       Sec. 8082. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or 
     compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under 10 
     U.S.C. 7622 arising out of the collision involving the U.S.S. 
     GREENEVILLE and the EHIME MARU, in any amount and without 
     regard to the monetary limitations in subsections (a) and (b) 
     of that section: Provided, That such payments shall be made 
     from funds available to the Department of the Navy for 
     operation and maintenance.
       Sec. 8083. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the 
     provisions of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g) for occupations listed in 38 
     U.S.C. 7403(a)(2) as well as the following:
       Pharmacists, Audiologists, and Dental Hygienists.
       (A) The requirements of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(A) shall 
     apply.
       (B) The limitations of 38 U.S.C. 7403(g)(1)(B) shall not 
     apply.
       Sec. 8084. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 8085. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     initiate a new start program without prior written 
     notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8086. The amounts appropriated in title II of this Act 
     are hereby reduced by $250,000,000 to reflect cash balance 
     and rate stabilization adjustments in Department of Defense 
     Working Capital Funds, as follows:
       (1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $107,000,000.
       (2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', 
     $143,000,000.
       Sec. 8087. (a) In addition to the amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $6,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made 
     available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant 
     in the amount of $6,000,000 to the entity specified in 
     subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to 
     opportunities for skilled employment in the construction 
     industry.
       (b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center 
     for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment, 
     a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided 
     for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth 
     in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 
     1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
       Sec. 8088. Financing and Fielding of Key Army 
     Capabilities.--The Department of Defense and the Department 
     of the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans 
     to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon 
     and resupply vehicle program (NLOS-C) in order to field this 
     system in fiscal year 2010, consistent with the broader plan 
     to field the Future Combat System (FCS) in fiscal year 2010: 
     Provided, That if the Army is precluded from fielding the FCS 
     program by fiscal year 2010, then the Army shall develop the 
     NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS development timeline to 
     achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. In addition the Army 
     will deliver eight (8) combat operational pre-production 
     NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 2008. These 
     systems shall be in addition to those systems necessary for 
     developmental and operational testing: Provided further, That 
     the Army shall ensure that budgetary and programmatic plans 
     will provide for no fewer than seven (7) Stryker Brigade 
     Combat Teams.
       Sec. 8089. In addition to the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $14,400,000 
     is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall make grants in the amounts 
     specified as follows: $4,500,000 to the Intrepid Sea-Air-
     Space Foundation; $1,000,000 to the Pentagon Memorial Fund, 
     Inc.; $4,400,000 to the Center for Applied Science and 
     Technologies at Jordan Valley Innovation Center; $1,000,000 
     to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund for the Teach Vietnam 
     initiative; $500,000 for the Westchester County World Trade 
     Center Memorial; $1,000,000 for the Women in Military Service 
     for America Memorial Foundation; and $2,000,000 to the 
     Presidio Trust.
       Sec. 8090. None of the funds appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer 
     Account'' may be transferred or obligated for Department of 
     Defense expenses not directly related to the conduct of 
     overseas contingencies: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the 
     end of each fiscal quarter to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives 
     that details any transfer of funds from the ``Overseas 
     Contingency Operations Transfer Account'': Provided further, 
     That the report shall explain any transfer for the 
     maintenance of real property, pay of civilian personnel, base 
     operations support, and weapon, vehicle or equipment 
     maintenance.
       Sec. 8091. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the 1 
     percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8092. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2007 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 
     31, United States Code shall include separate budget 
     justification documents for costs of United States Armed 
     Forces' participation in contingency operations for the 
     Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance 
     accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these 
     documents shall include a description of the funding 
     requested for each contingency operation, for each military 
     service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and 
     for each appropriations account: Provided further, That

[[Page 13226]]

     these documents shall include estimated costs for each 
     element of expense or object class, a reconciliation of 
     increases and decreases for each contingency operation, and 
     programmatic data including, but not limited to, troop 
     strength for each Active and Reserve component, and estimates 
     of the major weapons systems deployed in support of each 
     contingency: Provided further, That these documents shall 
     include budget exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the 
     Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation) for 
     all contingency operations for the budget year and the two 
     preceding fiscal years.
       Sec. 8093. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or 
     deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense 
     system.
       Sec. 8094. Of the amounts provided in title II of this Act 
     under the heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
     Wide'', $20,000,000 is available for the Regional Defense 
     Counter-terrorism Fellowship Program, to fund the education 
     and training of foreign military officers, ministry of 
     defense civilians, and other foreign security officials, to 
     include United States military officers and civilian 
     officials whose participation directly contributes to the 
     education and training of these foreign students.
       Sec. 8095. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd 
     Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in 
     support of national defense requirements during the non-
     hurricane season.
       Sec. 8096. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for integration of foreign intelligence information 
     unless the information has been lawfully collected and 
     processed during the conduct of authorized foreign 
     intelligence activities: Provided, That information 
     pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in 
     accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment 
     of the United States Constitution as implemented through 
     Executive Order No. 12333.
       Sec. 8097. (a) From within amounts made available in title 
     II of this Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'' $4,500,000 is only for an additional amount for the 
     project for which funds were appropriated in section 8103 of 
     Public Law 106-79, for the same purposes, which shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That no funds in this or 
     any other Act, nor non-appropriated funds, may be used to 
     operate recreational facilities (such as the officers club, 
     golf course, or bowling alleys) at Ft. Irwin, California, if 
     such facilities provide services to Army officers of the 
     grade O-7 or higher, until such time as the project in the 
     previous proviso has been fully completed.
       (b) From within amounts made available in title II of this 
     Act under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine 
     Corps'', the Secretary of the Navy shall make a grant in the 
     amount of $2,000,000, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, to the City of Twentynine Palms, California, for the 
     widening of off-base Adobe Road, which is used by members of 
     the Marine Corps stationed at the Marine Corps Air Ground 
     Task Force Training Center, Twentynine Palms, California, and 
     their dependents, and for construction of pedestrian and bike 
     lanes for the road, to provide for the safety of the Marines 
     stationed at the installation.
       Sec. 8098. (a) At the time members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under 
     section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member 
     shall be notified in writing of the expected period during 
     which the member will be mobilized.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national 
     security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements 
     of the Armed Forces.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8099. The Secretary of the Navy may transfer funds 
     from any available Department of the Navy appropriation to 
     any available Navy ship construction appropriation for the 
     purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from 
     inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any 
     ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That 
     the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under 
     the authority provided by this section: Provided further, 
     That the funding transferred shall be available for the same 
     time period as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may not transfer any 
     funds until 30 days after the proposed transfer has been 
     reported to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, unless sooner notified by the 
     Committees that there is no objection to the proposed 
     transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided by this section is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority contained elsewhere in this Act.
       Sec. 8100. (a) The total amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $147,000,000 to limit excessive growth in the travel and 
     transportation of persons.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction 
     proportionately to each budget activity, activity group, 
     subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity 
     within each applicable appropriation account.
       Sec. 8101. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act, a reduction of $176,500,000 is hereby 
     taken from title III, Procurement, from the following 
     accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Missile Procurement, Army'', $9,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army'', $112,500,000; and
       ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', $55,000,000:
       Provided: That within 30 days of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations and 
     the Senate Committee on Appropriations which describes the 
     application of these reductions to programs, projects or 
     activities within these accounts.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8102. (a) Three-Year Extension.--During the current 
     fiscal year and each of fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer not more than $20,000,000 
     of unobligated balances remaining in the expiring RDT&E, 
     Army, appropriation account to a current Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, appropriation account 
     to be used only for the continuation of the Army Venture 
     Capital Fund demonstration.
       (b) Expiring RDT&E, Army, Account.--For purposes of this 
     section, for any fiscal year, the expiring RDT&E, Army, 
     account is the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Army, appropriation account that is then in its last fiscal 
     year of availability for obligation before the account closes 
     under section 1552 of title 31, United States Code.
       (c) Army Venture Capital Fund Demonstration.--For purposes 
     of this section, the Army Venture Capital Fund demonstration 
     is the program for which funds were initially provided in 
     section 8150 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
     2002 (division A of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2281), as 
     extended and revised in section 8105 of Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 107-248; 116 Stat. 
     1562).
       (d) Administrative Provisions.--The provisos in section 
     8105 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003 
     (Public Law 107-248; 116 Stat. 1562), shall apply with 
     respect to amounts transferred under this section in the same 
     manner as to amounts transferred under that section.

                  TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $5,877,400,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $282,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $667,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $982,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
     $138,755,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $67,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this

[[Page 13227]]

     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $20,398,450,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $1,907,800,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $1,827,150,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $3,559,900,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $826,000,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                           Iraq Freedom Fund


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       For an additional amount for ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', 
     $3,500,000,000, to remain available for transfer until 
     September 30, 2007, only to support operations in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan and classified activities: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein 
     to appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
     maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; 
     procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; and 
     working capital funds: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided under this heading, not less than $2,500,000,000 
     shall be for classified programs, which shall be in addition 
     to amounts provided for elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority available to the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all 
     or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are 
     not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts 
     may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 
     5 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation, 
     notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the 
     details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall submit a report no later than 30 days after 
     the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense 
     committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds 
     from this appropriation: Provided further, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army Reserve'', $35,700,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps Reserve'', $23,950,000: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $159,500,000: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                              PROCUREMENT

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $455,427,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $13,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading 
     is designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $1,501,270,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: 
     Provided, That of the amount provided in this paragraph, not 
     less than $200,370,000 shall be available only for the Army 
     Reserve: Provided further, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $81,696,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: 
     Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is 
     designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $144,721,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $48,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: 
     Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is 
     designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $389,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: 
     Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is 
     designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $115,300,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $2,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008: Provided, That the amount provided under this heading 
     is designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $103,900,000, to remain

[[Page 13228]]

     available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Navy'', $13,100,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $75,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations related to the 
     global war on terrorism pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2006.

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $2,055,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                      GENERAL PROVISIONS, TITLE IX

       Sec. 9001. Appropriations provided in this title are 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2006, unless 
     otherwise so provided in this title.
       Sec. 9002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, funds made available in this title are in addition 
     to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 9003. Upon his determination that such action is 
     necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense 
     may transfer between appropriations up to $2,500,000,000 of 
     the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this 
     title: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress 
     promptly of each transfer made pursuant to the authority in 
     this section: Provided further, That the authority provided 
     in this section is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense and is 
     subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority 
     provided in section 8005 of this Act: Provided further, That 
     the amounts transferred under the authority of this section 
     are designated as making appropriations for contingency 
     operations related to the global war on terrorism pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 9004. Funds appropriated in this title, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this 
     title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
     specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414) during fiscal year 2006 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 9005. None of the funds provided in this title may be 
     used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in 
     fiscal years 2005 or 2006 appropriations to the Department of 
     Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, 
     development, test and evaluation new start program without 
     prior written notification to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       Sec. 9006. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from 
     funds made available in this title to the Department of 
     Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed 
     $500,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with 
     the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to train, equip 
     and provide related assistance only to military or security 
     forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to enhance their capability to 
     combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such assistance may 
     include the provision of equipment, supplies, services, 
     training, and funding: Provided further, That the authority 
     to provide assistance under this section is in addition to 
     any other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the congressional defense committees, the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives, and 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate not less 
     than 15 days before providing assistance under the authority 
     of this section.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 112, line 
19, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we are in 
title 8 right now; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I had an amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the desk I believe 
under title 8. I just wanted to make sure that that will not be lost in 
this UC.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of that 
amendment. We do not have a copy. We are not aware that the gentleman 
has an amendment. We can change our request if he would provide us with 
a copy of the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that there is 
the amendment at the desk regarding space-based weapons under title 8.
  Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed by the Parliamentarian that 
if the UC goes through, I can still seek recognition, so I will 
withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 112, beginning on line 2, strike ``from funds made 
     available in this title to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be 
     used'' and insert ``funds made available in this title to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance may be 
     used''.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It lists the 
cap that is presently written into the bill to limit the amount of 
money that we would commit to the training and equipping of the Iraqi 
securities forces, to limit that to $500 million.
  I hope that we are united in the belief that the way to bring our 
troops home is to fulfill the training and equipping of the Iraqi 
security forces so that they can become responsible for Iraq's destiny 
and our troops can coming home in dignity and as quickly as possible.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the 
gentleman that we think this is a good amendment, and it certainly is 
consistent with the conversation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) and I have both had with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee), and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close briefly by saying this is an important 
amendment. I appreciate the Chair's acceptance of it. We hope that the 
administration does listen to the voices in Congress that are basically 
saying if we can train one more trainer one day earlier, we should do 
so; if we can provide one more piece of equipment for the Iraqi 
security forces one day earlier, we should do so; if we can employ one 
more interpreter so that these folks can be trained earlier, we should 
do so. This amendment will hasten that. I hope the administration will 
bear heed on that, and that General Patrais is successful.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my 
colleague Mr. Inslee's amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill, 
which lifts the $500 million cap on funds within the Iraq Freedom Fund 
for training the Iraqi National Army. Earlier in this debate I offered 
and withdrew an amendment that would have increased funding for 
training the Iraqi National Army by an additional $500 million. This 
Amendment would have doubled

[[Page 13229]]

the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army 
within the Iraq Freedom Fund. If Mr. Inslee's amendment is accepted 
into this Appropriation, I will work with Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Murtha to insure that additional funds are appropriated for 
training the Iraqi National Army.
  The Inslee amendment reinforces the point that the best way to get 
U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take care of 
their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only train these 
inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to pay troops 
to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they face. At 
this time of danger for our troops, this Amendment reiterates the fact 
that we need to be transferring more responsiblity upon the Iraqis to 
take care of their nation and develop a plan to remove our U.S. troops.
  Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who 
were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this 
very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military 
base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly, 
this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very 
much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi 
National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their 
people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi 
National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds 
too simple, but the truth is we have no other solution, that is unless 
you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. There is an 
old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the best way to 
maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National Army 
supplementing the heroic effort of our troops.
  Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and their mission is 
not getting any easier. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans 
including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this 
War in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action. We 
must move to the obvious solution, that the Iraqi National Army must 
soon take over their own nation and provide for the protection of their 
people. Therefore, I reiterate my strong support for the Inslee 
Amendment and the appropriation of additional funding to train the 
Iraqi National Army. Our troops should be able to return home with an 
exit strategy of success.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 99, after line 4, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 8103. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as 
     the ``Space Preservation Act of 2005''.
       (b) Reaffirmation of Policy on the Preservation of Peace in 
     Space.--Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 
     102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 
     U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it ``is the policy of the 
     United States that activities in space should be devoted to 
     peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''.
       (c) Ban on Basing of Weapons in Space and the Use of 
     Weapons Against Objects in Space in Orbit.--The President 
     shall--
       (1) implement a ban on space-based weapons of the United 
     States and the use of weapons of the United States to destroy 
     or damage objects in space that are in orbit; and
       (2) immediately order the termination of research and 
     development, testing, manufacturing, production, and 
     deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States.
       (d) International Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons and 
     the Use of Weapons Against Objects in Space in Orbit.--The 
     President shall direct the United States representatives to 
     the United Nations and other international organizations to 
     immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and 
     implementing an international treaty banning space-based 
     weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects 
     in space that are in orbit.
       (e) Report.--The President shall submit to Congress not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and every 6 months thereafter, a report on--
       (1) the implementation of the ban on space-based weapons 
     and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space 
     that are in orbit required by subsection (c); and
       (2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing 
     the treaty described in subsection (d).
       (f) Space-Based Nonweapons Activities.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds 
     for--
       (1) space exploration;
       (2) space research and development;
       (3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not 
     related to space-based weapons or systems; or
       (4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including 
     communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, 
     early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to 
     space-based weapons or systems.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``space'' means all space extending upward 
     from an altitude greater than 110 kilometers above the 
     surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.
       (2) The terms ``space-based weapon'' and ``space-based 
     system'' mean a device capable of damaging or destroying an 
     object or person (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, 
     or on Earth) by--
       (A) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that 
     object or person;
       (B) detonating one or more explosive devices in close 
     proximity to that object or person; or
       (C) any other undeveloped means.

  Mr. KUCINICH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the defense 
appropriations bill would make a policy statement regarding the 
preservation of peace in space. It would ban the research, testing, 
development, and deployment of space-based weapons. It would ban the 
targeting of objects in orbit in space, that is, satellites, by any 
weapon, whether land, sea, air or space-based and would call on the 
President to negotiate an international treaty banning space-based 
weapons.
  The policy of preserving peace in space was first established by law 
in 1958 with the National Aeronautics and Space Act. Specifically, this 
law stated: ``It is the policy of the United States that activities in 
space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all 
mankind.''
  Yet despite any amendment to law or consideration by Congress, this 
policy has changed significantly behind closed doors. The Air Force is 
moving forward with a plan to weaponize space. At an Air Force 
conference last September, Air Force General Lance Lord, who leads the 
Air Force Space Command, said, ``Space superiority is not our 
birthright, but it is our destiny. Space superiority is our day-to-day 
mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.''
  With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of 
dollars through appropriations bills such as this one to developing 
space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. The Air Force has 
recently sought President Bush's approval of a national security 
directive that could move the United States closer to fielding 
offensive and defensive space weapons. This new policy would be opposed 
by our friends and our potential enemies.
  Our largest possible adversaries, China and Russia, have agreed for a 
global ban on space weapons. Yet moving forward with plans to weaponize 
space would most certainly create an arms race in space, and it would 
certainly be counterproductive to the national security of the United 
States to give potential adversaries reason to accelerate development 
of space weapons technology.
  Again, I ask this Congress to remember that in 1958 when the National 
Aeronautics and Space Act was passed, it stated that: ``It is the 
policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted 
to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.''
  That was a good act in 1958, and it would be good for this Congress 
to preserve that policy, and that is the intention of this amendment.
  At this point, understanding the rules, I will concede to the 
gentleman from Florida the point of order that he raised.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Government Reform 
Subcommittee on National Security, which I chair, has held 17 hearings 
on Gulf War veterans' illnesses. Over the last decade, we've followed 
the hard path traveled by sick Gulf War veterans as they bore the 
burdens of their physical illnesses and the mental anguish caused by 
official skepticism and intransigence.

[[Page 13230]]

  It was their determination that overcame entrenched indifference and 
bureaucratic inertia. Their persistence, and a home video of chemical 
weapons munitions being blown up at Khamisiyah eventually persuaded the 
Departments of Defense and VA that post-war illnesses are linked to 
wartime exposures.
  But characterizing the subtle linkage between low-level toxic 
assaults and varied chronic health consequences remains a complex 
research challenge. The objective markers of physiological damage are 
only now coming into view using techiques and technologies not 
available ten years ago, when some were so willing to conclude Gulf War 
veterans' illnesses were nothing more than stress. But promising 
research hypotheses and treatment concepts still face institutional 
obstacles to federal support as both funding and momentum behind Gulf 
War illnesses research have been waning.
  This amendment allows us to capture the emerging breakthroughs 
purchased with $315 million in DOD and VA research investments over the 
past decade. This would build on last year's appropriation of $3.7 
million for extramural, peer-reiewed research to address the chronic 
illnesses affecting veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. The research focuses 
on the chronic effects of neurotoxic exposures, underlying mechanisms, 
identified neurological abnormalities, and the identification of 
treatments.
  The battlefield is a dangerous and toxic workplace. The veterans of 
the 1991 war, those on the field of battle today and those we deploy in 
the future will benefit from this research into the diagnosis and 
treatment of the health consequnces of toxic exposures.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on my reservation, I make a point 
of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing 
law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, 
therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will concede the 
point of order, and I thank the gentleman and the ranking member for 
this opportunity to make this statement regarding my concern about 
peaceful uses in space.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) concedes the 
point of order.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Are there any other amendments to this portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 9007. (a) Fiscal Year 2006 Authority.--During the 
     current fiscal year, from funds made available to the 
     Department of Defense for operation and maintenance pursuant 
     to title IX, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be used by the 
     Secretary of Defense to provide funds--
       (1) for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program 
     established by the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional 
     Authority for the purpose of enabling United States military 
     commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent humanitarian relief 
     and reconstruction requirements within their areas of 
     responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately 
     assist the Iraqi people; and
       (2) for a similar program to assist the people of 
     Afghanistan.
       (b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     regarding the source of funds and the allocation and use of 
     funds during that quarter that were made available pursuant 
     to the authority provided in this section or under any other 
     provision of law for the purposes stated in subsection (a).
       (c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds authorized for the 
     Commanders' Emergency Response Program by this section may 
     not be used to provide goods, services, or funds to national 
     armies, national guard forces, border security forces, civil 
     defense forces, infrastucture protection forces, highway 
     patrol units, police, special police, or intelligence or 
     other security forces.
       (d) Secretary of Defense Guidance.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall issue to the commander of the United States 
     Central Command detailed guidance concerning the types of 
     activities for which United States military commanders in 
     Iraq may use funds under the Commanders' Emergency Response 
     Program to respond to urgent relief and reconstruction 
     requirements and the terms under which such funds may be 
     expended. The Secretary shall simultaneously provide a copy 
     of that guidance to the congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 9008. During the current fiscal year, funds available 
     to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance 
     may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 
     provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift 
     and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces 
     supporting military and stability operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense 
     committees regarding support provided under this section.
       Sec. 9009. Congress, consistent with international and 
     United States law, reaffirms that torture of prisoners of war 
     and detainees is illegal and does not reflect the policies of 
     the United States Government or the values of the people of 
     the United States.
       Sec. 9010. The reporting requirements of section 9010 of 
     Public Law 108-287 regarding the military operations of the 
     Armed Forces and the reconstruction activities of the 
     Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan shall apply to 
     the funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 9011. The Secretary of Defense may present promotional 
     materials, including a United States flag, to any member of 
     an Active or Reserve component under the Secretary's 
     jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary, 
     participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom.
       Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning 
     Inappropriate Proselytizing of United States Air Force 
     Academy Cadets.--
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome 
     in the United States military, but coercive and abusive 
     religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force 
     Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and 
     others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been 
     reported is inconsistent with the professionalism and 
     standards required of those who serve at the Academy;
       (2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all 
     faiths and backgrounds; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate 
     civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
     and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to 
     undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and 
     remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air 
     Force Academy.
       (b) Report on Plan.--
       (1) Plan.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a 
     plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate 
     free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate 
     proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-
     of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work 
     with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area 
     of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report providing the plan 
     developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall 
     include in the report information on the circumstances 
     surrounding the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton 
     from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter:
       Strike section 9012 (page 115, line 14, through page 117, 
     line 5) and insert the following:
       Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning 
     Religious Freedom and Tolerance at United States Air Force 
     Academy.--
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome 
     in the United States military;
       (2) the military must be a place where there is freedom for 
     religious expression for all faiths; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Air Force and the Department of 
     Defense Inspector General have undertaken several reviews of 
     the issues of religious tolerance at the Air Force Academy.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) Recommendations.--The Secretary of the Air Force, based 
     upon the reviews referred in subsection (a)(3), shall develop 
     recommendations to maintain a positive climate of religious 
     freedom and tolerance at the United States Air Force Academy.
       (2) Secretary of air force report.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     providing the recommendations developed pursuant to paragraph 
     (1).


[[Page 13231]]

  Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to section 9012 as it is 
currently written and a number of other members of the Committee on 
Armed Services are opposed to them as well, and you will hear from them 
in the ensuing minutes here.
  We were informed that we had the right to assert that this was, in 
fact, authorizing on an appropriations bill and to ask the Committee on 
Rules, which we initially did, to not protect this provision and allow 
it to be stricken. But I was informed by the chairman of the full 
committee that this was an important issue for members of the minority 
on the Committee on Appropriations, and they wanted to have a 
discussion. And our Members agreed with that. So I think we will have a 
full discussion of this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will require the Defense Department to 
provide Congress with recommendations on maintaining a climate of 
religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy. The amendment 
also expresses a sense of Congress that personal expressions of faith, 
that is, all faiths, are welcome in the United States military.
  My objection to section 9012 is that the section concludes based on 
newspaper accounts that officers assigned to duty at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy and others in the chain of command are engaged in ``abusive and 
coercive religious proselytizing'' based on reports.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, Members may have read press accounts regarding issues 
of religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy.
  What may not be known is that many of the allegations reported by the 
press were first discovered by the Air Force through internal surveys. 
In response, the Academy superintendent has been quite open that there 
have been instances where respect for others has been lacking. He also 
suggested that Academy practices and processes may also have 
contributed to the appearance of a lack of respect for members of 
minority religious traditions.
  Overall, the Air Force has taken aggressive action on these important 
issues of religious freedom and tolerant at the Academy, and the 
Secretary to the Air Force detailed those actions to me in a June 7 
letter which I would like to submit for the Record at this point.


                                   Secretary of the Air Force,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The media contains a steady flow of 
     stories decrying religious intolerance at the United States 
     Air Force Academy (USAFA). In late Spring 2004, the 
     Superintendent of the Academy, Lt Gen John Rosa, detected 
     religious tolerance concerns through surveys he initiated. He 
     subsequently brought the issue--and the corrective measures 
     he was taking--to the attention of the Academy's Board of 
     Visitors and the Air Force leadership. Together, we have been 
     addressing the issue openly for the past several months.
       As of today, the Academy's Board of Visitors has looked at 
     this situation during three separate meetings. They will do 
     so again this summer. In addition to the Board's inquiries, I 
     have deployed four separate teams from the Pentagon to 
     address one or another aspect of the Academy climate for 
     religious tolerance. The first team, led by the Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, visited the 
     Academy last fall and assisted Lt Gen Rosa in scoping the 
     problem and designing a campaign to correct the situation. 
     The second visited USAFA last month and is led by Deputy 
     Chief of Staff for Personnel, Lt Gen Roger Brady. This team 
     is in the final stages of assessment of the Academy climate, 
     leadership practices, and the corrective actions that should 
     be initiated. Specific allegations of improper conduct 
     against the Commandant of Cadets, Brig Gen John Weida, are 
     being separately examined by the Office of the Air Force 
     Inspector General. Last week, the DoD Inspector General 
     began--at my request--an inquiry to determine whether Air 
     Force reassignment of Chaplain (Capt) Melinda Morton was 
     handled properly. Please note that the visit to the Academy 
     in July 2004 by a group of Yale Divinity School students and 
     an Associate Professor of Counseling was not part of our 
     assessment or corrective measures, and did not focus on the 
     religious tolerance issue. Nevertheless, we have reviewed and 
     considered the submission of that group in connection with 
     our on-going reviews. Finally, this week, a group from the 
     National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces (NCMAF) 
     is also visiting USAFA at my request to provide an external 
     look by a private organization of religious leaders who 
     understand the military in a pluralistic society, and who 
     represent their faith group communities to the military.
       Thus far, results indicate--and the Academy Superintendent 
     continues to openly acknowledge--there have been instances 
     where respect has been lacking. Academy practices and 
     processes may also have contributed to the appearance of a 
     lack of respect for members of minority religious traditions. 
     The multiple reviews I have asked for, together with 
     aggressive leadership action, will help us correct Academy 
     climate and culture.
       Recently, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General John 
     Jumper, in a written communication, reminded all Air Force 
     commanders of their responsibilities for establishing a 
     climate and culture that promotes respect for individual 
     beliefs. This message reemphasized the importance of respect 
     and its role as the foundation of our core values. In 
     constructing his message, General Jumper used the lessons we 
     have already learned from our work with the Academy 
     leadership team. As our work at USAFA progresses, we will 
     continue to incorporate lessons learned into actions that 
     will help us reinforce the culture of respect throughout the 
     Air Force.
       Air Force and Academy leadership are deeply engaged in the 
     question of respect for individual beliefs. As this work 
     progresses, our work--and critics of that work--will generate 
     news stories. I ask that you reserve your opinions on this 
     matter until I can get to ground truth through the objective 
     processes now on going. The Inspectors General and Lt Gen 
     Brady's team, including consideration of the NCMAF external 
     assessment, will report back to me within the next few weeks. 
     These results will provide a factual basis for deciding what 
     further actions may need to be taken. Completing these 
     reviews quickly and consulting with the Secretary of Defense, 
     Congress and the Academy Board of Visitors regarding next 
     steps is my highest priority.
           Sincerely,
                                             Michael L. Dominguez,
                                Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

  Mr. HUNTER. Based on cadet surveys administered in late spring 2004 
suggesting religious tolerance concerns, the Air Force Academy 
superintendent took a number of corrective actions, including a 
training and education program for cadets and faculty to develop 
respect for the diversity of faiths represented at the Academy.
  He brought the issues to the attention of the Academy's Board of 
Visitors, and accordingly, the Air Force leadership continues to work 
with the board to address these issues.
  He sent a team led by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for equal 
opportunity to the Academy in the fall of 2004 to design a campaign to 
assist Academy leadership in addressing the issues.
  Last month, the Air Force deputy chief of staff took another team to 
the Academy to assess Academy climate, leadership practices and 
corrective actions that should be taken.
  The facts are, and I could go down through the office of the 
Inspector General, DOD Inspector General, at the request of the 
Secretary of the Air Force, is conducting a review of the reassignment 
of Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton.
  A group from the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces 
visited the Academy last week to provide an external look by a private 
organization of religious leaders, and Mr. Chairman, I could go on and 
on.
  My point is this, there are a number of reviews that are ongoing 
right now at the Academy, and in this letter that Acting Secretary of 
the Air Force, Secretary Michael Dominguez, sent to me, I think the 
crux of our amendment is laid out and I think justifies. He talks about 
the work that is ongoing to make sure that the Academy has religious 
freedom and religious tolerance. He says, As this work progresses, and 
I am quoting the Secretary, our work and critics of that work will 
generate news stories. It was a news story that generated this base 
provision that is in the bill. I ask that you reserve your

[[Page 13232]]

opinions on this matter until I can get to ground truth through the 
objective processes now ongoing.
  That is what he asks for. He has got lots of reviews, and what we say 
is, we reestablish, revalidate that there should be both freedom of 
religion and religious tolerance, and we set a date for a report to 
come back after the reviews are done, for the Secretary of the Air 
Force to report back to us with the reviews and with recommendations.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot forget the last time we landed in 
Bailad, Iraq, and I was with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and 
we had a couple of mortar rounds come into the base. The CO said, 
Quick, get into this building, and we hustled into the nearest 
building. It turned out to be 400 GIs who were undertaking a religious 
service. I do not know if it was official or unofficial. I do know they 
had quite a service going, and we, Congressmen, were forced to actually 
go to church I guess because those mortar rounds were coming in. We 
could not leave until it was over.
  The word ``proselytizing'' could possibly be applied to what they 
were doing in that battleground in Iraq. I have always thought that 
when I argue religion I am making reasoned judgments and the other guy 
is proselytizing, and the problem is with that word. With establishing 
that as a standard, that people in uniform have to adhere to, the 
average person in uniform is going to say, what does proselytizing 
mean? Am I proselytizing, and if they are not sure whether or not their 
statement is proselytizing, you know what they are going to do? They 
are not going to say anything, and we are going to put a chill on what 
we have heretofore for our entire history welcomed, and that is, 
expression of religious views by our uniformed personnel.
  I would hope that Members and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
in the spirit of this debate would accept this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the language of the committee amendment does nothing 
whatsoever to discourage proselytizing. What it does is make clear that 
the Congress of the United States is opposed to coercive and abusive 
proselytizing. I think it would be good to go back and look at the 
history of this problem.
  The LA Times broke the story about disrespectful treatment of cadets 
based on religious affiliation on April 20. On June 3, Lieutenant 
General John Rosa, who is the superintendent of the Academy, in a 
speech to the Anti-Defamation League, acknowledged that the Academy has 
a problem with religious intolerance. He called it insidious and said 
it could take 6 years to fix.
  He described two Academy-wide e-mails that were sent out by another 
high-ranking officer, which he described as ``inappropriate.'' He 
described other later events that involved religious pressures and 
said, ``They were wrong.''
  Academy officials have said that they have received 55 complaints 
from cadets on this problem. Academy spokesman John Whitaker said, 
``There have been cases of maliciousness, mean-spiritedness and 
attacking or baiting someone over religion.''
  No one is objecting to anyone trying to talk about religion. What 
they are objecting to is the malicious and mean-spirited attacking of 
other people for the religious views that they do or do not hold.
  The Air Force officials said they got an inkling of the problem after 
reading the results of a student survey last May. Many cadets expressed 
concern over the lack of religious respect and tolerance. This comes on 
top of revelations 2 years ago of a scandal when dozens of female 
cadets said that their complaints about sexual assaults were ignored.
  Mr. Whitaker, the spokesman for the Academy, forthrightly said that 
it was insensitivity and ignorance on the part of people who are, 
``going into a diverse Air Force where they are going to have to deal 
with people of all faiths.''
  Mickey Weinstein, a father of one of the cadets, who himself was a 
lawyer and an Academy graduate, described the harassment that his son 
had undergone and said, ``I love the Academy, but do you know how much 
courage it took for these cadets to come forward?''
  Another person who did not want to be identified because of fear of 
retaliation said, ``Cadets are given the impression they must embrace 
the beliefs of their commanders in order to succeed at the Academy.''
  Chaplain Melinda Morton described the problem as systemic, and she 
said that she had spoken up about the problem because, ``It is in the 
Constitution, it is not just a nice rule that you can follow or not 
follow.'' Then she said, ``I realize this is the end of my Air Force 
Academy career.''
  My problem with the amendment that is being proposed by the gentleman 
is not what it says. My problem with the gentleman's amendment is what 
it takes out of the original committee language.
  It removes the language that puts the Congress foresquare in the 
position of saying that coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at 
the Academy is over the line and is inconsistent with professional 
standards required of those who serve at the Academy.
  It eliminates the requirements for corrective action by the Academy 
in the Air Force.
  Thirdly, it removes the requirement for a plan to develop an 
atmosphere that is free of religious coercion at the Academy.
  Fourth, it removes the requirement in the committee language which 
asks for an investigation and a report by the Air Force on the 
circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Chaplain Melinda Morton, who 
is the person who blew the whistle on this in the first place.
  I do not think the Congress wants to go on record as taking out all 
of that language, which is what the gentleman's amendment would do.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Chairman 
Hunter's amendment upholding religious freedom at the United States Air 
Force Academy. Protecting the religious freedom of our military cadets 
and service members is critically important to me, and should be 
critically important to this Congress.
  During full committee consideration of the Defense Appropriations 
bill, Ranking Member Obey inserted a provision condemning the Air 
Force, the Air Force Academy and its Cadets. The allegations on which 
this provision is based have not been substantiated by any credible 
source. They are simply rumors advanced by a very few disgruntled 
individuals.
  Nonetheless, the Air Force has taken these allegations very seriously 
since they were made in late April. First, the Academy established a 
new mandatory course to encourage respect for all religions. Second, 
the Air Force launched several investigations. These investigations are 
still ongoing and a report is expected shortly. The task force charged 
with looking into these allegations has been directed to assess:
  (1) Air Force and USAFA policy and guidance on the subject of 
religious respect and tolerance.
  (2) The appropriateness of relevant training, for the cadet wing, 
faculty, and staff.
  (3) The religious climate and assessment tools used at USAFA.
  (4) The effectiveness of USAFA mechanisms to address complaints on 
this subject, to include the chain of command, the Academy's Inspector 
General and the Military Equal Opportunity office.
  (5) The practices of the chain of command, faculty, staff or cadet 
wing that either enhance or detract from a climate that respects both 
the ``free exercise of religion'' and the ``establishment'' clauses of 
the First Amendment.
  (6) The relevance of the religious climate at the USAFA to the entire 
Air Force.
  Additionally, the Task Force's final assessment will include an Air 
Force Inspector General report on the removal of Air Force Captain 
Melinda Morton from her position at the Academy.
  The Air Force has made progress to ensure that no one feels pressure 
from religious groups, and is continuing these efforts. This final 
report should be released in the next couple of weeks. I have full 
confidence that this report will provide a thorough and complete report 
as to the truth of these rumors.
  Congress must reserve judgment until all of the facts are revealed. 
The Air Force has yet to tell its side of the story. Until they do, we 
do not know what actually happened in Colorado Springs. For this House 
to condemn the Air Force and the Academy at this time, before all the 
information is available, is wrong.

[[Page 13233]]

This provision simply has no place in an otherwise tremendous bill.
  The Obey provision is all the more disappointing because men and 
women in our Nation's Air Force have sacrificed immeasurable blood and 
treasure to protect the principles of freedom and liberty. Today, we 
are engaged in a global war on terrorism--aimed directly at our 
Nation's democracy and core values. Our young men and women are 
fighting and dying for these freedoms. It is wrong for Congress to chip 
away at the very freedoms these heroes are shedding their own blood to 
protect.
  When a young man or woman stands up to fight for this country, he or 
she does not surrender his or her Constitutional rights. The men and 
women of our military have the right to freely practice their religion, 
and Congress has a solemn duty to fight to protect their rights.
  I would ask my colleagues to join me in support of Chairman Hunter's 
amendment. The Obey provision is wrong. It is bad policy, and it is 
misguided, and it is inappropriate. Congress should wait to act until 
we have all the facts. Please stand up for the Air Force, the Academy, 
the Cadets, and the First Amendment that guarantees every American the 
freedom of religion. Vote to the Hunter Amendment.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Hunter:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 9012. Sense of Congress and Report Concerning 
     Inappropriate Proselytizing of United States Air Force 
     Academy Cadets.
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome 
     in the United States military, but coercive and abusive 
     religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force 
     Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and 
     others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been 
     reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and 
     standards required of those who serve at the Academy;
       (2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all 
     faiths and backgrounds; and
       (3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate 
     civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
     and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to 
     undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and 
     remedy any inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air 
     Force Academy that may have occurred.
       (b) Report on Plan.--
       (1) Plan.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a 
     plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate 
     free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate 
     proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-
     of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work 
     with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area 
     of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report providing the plan 
     developed pursuant to paragraph (1). The Secretary shall 
     include in the report information on the circumstances 
     surrounding the removal of Air Force Captain Melinda Morton 
     from her position at the Air Force Academy on May 4, 2005.''

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what this perfecting amendment does is to 
restore with some minor changes the basic thrust of the committee 
language. Let me explain why I do this.
  Two weeks ago, I appointed a young man to the Air Force Academy. One 
week later, he was killed by a drunken driver. Now, if that young man 
had been fortunate enough to live so that he could have gone to the 
Academy, I would want his parents, his family and his community, to 
know that the Academy that he was going to is one which will allow him 
to practice whatever religion he believed, without any kind of 
coercion, either from other cadets or from anyone in the chain of 
command at the Academy. I do not think that is too much to expect.
  I understand the gentleman from California is unhappy because he 
considers this to be an authorizing issue. Well, the fact is the 
authorizing committee had an opportunity to deal with similar language, 
not identical but similar language, when they considered the 
authorization bill, and they declined to do so. That means that each 
and every one of us as individual members of this place has 
jurisdiction on this matter because we all appoint cadets to the 
Academy, and we have an obligation to those cadets to tell them, 
whether they are Catholic or Lutheran or any kind of Protestant 
denomination or Jewish or Muslim or even if they are of no religion, we 
have an obligation to assure them that they are going to be going to an 
Academy that is free from any kind of coercion, free from any kind of 
ridicule.
  That is what this language does. This language in the committee bill 
which would be modified only slightly by the amendment I have just 
offered, this language maintains the integrity of the thrust of the 
language of the original committee action.

                              {time}  1530

  The purpose of this language is not to accuse any individual person. 
We do not in any way prejudge any individual action. All we do is to 
say that the activities which have already been described and admitted 
by the academy as having occurred, all we are saying is that conduct is 
inappropriate to the military. That conduct is not something that the 
Congress of the United States will stand for.
  If Members believe in religious freedom, they have an obligation to 
stand foursquare for sending a message that we want this problem 
corrected. If Members turn down this language and adopt the Hunter 
language, you are removing the language which makes clear that the 
Congress finds that kind of intimidation objectionable, and you are 
removing the kind of language which will require a report to us about 
the circumstances surrounding the courageous chaplain who sacrificed 
her military career to blow the whistle on this.
  She said she knew when she blew the whistle on it she was ending her 
military career. This Congress has an obligation to see that does not 
happen.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the text of the Obey amendment, and it 
is essentially a restatement of the base language. It has the same 
problem that I spoke about earlier, and that is this: the Secretary of 
the Air Force is undergoing a number of reviews. He is investigating 
this situation, but as he says, he has not gotten to ground truth on 
this thing yet. Yet this amendment is the judge, jury and executioner 
of the persons who are reported. I am looking at these last three words 
that say we should not have any inappropriate proselytizing that may 
have occurred. What we have is a newspaper story.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we do not just have newspaper stories. We 
have the direct statement from the director of the academy that that 
conduct has occurred and in his view is inappropriate. Do we want to 
take a position that is any less firm than he has?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
said we are angry because this has come up. That is not so. We were 
offered under the Army provision in our conference that this provision 
not be protected and simply strike it on the floor. I was advised that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wanted to have a full 
discussion on this, and I said let us do it. So that is why we are 
doing this.
  The reason we did not act on this is laid out and validated by the 
Secretary of the Air Force's letter where he says: ``As this work 
progresses, I ask you to reserve your opinions on this matter until I 
can get to ground truth through the objective processes now ongoing.''
  If something is this serious, and I have never seen any statement by 
the Secretary of the Air Force that said abusive and coercive 
proselytizing has occurred, but that is the language that the gentleman 
has in his bill. So we have a difference of opinion on this.
  I think we should wait until the reports come in, until the DOD IG 
comes back with his report on the captain that the gentleman has 
referred to, and until, in the words of the Secretary of the Air Force, 
we get to ground truth. And we require in my amendment a report back to 
Congress within 90 days on

[[Page 13234]]

the findings that the Secretary of the Air Force comes to and 
recommendations for action.
  Let me say one other thing. The gentleman said he is not accusing 
anybody of proselytizing. I am reading his plan. It says: ``The 
Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that the Air 
Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive intimidation and 
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the 
chain of command at the Air Force Academy.''
  That is a heck of a strong dose of preventive maintenance. The 
gentleman's position, what he has read in the Los Angeles Times is good 
enough for him, and it is now time for us to take remedial action even 
before the Secretary of the Air Force comes back with his 
recommendations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, let 
me simply say this language of the committee, which I am repeating 
almost word for word in the amendment, does not single out any 
individual or claim to know the facts on any individual case. What it 
does most definitely assert is that the conduct, through the official 
spokesman for the academy, did take place and was inappropriate. We are 
simply backing up that statement.
  Mr. Whitaker, who is the official academy spokesman, said there were 
cases of maliciousness, mean-spiritedness, and attacking or baiting 
someone over religion.
  We do not have to withhold our judgment about the details of the case 
to know that that kind of action is across the line.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond, that is not the 
Secretary of the Air Force; and if the gentleman is holding this up as 
something that justifies a condemnatory statement by the United States 
House of Representatives, then it has to be something that is 
representative of the actions of the officials of the Air Force 
Academy; and no one has used language as strong as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who states, and I am going to state this one more 
time because we keep moving off it, the gentleman's statement is that 
``SEC Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that Air Force Academy 
maintains a climate free from coercive and religious intimidation and 
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the 
chain of command.'' The amendment does not even say ``some Air Force 
officials.'' He is holding that out as representative of what is going 
on in the chain of command in the academy.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, am I correct that the superintendent, the head of the 
Air Force, has indicated it is a problem and it would take him 6 years 
to fix the problem?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. That is exactly right.
  Mr. SABO. And the chaplain at the Air Force who blew the whistle on 
this problem is no longer there?
  Mr. OBEY. She has been removed from her position.
  Mr. SABO. The minister of the church that I go to locally is a former 
Navy chaplain and also served in the Marines. He felt strongly enough 
about this issue it was part of his sermon yesterday. His response to 
the 6-year problem was that if this were a problem for the Marines, it 
would have been taken care of in 6 weeks or less.
  I would only suggest there is a problem. It is obvious it is great. 
The amendment is sort of mild. If the Air Force is with it, they will 
get it taken care of shortly before any of the reports in either of 
these amendments are required.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in 
support of the Hunter amendment. I think the Obey amendment passes 
judgment before we know what the judgment ought to be in this thing.
  We are assuming that this chaplain, one of the many chaplains that 
they have at the Air Force Academy, we are assuming she was reassigned 
because she blew the whistle, as the expression has been used here. 
What blew the whistle on this was the survey that they did of cadets, 
and a few of them said there was something wrong. And she said, yes, 
there was something wrong; and she has been reassigned.
  When the Air Force was asked why she has been reassigned, they tell 
us it was because the person she was working for reassigned and it is 
customary to reassign. So let us not pass that judgment right now.
  I think the Hunter amendment strikes the kind of balance that we 
really want. It does not pass judgment. It recognizes that studies are 
going on so we can get to the bottom of it and find out how much of a 
problem there might be there. It emphasizes that religious intolerance 
is unacceptable, and we all agree with that. Religious intolerance is 
unacceptable.
  But it also recognizes the importance of the spiritual side of our 
lives and does not try to scrub religion from public life in America. 
There are some who would like to do that. We are looking up here at 
``In God We Trust'' over the Speaker's rostrum. We open each day with a 
prayer. We do not want to scrub religion or faith from all public life. 
I think the Hunter amendment emphasizes that, but it also recognizes 
that we need to wait and pass judgment when we get all of the facts.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force 
Academy. This was not discovered by newspapers or a chaplain who blew 
the whistle. This was discovered during the normal administrative 
process of the Air Force Academy. They have discussed it with the Board 
of Visitors, and we have dealt with it for some time.
  First of all, the Air Force Academy recognized there might be a 
problem, and they immediately jumped on it. They have had some problems 
out there. I do not know how it tied into this, but the gentleman from 
Wisconsin mentioned the sexual thing. That really was a scandal. I 
question whether we have a scandal going here.
  But they knew that they were under the bright light because of what 
happened in the past, and they were on this immediately; and they are 
in the process of taking action. I do not think they need the help of 
the Congress of the United States to do this. I think they are on top 
of it.
  As I said earlier, I do not think we have a scandal here. I think we 
have an administrative situation that the Air Force Academy and the Air 
Force are perfectly capable of taking care of. If that is not the case, 
when the studies come in, we will be able to see that and maybe we do 
need to get into it. We need to let this process work. We need to, I 
hope, not support the Obey amendment with that kind of language and 
support the Hunter amendment which strikes the kind of balance that I 
think we want. Then we will watch until the results of these studies 
come in and see if we need to move any further. I encourage defeat of 
the Obey amendment and passing of the Hunter amendment.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of serving with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) on 
the Committee on Armed Services, and it is a privilege to work with 
them.
  I offered a very similar amendment during the authorization process. 
The chairman asked if I would withdraw that amendment so we could work 
together, and I did that in the spirit of bipartisanship and good 
faith.
  But now we are being told, let us not work together, let us wait. We 
cannot wait any longer.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) said we are trying to scrub 
religion from public places. On the contrary. We are not doing that. 
The language of the Obey amendment explicitly says the expression of 
personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military. That 
is the line we are drawing.
  Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States, which we have 
sworn to protect and defend, guarantees religious freedom and talks 
about

[[Page 13235]]

the need. We were founded as a diverse country based on tolerance. We 
take the oath to the Constitution. We ask the Members of the military 
to take the same oath and fight to protect and defend the Constitution.
  For over 1 year there have been persistent reports that religious 
freedom and constitutional protections have not been respected at the 
Air Force Academy, cadets forced to mark on heathen flight lines, 
cadets being given and denied privileges based on a religious view, 
cadets encouraged to tell other cadets they will burn in hell if they 
do not embrace a certain view. When the Air Force attempted a review 
and corrective action, it was diluted. When a Lutheran chaplain 
complained it was diluted, she was dismissed.
  Mr. Chairman, even the superintendent of the Air Force, someone I 
have a very high regard and respect for, has said these reports keep 
him up at night and they may take 6 years to fix. As I said before, we 
have a constitutional civilian oversight responsibility for the 
military, and we are being told today do not take a position, let the 
Air Force investigate itself; and at that point Congress should weigh 
in.
  Here is the problem with that: this has been going on for over a 
year. Congress has done nothing.

                              {time}  1545

  The appropriations bill will pass tonight. After tonight, it will be 
too late for Congress to take a position on this issue. The principal 
vehicle of funding for the military will have passed and the 
opportunity to defend tolerance, respect, and religious pluralism and 
freedom will have passed us by.
  Delaying is not a matter of fairness. Delaying is a matter of delay. 
It is a matter of complicity. If the House Armed Services Committee 
cannot exercise its full constitutional oversight responsibility on 
this issue, why are we in existence?
  My chairman knows that I have been a stalwart supporter of the 
military on every amendment, every bill, supporting more resources for 
the military, more investments, increasing end strength, because I want 
the military to be able to protect and defend the Constitution at home 
and abroad and I want it to respect the Constitution and embrace the 
personal expression of religious view at its own home. That is why I 
rise to support the Obey amendment, and that is why I oppose the Hunter 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize one thing. The gentleman 
from California said that his amendment will preserve the understanding 
that religious faiths are welcome at the academy. That is true. His 
amendment does. But I would point out, it simply repeats the first 
sentence of the committee language in the Obey amendment. We all agree. 
We all agree that the expression of personal religious faith is 
welcome. That is exactly why we are here standing pushing for this 
committee language today, because we want to make sure that the Pledge 
of Allegiance that we take every day says ``liberty and justice for 
all'', not just ``for almost everybody.''
  The gentleman said that he did not want to see religion scrubbed out. 
I do not, either. But 55 cadets have said that there were efforts at 
the academy to scrub out their expression of religious belief. That is 
what we want to stop. I want to make sure that every single person who 
attends that academy feels free from intimidation and does not feel 
that they have to go along with the attitudes of those in the chain of 
command or their senior cadets in order to get along at the academy.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the 
spirit in which this debate is conducted. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
and I do have similar expression in welcoming religious expression at 
the academy. Where we do differ is that in our amendment we do not 
prejudge that officials are abusively proselytizing; and with the IG 
report coming in from DOD, not just the Air Force, but the IG report 
coming in from DOD and the Air Force IG report coming in, I think we 
need to get those reports and then take congressional action.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, at the risk of offending the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the 
Appropriations Committee, it looks to me like this debate, which is a 
really good debate and has been back and forth, the only problem so far 
is that most everything has been said, but not everyone has said it 
yet.
  It looks to me like this is going to take more time to settle an 
issue that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war against 
terrorism, going to take more time than the bill that does provide for 
the security of the Nation. We ought to get to the end of this debate 
and get back to the real business at hand today.
  Mr. Chairman, I may offer a bit of a facetious statement, but if we 
cannot get this thing ended, I may ask unanimous consent that the staff 
can go outside and have their own debate rather than handing stuff to 
the Members in order to have that debate. I have probably offended both 
sides. I do not know who applauded, but I probably offended both sides. 
But we ought to get to the business that we came here today for and 
that is to provide for the security of the United States of America and 
to provide the troops what they need to do their job, perform their 
mission, and protect themselves while they do it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the long war on Christianity in America continues today 
on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. It 
continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate 
any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual 
suspects, the Democrats. Do not get me wrong. Democrats know they 
should not be doing this. The spirit of, if not the exact, language in 
the underlying bill added by the Democrat ranking member, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin was offered by a Democrat in the Armed Services 
Committee during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 DOD 
authorization bill.
  The author of that language in the authorizing committee, the 
gentleman from New York, has suggested since that time that ``extremist 
groups'' are behind the removal of language similar to his. I and 
others who spoke in opposition to that amendment had never even heard 
of the notion of such an amendment until the gentleman from New York 
actually offered it during the committee markup. And so I am curious as 
to who these extremists are that the gentleman from New York spoke of.
  Mr. Chairman, we may never know because that is the nature of this 
debate, name-calling of unspecified people and groups who hold a world 
view different than many of these Democrats. And, as I said, Mr. 
Chairman, Democrats know they should not be doing this. Following the 
overwhelming opposition voiced at the DOD markup, the Democrat ranking 
member of the committee requested the gentleman from New York to 
withdraw the amendment, which he did. * * *
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the gentleman's words be taken 
down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Clerk will transcribe the words.

                              {time}  1626

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
last sentence I spoke.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think the 
House needs to understand why I objected to the language of the 
gentleman.

[[Page 13236]]

  As I understand it, the language that the gentleman is saying he will 
withdraw is the following: ``Like moth to a flame, Democrats can't help 
themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians.''
  What I would have asked the gentleman, since he referred earlier in 
his remarks to me and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), I would 
have asked him if he really believed that the gentleman from New York's 
(Mr. Israel) efforts to attach similar language in the Committee on 
Armed Services, the language that the gentleman referred to earlier in 
his discussion, whether he really thought that the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel) was engaging in an anti-Christian act. I would have 
asked him whether he really thought that the language that I was trying 
to offer to protect people of all religions at the Air Force Academy, 
whether he really thought I was being anti-Christian. I would have 
asked him if he thought that the chaplain at the Air Force Academy who 
laid her career on the line in order to protect the religious freedom 
of those cadets who she felt were being intimidated, whether her 
actions were anti-Christian.

                              {time}  1630

  I would have asked whether he thinks that the kind of conduct which 
the superintendent of the Academy has already admitted occurred, which 
among other things had one cadet calling another a ``filthy Jew,'' or 
when they had cadets who did not subscribe to a specific kind of 
Christianity being told that they were going to, ``burn in hell,'' I 
would have asked him whether or not the Chaplain's objection to that 
kind of conduct was anti-Christian?
  I would have suggested that when Mr. Whitaker, the official spokesman 
for the Academy indicated that he thought the problem at the Academy 
was one of ``insensitivity and ignorance,'' I would have asked whether 
or not, unfortunately, we did not often see those same qualities 
displayed elsewhere, including on the floor of this House?
  And I would have suggested that I think his outburst, and the 
specific language he used, is perhaps a perfect example of why we need 
to pass the language in my amendment, which states, ``coercive and 
abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy 
by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of 
command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the 
professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the 
Academy.
  And I would add, also, of those who serve in this House and speak on 
this floor. So those are the questions I would have asked. If the 
gentleman is withdrawing those words, fine, I think it is constructive 
that he do so.
  But, before I do that, I would, under my reservation, yield to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the words that we heard, as unfortunate and 
as hurtful as they were, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
says, testimony for the passage of our amendment.
  I have never heard it suggested that by somehow saying that with a 
personal expression of religious observance and freedom, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wrote in his amendment, as I 
included in my amendment, could somehow be characterized in the way it 
just was.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I will just state for the record, with respect to 
the Air Force Academy, by one estimate, of the 117 Academy cadets, 
staff members and faculty members who complained about religious 
intimidation and proselytizing, eight happened to be Jewish, one 
happens to be atheist, 10 happen to be Catholic, and all of the rest 
happen to be Protestants.
  So this is not being for or against any one faith, I would say to the 
gentleman. This is about respect for all faiths. And that is why we 
offer this amendment, and that is why we believe now more than ever 
that it is critical that it be passed, and that the American people 
know that we embrace religious viewpoints in our military, but we also 
want respect for the spiritual values of all people.
  Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say 
that perhaps the speech of my good friend from Florida (Mr. Young) 
urging that we stop talking on this amendment and get to the vote, 
perhaps his speech came 5 minutes too late. It is too bad, not too 
late, because if we had voted before the last speaker, the House would 
not have seen this unfortunate event present itself.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I think perhaps the best 
thing to do in the interests of restoring a decent amount of civility 
and comity to the House this afternoon is for the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) as he has suggested, to withdraw his words and 
for us to get onto a vote and pass this amendment to make quite clear 
that every Member of this House, save perhaps a few, recognize that we 
have an obligation to each and every cadet at the Air Force Academy, to 
see that they can practice their religion without fear of ridicule, 
without fear of condemnation, without fear of intimidation by anyone 
else, be they Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other 
religion that anyone of us can think of.
  This language in the committee bill, the language which we are 
restoring by my amendment, is an effort to protect all religions, all 
religions. I would ask for an aye vote when the amendment comes.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the words designated by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the assertions in the 
language of the bill, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at this point, even the press has recently 
indicated the fallacious nature of those assertions.
  In the sense of Congress portion of the bill, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) states, ``coercive and abusive religious 
proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers 
assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain of command at 
the Academy, as has been reported, inconsistent with the 
professionalism and standards required of those who served at the 
Academy.
  Coercive and abusive religious proselytizing, as has been reported. 
The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, defines the 
word ``proselytize'' to mean, ``to convert from one belief or faith to 
another.''
  Are the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others providing one 
shred of evidence that there has been a forced conversion from one 
belief to another at the Air Force Academy? And if so, from what belief 
to what belief did the abusive and coercive conversion take place?
  No, there is not a single reported incident of the proselytizing that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) attempts to persuade us is 
gospel.
  Noting this, today's issues of CQ Today, writing about this issue, 
speaks of our ``spirited debate over whether Congress should speak out 
about reports that some Christian officials at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, coercively sought to proselytize 
non-Christian students.''
  Sought to proselytize, that is not what this debate or the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is about. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), as my chairman of the Authorizing 
Committee has stated earlier, has indicted, convicted and sentenced the 
leadership of the Academy, without any evidence, reported or otherwise, 
that coerced conversions have taken place at the Academy.
  And for that miscarriage of justice, Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

[[Page 13237]]

Obey) should be defeated, and the underlying amendment from the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) adopted.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in favor of the Hunter 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. Why do I rise in 
this body, on this floor at this time and make this statement about my 
personal religious faith? Because I can. Because it is inherent in the 
concept of democracy and our Constitution that we value the protections 
of freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the protection of 
the freedom of the practice of religion.
  Because of this, I can stand here today and make my statement of 
faith, just as any other Member of this body or any other citizen of 
this Nation can make their statement of faith, whatever their faith or 
religion may be, or they may make a statement of a lack of faith, a 
statement of having no belief in any religion.
  Mr. Chairman, we value this so much that not only is it a right that 
we protect, but we further protect individuals from discrimination 
based upon their religion or their belief in no religion. This body has 
many times voted to ensure that no American is discriminated against 
based upon their religious faith or lack of religious faith.
  In ensuring that our laws against discrimination are enforced, we do 
not need to pass additional laws that would undermine one of the basic 
tenets founding this country, which is the belief in the free practice 
of religion, and the freedom of speech which includes the freedom of 
the expression of religious faith.
  Our men and women in uniform serve their country by serving in our 
military. Their service is based upon an allegiance to our Constitution 
and its basic principles of freedom and liberty. We must never forget 
that many of our forefathers came here escaping countries that have 
laws and rules that restricted the practices of certain types of 
religion.
  There are countries today where citizens or members of government are 
restricted and cannot stand, as I just did, stating their faith and 
belief in God. May there never be a time when a Member of Congress or 
our men in uniform may not freely and openly acknowledge their God or 
express their faith and belief in their religion or openly acknowledge 
their lack of religious faith.
  The Obey amendment should be defeated. The Hunter amendment supports 
our freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to support the Hunter amendment and oppose the 
Obey amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, briefly I would note that what we have been objecting 
to is precisely the denial to some cadets at the Air Force Academy of 
the very freedom that the previous speaker proclaimed.
  No one has criticized anyone's profession of his or her religion. The 
animus here, the gravimen of this charge is, that other people have 
been penalized for it, and the Superintendent to the Air Force Academy 
himself acknowledged it.
  Now, I apologize for prolonging this, and I would say that when the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the former chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) appealed for an end 
to the debate, he got acquiescence on this side.
  Two Members on his side decided to prolong it. I wish that others had 
followed our example. But since they have not, I do think that things 
have to be answered.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take more than 30 seconds. I simply 
want to reiterate what the Obey amendment does before us, restores, 
almost word for word, the original language of the committee bill. What 
that language tries to do is to assure the full protection of, well let 
me put it another way, because this is a sense of the Congress 
language.
  What we attempt to do is to put the Congress on record squarely, as 
saying that we want every cadet, regardless of religion, to be able to 
fully practice their religion without intimidation, without ridicule, 
without restraint.
  That is what we are trying to do. I think it speaks for itself. If 
people do not believe the Congress should stand for that, then they can 
vote against the amendment. If they do, I would appreciate a yes vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would repeat 
what has been said before, but apparently with sufficient clarity, I 
guess. The one person, who more than any other, was penalized for 
speaking out in this matter, in defense of the principles that the 
previous speaker articulated was a chaplain, the chaplain who was sent 
to Okinawa in a punitive transfer, and I know people have said that the 
Air Force gave different reasons for that. I do not think anyone really 
believes that.
  It is clear that she was transferred for punitive reasons, because 
she spoke out against what she thought was an inappropriate set of 
actions against people's freedom of religion. She was, as we said and 
is, a chaplain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue has a special relevance to each of us 
because, we actually name the young men and women who go to these 
academies. And each of us take this responsibility with a great deal of 
responsibility.
  And to the parents who entrust these children, these young men and 
woman, to us and through us to the academies, there is an expectation 
that regardless of the religion of any of these families, that they 
will, on the one hand, be able to fully practice their religion, but at 
the same time they will also be free from coercion of other religions 
as they leave home for the first time.

                              {time}  1645

  So we have, I think, the greatest responsibility because we play a 
role in selecting these young men and women to ensure that they are 
protected and that their parents, their families, back home are 
protected from the beliefs which they are sent with being attacked or 
undermined by those that do not respect the beliefs that those young 
people brought with them. So I agree that this amendment is absolutely 
essential and that the statement must come from this body of all bodies 
on this most important of issues.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  At the risk of unnecessarily continuing this debate, I must stand in 
opposition to the Obey amendment and in favor of the Hunter amendment.
  The words ``coercive and abusive proselytizing'' are particularly 
troubling. I too am a Christian and one of the basic tenets of my faith 
is that I must share that faith. I am instructed to go and tell. And 
the going and telling of that involves looking someone face to face and 
explaining the tenets of my religion, one of which is a heaven and a 
hell.
  If I were to do that on the Air Force Academy, then I could be 
accused of abusive and coercive proselytizing and be charged, and that 
is not the case. Of course, were that charge to be made, then I would 
make a charge of the religious intolerance of the person that made that 
charge against me. We seem to get into a loop here that does not make 
any sense.
  Both sides want freedom of religion. Both sides want freedom of 
expression of religion. The Hunter amendment calls for doing it in a 
way that allows for a due process on the campus to continue, all of the 
studies and reviews to get done. The Obey amendment unfortunately is a 
ready-aim-fire approach that I stand in opposition to.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
Ranking Member Obey's amendment, which seeks to protect religious 
freedom at the Air Force Academy. This amendment condemns coercive or

[[Page 13238]]

abusive proselytizing at the Academy and reaffirms that the military 
must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds. Indeed, we 
hold our nation to high ideals of religious freedom and this amendment 
ensures that the Air Force Academy meets these ideals.
  Thankfully, this issue of infringement on religious freedom was 
reported by cadets at the Academy. The Los Angeles Times reported on 
April 20, 2005, that an atmosphere existed on the campus of the U.S. 
Air Force Academy that appeared to tolerate disrespectful treatment of 
persons who were not evangelicals. Air Force officials have 
acknowledged the problem, which initially surfaced in early May 2004 
when a survey of present and former cadets revealed that some students 
felt that `born-again' Christians received favorable treatment and that 
persons of faith that did not consider themselves born-again had been 
verbally abused. These reports are unacceptable; truly we can not 
tolerate even the hint of religious intolerance or persecution anywhere 
in our nation, but especially not in any sector of our Armed Forces. 
Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting and in many 
cases are dying to protect the idea of religious freedom for all 
Iraqis, it would be a true shame if religious intolerance were given 
even the slightest legitimacy here in the United States. At this time 
when recruitment levels are low we do not need to send out the message 
that anyone who joins the Air Force Academy and is not a strong 
evangelical Christian may face persecution.
  I was disappointed by the words heard on the floor by one Republican 
that Democrats are declaring war on Christians; thankfully he decided 
to strike this offensive statement from the record. However, he brings 
up an issue that must be addressed despite its outrageousness. The 
simple truth is that Democrats are supporting this amendment to 
strengthen the voice of religion, not weaken it. I affirm the tolerance 
of all religions. As Democrats we believe that all faiths have a right 
to practice freely and share their beliefs. This freedom of religion 
strengthens and gives voice to the entire faith community. The Obey 
amendment is not any radical measure, it simply states that: ``(1) the 
expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States 
military, but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the 
United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the 
Academy and others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been 
reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards 
required of those who serve at the Academy; (2) the military must be a 
place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds; and (3) the 
Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities, 
and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other appropriate military 
authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as 
appropriate, to address and remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of 
cadets at the Air Force Academy.'' It also calls for the Secretary of 
the Air Force to develop a plan ``to ensure that the Air Force Academy 
maintains a climate free from coercive religious intimidation and 
inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the 
chain-of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work 
with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area of 
pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.''
  Clearly, the requirements of this amendment are not burdensome or 
complex, but they are necessary. This amendment gives peace of mind to 
all students who enter the Air Force Academy that they will not face 
intimidation when making choices about their faith. Truly, this is an 
American ideal and we can never stray from that path.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment and 
opposition to the Hunter amendment.
  Religious freedom is bedrock principle for which the United States 
stands, and which the military is meant to defend.
  Unfortunately the environment at the U.S. Air Force Academy appears 
consumed by religious intolerance.
  Some chaplains encourage cadets to convert their colleagues to 
Christianity.
  And one has publicly declared that cadets who do not accept 
proselytization will ``burn in the fires of hell.''
  The football coach is reported to use his position to urge players to 
go to church and to be Christians.
  He even went so far as to put a banner in the Academy football team 
locker room reading ``I am a Christian first and last. I am a member of 
Team Jesus Christ.''
  Cadets who do not go to church are organized into groups called 
``Heathen Flights'' by their cadet officers.
  And high ranking officers, including the Commandant of Cadets, have 
given the Academy's official sanction to religious events geared 
towards promoting Christianity, including screenings of ``The Passion 
of the Christ.''
  The problem is so pervasive that the Superinendent of the Academy, 
Lt. General Rosa, publicly acknowledged it in a speech to the Anti-
Defamation League.
  It is appalling that the young men and women who volunteer to defend 
our Nation should be subject to religious harassment and intolerance of 
this kind.
  It clearly violates the Constitution. And it undermines the unity of 
the armed forces.
  If this were going on at University of Colorado, students could 
easily just ignore it as they probably do almost everything else the 
school tells them.
  But Air Force cadets are members of the miltary and part of the chain 
of command, and all that entails.
  The Academy tells cadets when to wake up and go to sleep, when to 
eat, how to dress, where to go and when to go there, when they can 
leave campus and how they must behave.
  If the cadets ignore their superiors on any of these issues they 
would be sternly disciplined.
  This is why it is critical that the officers and staff at the Air 
Force Academy not be permitted to inappropriately press their religious 
beliefs onto their cadets.
  This is where the coercion that Mr. Hostettler was asking about takes 
place.
  The military has a special obligation to ensure that its members do 
not abuse the extraordinary influence that chain of command gives them.
  Clearly, that has not been the case at the Air Force academy. And now 
Congress has a duty to address these concerns.
  When the Constitution of the United States is being disregarded in 
such blatant fashion we have no choice. We must act.
  For that reason I applaud the leadership of Ranking Member Obey and 
the members of the Appropriations Committee.
  The language they included clearly expresses our objection to these 
practices, and demands a plan of action from the Air Force Secretary.
  I also want to commend my colleague Mr. Israel for offering this same 
language in the Armed Services Committee.
  Last month I, along with 45 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the 
Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation.
  I am pleased to know that the Air Force's internal investigation of 
these issues will soon be complete. This is a good first step.
  Unfortunately there has been a history at the Air Force Academy of 
trying to cover up embarrassing scandals rather than deal with them.
  It took considerable Congressional pressure to force the Air Force 
and the Academy to take the matter of sexual harassment and assault 
seriously.
  The Academy's initial response to the issue of religious freedom has 
not inspired confidence that they are acting differently here.
  One Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton, pressed hard for 
changes to ensure religious tolerance and was recently removed from her 
post and her reassignment has the appearance of the Air Force punishing 
an officer for looking after the spiritual well-being and 
constitutional rights of all the cadets.
  So the Congress clearly has enough information to take the step 
included in this bill.
  The language in this bill will send an unmistakable signal to the Air 
Force that we are watching, and we will not allow them to sweep this 
under the rug.
  We should not dilute it by passing the Hunter amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
will be postponed.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill which I am pleased 
to see includes an additional $20 million for the Department of Defense 
Family Advocacy Program.
  In an era of extended and repeated deployments, our military families 
are under more strain than ever before and

[[Page 13239]]

the services of the Family Advocacy Program are desperately needed.
  DOD has made progress in its efforts to prevent domestic violence, 
but I hope that some of this additional funding will also be used to 
strengthen intervention programs which are still in need of 
improvement.
  As important as the Family Advocacy Program is, let me stress that it 
is only one part of the total domestic violence prevention and response 
effort envisioned by the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence in its 
2003 final report.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure 
that the recommendations of the task force are fully implemented and 
that our military families get what they deserve. I would like to thank 
the subcommittee chairman and my good friend, the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for recognizing that there 
remains significant work to be done on this issue and for making the 
safety and well-being of military spouses and children a top priority 
in this bill.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of 
the subcommittee on the subject of the Defense POW/Missing Persons 
Office.
  It has come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, that the Defense POW/
Missing Persons Office, the DPMO, has received complaints from such 
groups as the National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
Missing in Southeast Asia and the organization of Korea/Cold War 
Families of the Missing. In particular these groups object to the 
DPMO's action in the following areas:
  one, the manner in which they have developed policy without 
substantive interagency integration and dismiss Vietnam's ability to 
provide answers;
  two, their hostility towards the POW/MIA families;
  three, their attempt to take total control of the League of Families' 
annual meetings and operations of the Joint POW/MIA Account Command;
  four, the use of the COIN Assist fund as a leveraging mechanism to 
control agenda of the League of Families.
  I specifically ask that a report be completed assessing the level of 
cooperation and interaction between the Defense POW/Missing Persons 
Office with the National League of Families of American Prisoners and 
Missing in Southeast Asia and the Organization of Korea/Cold War 
Families of the Missing and all other members of those organizations, 
particularly with respect to compliance with all applicable provisions 
of law. Further, I ask that the report be included in the Statement of 
Managers to accompany the conference report for this bill, H.R. 2863.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns, and 
the gentleman and I have spoken at length about these issues and I am 
equally concerned as is he. And I think it is appropriate that we do 
ask for such a report; and when we meet with the Senate for conference 
on this bill, we will seek to include such a report.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  I would ask unanimous consent to insert certain documents into the 
Record. These documents represent and outline the various frustrations 
and concerns of the National League of Families of American Prisoners 
and Missing in Southeast Asia and should be considered and addressed by 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and their report.
  I believe this report must reflect a comprehensive study of DPMO's 
guidance and policy initiatives. I am particularly concerned that the 
concerns of the National League of Families be seriously addressed. A 
report that merely waxes over such differences as a ``family feud'' 
would not be found acceptable.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I certainly agree to work with the gentleman on 
this matter to have a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman again.
  I ask that upon completion of this report that it be submitted to the 
House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Armed 
Services, and that it be made available to the personal offices of all 
members of the POW/MIA congressional caucus.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) 
for yielding. I thank my colleague and good friend, the chairman, for 
allowing this time.
  As co-chair of the Congressional POW/MIA Caucus I appreciate the 
leadership of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) on this issue.
  The POW/MIA Caucus recognizes that policy coordination and 
cooperation must include not only congressional oversight but also a 
continued strong working relationship with nongovernmental 
organizations such as those you have talked about, the National League 
of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, the Organization 
of Korea/Cold War Families of Missing.
  It is the members of these organizations and others like them who 
stand to gain the most by the implementation of government policy. The 
elimination of nongovernmental organization participation in this 
process would impede progress, and the caucus supports the leadership 
of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) on this issue and looks 
forward to working with the Defense POW/Missing Persons Office, the 
committees of jurisdiction, and these organizations to ensure that our 
shared goals are met.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and I 
look forward to working with him on this issue in conference.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Pelosi

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Pelosi:
       At the end of title IX, insert the following new section:
       Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the 
     Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     and the majority leader and minority leader of the Senate a 
     report on a strategy for success in Iraq that identifies 
     criteria to be used by the Government of the United States to 
     determine when it is appropriate to begin the withdrawal of 
     United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
       (b) The report shall include a detailed description of each 
     of the following:
       (1) The criteria for assessing the capabilities and 
     readiness of Iraqi security forces, goals for achieving 
     appropriate capability and readiness levels for such forces, 
     as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping such 
     forces, and the milestones and timetable for achieving such 
     goals.
       (2) The estimated total number of Iraqi personnel trained 
     at the levels identified in paragraph (1) that are needed for 
     Iraqi security forces to perform duties currently being 
     undertaken by United States and coalition forces, including 
     defending Iraq's borders and providing adequate levels of law 
     and order throughout Iraq.
       (3) The number of United States and coalition advisors 
     needed to support Iraqi security forces and associated 
     ministries.
       (4) The measures of political stability for Iraq, including 
     the important political milestones to be achieved over the 
     next several years.
       (c) The report shall be transmitted in unclassified form 
     but may contain a classified annex.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I regret that a point of order was raised, 
but I do want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his 
outstanding leadership to protect our country. He is a champion for 
national security, a champion for our troops. I respect him enormously. 
I wish he had not raised this point of order.
  I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), who is in the Chamber right now, for his 
distinguished leadership on behalf of America's troops and on behalf of 
our national security. They have worked in a

[[Page 13240]]

bipartisan manner with our distinguished ranking member, former chair 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). By 
working together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the 
last session of Congress and on an ongoing basis with the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), they have really tried very hard to provide 
our troops with what they need to do their job and to come home safely 
and soon.
  I also want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, 
former chair of the committee. I think these four gentleman have worked 
very closely together, removed the doubt in anyone's minds that we 
understand our obligation under the Constitution to provide for the 
common defense and they help us honor that commitment. I thank them 
all.
  The legislation that we are considering today contains in it another 
$45 billion for the war in Iraq that has already consumed nearly $200 
billion, ended the lives of over 1,700 of our troops, and thousands 
more Iraqis, and changed forever the lives of tens of thousands more 
who have been wounded in that war.
  They were sent into the war without the intelligence about where they 
were going, what they were going to confront, without adequate 
equipment to protect them and without a plan for what would happen 
after the fall of Baghdad.
  As I referenced earlier, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have 
fought hard, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) last year in the defense 
Committee on Appropriations to correct the inadequacy of the equipment 
they had.
  Many of us have visited with soldiers in Iraq. Some of them are on 
their second tour of duty. I conveyed to these brave soldiers, as I 
have to soldiers in hospitals here and abroad, how grateful the 
American people are to them for their valor, for their patriotism, for 
the sacrifices they are willing to make for our country. They have 
performed their duties with great courage and skill, and we are deeply 
in their debt.
  Disagreement with the policies that sent our troops to Iraq and which 
keep them in danger today in no way diminishes the respect and 
admiration that we have for our troops. Sadly, the level of their 
sacrifice has not been met by a level of language by the 
administration, and now the American people agree that this war is not 
making us safer.
  Republican Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who in time became the 
Republican leader in the United States Senate, had this to say about 
our duty in time of war as Members of Congress. He said, ``Criticism in 
time of war is essential to the maintenance of a governing democracy.''
  He was a Republican. This was World War II. He was a Republican in 
the Senate. He said that, and he was right.
  It is in that spirit that I disagree with those Republicans who 
continue the course of action that we are on now. When we went into 
this war, it was a war of choice. President Bush sent us into a war of 
choice, a preemptive war. When you have a war, you have to go in with 
the preparation that you have. But when it is a war of choice, you have 
an increased responsibility to be prepared and to have a plan for what 
happens after the fall of, in this case Baghdad, but we have not.

                              {time}  1700

  Vice President Cheney at the time said that our troops would be met 
with rose petals. Instead, they were met with rocket-propelled 
grenades.
  Under Secretary Wolfowitz said that this is a country that can easily 
afford its own reconstruction and soon, and the U.S. taxpayer is still 
paying the tab.
  This is a war that each passing day confirms what I have said before 
and I will say again, that this war in Iraq is a grotesque mistake. It 
is not making America safer and the American people know it.
  Early on, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said what a 
Democratic, what a bipartisan proposal should be as far as going into 
Iraq, that with the fall of Baghdad, we should move quickly to 
Iraqtize, to turn the security of Iraq over to the Iraqis. We should 
internationalize, that we should form the diplomatic alliances in the 
region for the Iraqi government so that our troops could accomplish 
their goals militarily with the help of diplomacy. It simply cannot be 
done alone.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in leading our House 
Democrats on this issue, said that we should energize, we must turn on 
the light, we must have reconstruction in Iraq, and because of some of 
the poor planning or lack of planning, the reconstruction has taken 
much longer, is much more costly, and again, the security is making it 
almost impossible.
  You cannot go forward with the social services and the rest unless 
you have a secure Iraq. You cannot have it be secure and bring our 
troops home unless you turn over that security responsibility to the 
Iraqis.
  So we go to a place where we should expect the least Congress should 
do is to insist that the President provide the details on how it will 
be determined when the responsibility for Iraq's security can be turned 
over to the Iraqis and how Iraq's economic and political stability will 
be assessed. That is what my amendment would have done, would do, if it 
were made in order.
  The failure by the President and his administration to plan 
adequately for the conduct of war to date has made it all the more 
imperative that Congress ensure the planning be done competently for 
bringing our troops home. If our troops are to leave when the mission 
has succeeded, we need to know how success will be defined.
  Despite the manner in which the administration has chosen to fund the 
war, relying totally on supplemental appropriations up until now, as 
though it was a surprise that keeping hundreds of thousands of military 
personnel in and near Iraq would have a cost, our commitment in Iraq 
cannot be open-ended. Congress should have insisted long ago that the 
limits on that commitment be publicly shared and well understood.
  The Iraq money in this bill is described as a bridge fund. Congress 
and the American people have a right to ask: A bridge to what? A bridge 
to where? The report required by my amendment would have built on the 
report request in the recently enacted supplemental appropriations bill 
and help answer that question, and that request was agreed to in a 
bipartisan way. This is really an endorsement of that, taking it from 
report language, putting it into law and raising its profile so the 
administration knows that it must answer those questions in the 
supplemental.
  Republicans apparently prefer to keep their heads in the sand and 
continue to provide money for the Iraq War with no questions asked.
  Congress did not discharge its responsibility to oversee these 
policies at the start of the war, and it has not done so since. The 
American people deserve better. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, our 
troops who serve in harm's way deserve better. They are owed more by 
those who sent them there than lack of planning.
  We must do everything in our power to honor our obligation to our 
troops. Only then will we be fulfilling our responsibility.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  The amendment gives affirmative direction. I ask for a ruling from 
the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of 
order?

[[Page 13241]]


  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I do have a question to follow up on the 
distinguished gentleman's point of order, and that is, almost the same 
language was contained in the supplemental that passed the House a few 
weeks ago, and I do not know why the criteria that he establishes here 
for my amendment would not have then applied then and if that, in fact, 
does not serve as a model for us now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting 
direction to the President. The amendment, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Doggett

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doggett:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for activities in Uzbekistan.

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this Defense bill has many good aspects, 
but I believe that it does contain at least one soft spot that 
undermines the high level of security that our families demand.
  The safety of our families is just too important to be dependent on 
the word of a terrorist. Unfortunately, that is what this 
administration has done in a little known corner of the world called 
Uzbekistan. In a desperate search for allies against terrorism, the 
administration has actually teamed up with the chief terrorist in that 
far away land, its President Islam Karimov.
  Before the Bush administration befriended him, Mr. Karimov was known 
for his rather peculiar habit of boiling alive some of the local 
opponents to his police state. In what President Bush's own State 
Department described in February as an atmosphere of repression, where 
torture was common, other favored methods of dealing with differing 
opinion in Uzbekistan includes suffocation, electric shock, rape, 
sexual abuse. However, beating, according to the State Department, is 
the most commonly reported method of torture.
  Another tactic that perhaps Mr. Karimov learned through his earlier 
tenure on the Soviet Politburo is the practice of having local 
political and human rights activists declared insane to stop their 
activities. A woman in Tashkent, for example, was committed to a 
psychiatric hospital, apparently in part for asking that her neighbors' 
taxes be reduced. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty reported that 
torture, and the fear of it, may even serve as the primary tool of 
controlling society in Uzbekistan.
  Most recently, the Uzbek dictator participated in what is known as 
``Bloody Friday,'' where hundreds of men, women and children were 
murdered on May 13. Since then, he has successfully led efforts to 
thwart any independent investigation.
  The New York Times reported on Saturday that ``Uzbek Ministries in 
Crackdown Received U.S. Aid.'' The United States has provided extensive 
aid to the very Uzbek ministries and the types of units that took part 
in this murderous May 13 crackdown.
  To those who say, well, ``he is a thug but he is our thug,'' I would 
say that this is no way to ensure the protection of our families. Even 
to those in this administration whose interest in human rights has 
waned significantly in recent years, I would say that when you place 
the future of our families in the hands of someone who can cling to 
power only by killing, maiming, and boiling his opponents, you place 
our future in very unreliable hands, and we already have another 
example of this thug's unreliability.
  Mr. Karimov's decision recently to deny nighttime flights and heavy 
cargo flights into our K-2 air base in southern Uzbekistan. Apparently, 
these restrictions result from the fact that Mr. Karimov is peeved at 
the Bush administration because they have not yet spent all the $42.5 
billion appropriated for the K-2 base, and they just soft-pedaled 
international criticism of the latest round of murders, instead of 
fulfilling his desire that they remind the world what a big buddy of 
America he is.
  Undoubtedly, he will be happier with the decision of Secretary 
Rumsfeld, reported last week in The Washington Post, to squelch a call 
by all the other defense ministers of NATO for a transparent, 
independent, and international probe of the Bloody Friday murders.
  During the Memorial Day recess, three Republican Senators took an 
uninvited trip to Uzbekistan where they received firsthand reports of 
the shocking increase in Mr. Karimov's violent repression. All three of 
these Republicans have called for a fundamental change in our dealings 
with the Uzbek people and have suggested that we should reconsider 
long-term commitments. This amendment will accomplish just that.
  As to the form of the amendment, our House rules, as we just saw with 
the amendment offered by the minority leader when she was thwarted in 
an effort to get information about Iraq, severely limit our ability to 
address this concern. Therefore, this particular amendment is simply 
worded, ``Stop all expenditures immediately.''
  I have another version I would be pleased to offer, giving the 
administration more of the flexibility that it is always so eager to 
have, but whatever the specific language, I am confident that the 
conferees, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the people from the Senate can make any 
modifications they deem necessary to this amendment to ensure the 
orderly removal of what was supposed to be a temporary presence in 
Uzbekistan and to provide emergency reentry should this be absolutely 
necessary in the war on terrorism.
  My only goal is the recognition that the United States cannot lead in 
the fight on terrorism by funding a terrorist. Our association with 
thugs like Karimov in Uzbekistan does not enhance our security. It 
jeopardizes that security. We should adopt this amendment because, in 
short, the Bush administration's terrorist in Tashkent is a security 
risk. We risk our security by the bad company Mr. Rumsfeld is keeping.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The gentleman, in his own discussion, has talked about the K-2 
airfield. Afghanistan being one of the battlefields in the global war 
on terrorism. It is extremely important in order for that war to be 
successful.
  K-2 airfield in Uzbekistan is important to our functioning in 
Afghanistan. It is the logistical center where we get things from here 
to Afghanistan that need to get from here to Afghanistan.
  This amendment is a one sentence amendment and says none of the funds 
can be spent in Uzbekistan. We cannot afford not to have the K-2 
airfield in the global war on terror and especially the Afghanistan 
battlefield in that war.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would direct the gentleman, the chairman, for whom I have profound 
respect, to an editorial that appeared today in The Weekly Standard, 
which indicates that President Karzai of Afghanistan is more than 
willing to provide the bases necessary that the gentleman alludes to 
for the global war on terror, and I dare say I would much prefer to do 
business with President Karzai than with this gentleman here who is 
Islam Karimov.
  He is the dictator who runs Uzbekistan, which is a Nation of some 25 
million in central Asia, about the size of California. He is a murderer 
and he is a thug. He holds in his gulag some 6,000 political prisoners. 
He will not allow opposition parties, making any elections a farce. He 
restricts freedom of religion. There is no free press, and as my friend 
from Texas indicated, he recently ordered the slaughter of hundreds of 
innocent civilians who were protesting the systemic abuse of 
fundamental human rights, but maybe they were lucky. At least they were 
not boiled alive in water.

[[Page 13242]]

  This thug has created a culture of torture, and it has been reported 
in media outlets that the CIA has sent recalcitrant individuals there 
under the so-called rendition concept, to torture them and to provide 
intelligence in the war on terrorism.
  Now we know that Saddam has been alluded to as the butcher of 
Baghdad. I would suggest that Islam Karimov can appropriately be 
described as the tyrant of Tashkent.

                              {time}  1715

  As the gentleman from Texas said, we have a problem. Karimov is a 
thug, but he is our thug. This photo to my right depicts him with 
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has praised the thug's wonderful 
cooperation with the United States, and it was President Bush's former 
Secretary of the Treasury who expressed admiration of the thug's, and I 
am quoting here, ``very keen intellect and deep passion for improving 
the lives of his people.'' I presume he did not read the Department of 
State's human rights reports enumerating the abuses that the people of 
Uzbekistan endure on a regular basis.
  In his inaugural address, President Bush promised oppressed people 
that we would not excuse your oppressors, and when you stand for 
liberty, we will stand with you, and one day this untamed fire of 
freedom will reach the darkest corner of this world.
  Well, I would suggest that now is the time to go to that dark corner 
of the world called Uzbekistan and say enough. We can begin by cutting 
off aid, both military and economic, to this thug. We should begin to 
walk the democratic walk and not just indulge in the democratic 
rhetoric because in the end, it is in our best interest as well as the 
people of Uzbekistan.
  A recent GAO report said, ``Recent polling data show that anti-
Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti-
American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism 
directed against Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of 
military operations, weakening the United States' ability to align with 
other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen 
foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.''
  Given how we are supporting this particular thug, is it any wonder 
that we are being charged with hypocrisy and that people doubt the 
President's words. This perceived hypocrisy hurts us. It undermines our 
credibility. And as de Tocqueville said, America is great because 
America is good and if America ever ceases to be good and not express 
its values, then we lose our greatness.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I wanted to rise in strong support of the Doggett amendment. Members 
understand why in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the United 
States was preparing to overthrow the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, 
countries like Kazakhstan and Turk-
menistan and Uzbekistan were considered important allies in the war on 
terrorism. But even then, Members expressed caution about tying U.S. 
interests too closely to these government which have consistently poor 
human rights records.
  This is especially true in the case of Uzbekistan where the Karimov 
government, in the past few months, has wielded power with a 
particularly bloody hand. According to the International Crisis Group, 
on May 13 and 14, the government brutally suppressed a popular uprising 
in the eastern city of Andijan, ostensibly to quell a revolt of Islamic 
extremists. But instead, over 750 unarmed civilians, many of them 
children, were massacred.
  More recently, on June 16, Human Rights Watch reported that a four-
person delegation from the International Helsinki Federation visiting 
the eastern region were detained and forced to leave the region. This 
is just the latest attack against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. 
In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government has been 
targeting human rights defenders and opposition leaders for arrest, 
beatings, intimidation and other brutal acts. This House cannot stand 
by silently and support such brutality. We cannot continue with 
business as usual and issue another blank check for Uzbekistan.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a copy of the Human Rights 
Watch report titled ``Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After 
Massacre.''

          Uzbekistan: Rights Defenders Targeted After Massacre

       In the wake of the Andijan massacre, the Uzbek government 
     is targeting human rights defenders and opposition activists 
     for arrest, beatings and intimidation, Human Rights Watch 
     said today.
       ``The government harassment of human rights defenders is a 
     transparent attempt to hide the truth about what happened in 
     Andijan,'' said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia 
     director at Human Rights Watch.
       Human Rights Watch has documented evidence of a government 
     cover up in Andijan following the government's use of 
     excessive force against demonstrators there on May 13. Human 
     Rights Watch has labeled the incident a massacre.
       The Uzbek government has a longstanding record of harsh 
     treatment of human rights activists and political opponents. 
     In just the past two weeks, Uzbek authorities have arrested 
     at least 10 human rights defenders and opposition activists 
     in Andijan and other cities on trumped up charges. Others 
     have been beaten by unknown assailants, threatened by local 
     authorities, and placed under house arrest.
       Officials involved in these incidents made specific 
     reference to the defenders' human rights activities, 
     including their work documenting the killings in Andijan. In 
     Tashkent and Jizzakh, numerous human rights activists have 
     been questioned about the events in Andijan and threatened 
     with arrest or criminal charges should they engage in 
     demonstrations or other public activities.
       On May 31, a coalition of Uzbek rights defenders issued a 
     plea for help. The group wrote to the United Nations, the 
     Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the 
     European Parliament stating that persecution of Uzbek rights 
     activists and opposition members has increased since the 
     Andijan killings.
       ``We are deeply troubled by this growing crackdown on human 
     rights defenders,'' Cartner said. ``The international 
     community must intervene to stop this campaign and ensure the 
     safety of human rights activists in Uzbekistan.''
       Human Rights Watch has gathered information, including 
     firsthand testimony, concerning 16 separate incidents of 
     arrests, beatings, preventative detention and other 
     intimidation of activists and opposition party members during 
     the past three weeks, including many in Andjian province.
       On Tuesday, June 7, Andijan police detained Hamdam 
     Sulaimonov, deputy chairman of the Fergana Valley branch of 
     the opposition party Birlik (``Unity''). After searching 
     Sulaimonov's home, police seized his computer. He was 
     interrogated about the distribution of a statement about the 
     Andijan events by Birlik party chairman Abdurakhim Polat 
     during a U.S. Helsinki Commission briefing on Uzbekistan in 
     Washington on May 19. Sulaimonov was released on bail, but 
     yesterday was summoned for additional interrogation.
       On June 3, police arrested Mizaffarmizo Iskhakov, a 
     longtime human rights defender and head of the Andijan branch 
     of the human rights group Ezgulik (``Goodness''). Police 
     seized human rights publications and a computer during a 
     search of Iskhakov's home on June 2. Iskhakov was released on 
     bail on Monday, but police retained his passport and ordered 
     him not to leave the city.
       On June 2, Andijan police also arrested Nurmukhammad Azizov 
     and Akbar Oripov of the Andijan branch of Birlik. During 
     searches of the men's homes, police confiscated human rights 
     publications and computers containing a copy of the Birlik 
     statement about the events in Andijan. Azizov and Oripov 
     remain in custody.
       On May 28, authorities in Andjian arrested two members of 
     the Markhamat district branch of Ezgulik: the chairman, 
     Dilmurod Muhiddinov, and Musozhon Bobozhonov. They also 
     arrested Muhammadqodir Otakhonov, of the Uzbek branch of the 
     International Human Rights Society. Police seized human 
     rights materials and copies of the Birlik statement about the 
     events in Andijan from the men's homes. The men are being 
     charged with ``infringement of the constitutional order,'' 
     ``forming a criminal group,'' and ``preparation and 
     distribution of materials containing threats to public order 
     and security.'' They remain in custody and are being 
     questioned without the presence of a lawyer.
       Saidjahon Zainabitdinov, an outspoken human rights defender 
     and chairman of the Andijan human rights group Appelliatsia 
     (``Appeal''), was detained on May 21. Zainabitdinov's 
     description of the killings in Andijan was widely reported in 
     the media. He remains in custody.
       The government campaign against human rights defenders has 
     also spread to other Uzbek cities.

[[Page 13243]]

       On Sunday, June 5, according to the Human Rights Society of 
     Uzbekistan (HRSU), Uzbek security agents arrested Norboy 
     Kholjigitov, a member of the HRSU, in the village of Bobur 
     near Samarkand on charges of corruption. Kholijigitov's 
     whereabouts remain unknown.
       On June 4, police in Karshi arrested Tulkin Karaev, a human 
     rights activist and journalist, and sentenced him to 10 days 
     of administrative arrest. Karaev is one of the few 
     independent Uzbek journalists who has covered the events in 
     Andijan. The HRSU reported that pretext for the arrest was 
     provided when an unknown woman accosted Karaev at a bus stop 
     and then claimed that Karaev had threatened her. Karaev has 
     been denied contact with his lawyer.
       On May 30, two unknown men in civilian clothing beat 
     Sotvoldi Abdullaev of the Uzbek branch of the International 
     Human Rights Society outside his house in Tash-
     kent. The assailants had been monitoring the house from a 
     parked car for several days in attempt to prevent Abdullaev 
     from leaving his house. Abdullaev suffered a severe 
     concussion as a result of the beating and was hospitalized.
       On May 29, 30 armed policemen beat and detained 
     approximately 17 members of Ezgulik from the Fergana Valley 
     area who were participating in a seminar in Tashkent, calling 
     them ``Andijani terrorists.'' The activists were forcibly 
     transported back to the Fergana Valley. The event's 
     organizer, Vasila Inoyatova, head of Ezgulik and a senior 
     member of the Birlik opposition party, was detained by police 
     together with her family. They were released the next day.
       On May 28, Samarkand police arrested Kholiqnazar Ganiyev, 
     head of the Samarkand province offices of both Ezgulik and 
     the Birlik, on charges of ``hooliganism'' and sentenced him 
     to 15 days of administrative arrest. A group of women, 
     apparently government provocateurs, attacked Ganiyev's house 
     and then brought charges against him when he asked them to 
     leave.
       On May 26, a police official in Jizzakh came to the home of 
     Tatiana Dovlatova, an activist with the Society for Human 
     Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens of Uzbekistan, and 
     aggressively demanded that she go with him to the 
     prosecutor's office. She refused to go unless provided with 
     an official summons. The official then placed her under armed 
     house arrest for the day and threatened to send her to a 
     psychiatric hospital if she attempted to leave.
       On May 22, 70 people, including representatives of various 
     government agencies, forcibly entered the Jizzakh home of 
     Bakhtior Kamroev, chairman of the Jizzakh province branch of 
     the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan. The crowd conducted a 
     Soviet-style hate rally against Khamroev right in his home. 
     They accused him of being a traitor for passing information 
     to Western organizations, including human rights groups, and 
     of being a ``Wahabbist'' and a ``terrorist.'' The authorities 
     also pressured Kamroev to leave Jizzakh and made threats 
     against his life and against his family.

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that even those 
individuals, who may be concerned more about that air base than whether 
hundreds of people were murdered, raped, suffocated or boiled alive, I 
think the point here is not just about human rights, it is about the 
security of American families.
  When we rely on a thug like Karimov, we end up with him squeezing us, 
just like he is doing now by not letting us have nighttime flights at 
the K-2 base, not letting heavy cargo planes come in. His limitations 
are imposed not on the basis that we have criticized him, but that we 
have not done enough to praise him. We have a base in Kyrgyzstan, we 
have bases in Afghanistan. We have other ways of continuing the war on 
terrorism, but we make a mistake when we put the security of our 
families in the hands of someone who is a terrorist himself.
  And how ironic that we would be doing this at the same time the 
recent elections in Iran were criticized by the administration for not 
being fair enough. There is no danger that Uzbekistan will ever get to 
the level of Iran. At least Iran has elections, however deficient they 
may be. We do not have that in Uzbekistan.
  In short, the administration says democracy is on the march, but in 
Uzbekistan it is democracy that is getting marched on. I believe we 
jeopardize our security by contributing to what is a boiling pot. That 
pot is, Mr. Karimov's method of dealing with his opponents. When that 
pot eventually boils over, we will lose more than an air base. We will 
be burned by the injustice that he has been a part of and that is why I 
offer this amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas is absolutely 
right, and that is why Members should support the Doggett amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues 
that in the 1980s we dealt with a thug by the name of Saddam Hussein 
because we believed we had common mutual interests, particularly during 
the course of the war between Iraq and Iran.
  During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we allied ourselves with Osama 
bin Laden against the Soviets, and what did we get for it. Let us be 
careful.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) pointed out, this is about human 
rights, but it is more about our long-term national security interests, 
and it seems to me that we need to take a different approach here.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 117, after line 5, insert the following title:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10___. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to initiate military operations except in 
     accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of 
     the United States.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. Let me read it in 
its entirety. ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
used to initiate military operations except in accordance with Article 
I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.''
  The intent of this is simple: To prevent the President from 
committing U.S. forces to additional wars without first coming to 
Congress for a vote authorizing such military action. If the President 
wishes or feels it is necessary to have a war with Syria, Iran, North 
Korea or any other nation, then under the U.S. Constitution and my 
amendment, he must first come to Congress.
  Some will try and argue that this would tie the hands of the 
President and the Pentagon and the CIA when it comes down to tracking 
down al Qaeda. My amendment would not impact the government's ability 
to hunt, apprehend or kill members of al Qaeda. On September 18, 
Congress adopted a broad authorization of force that says the President 
is authorized to use all necessary appropriate force against nations, 
organizations, and persons he determines planned, authorized, 
committed, aided the terrorist attacks, or harbored such organizations 
or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international 
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or 
persons.
  Referring back to the preceding list of countries, if the President 
could demonstrate that any of them were involved in 9/11, he would not 
need further authorization from Congress. Nor would my amendment impact 
on our ongoing military operations in Iraq. On October 16, 2002, 
Congress authorized

[[Page 13244]]

those actions under the United States Constitution.
  Further, there are those who would say what about covert activities? 
It is important to note that title 50, United States Code, section 413, 
already provides Congressional authorization pursuant to amendments in 
1980 to the National Security Act of 1947, for the President to 
authorize covert operations under certain circumstances on behalf of 
the United States.
  In other words, if my amendment passes, the President will still have 
all of the authorization from Congress he needs to actively pursue al 
Qaeda operations in Iraq and other terrorist activities around the 
globe.
  The amendment simply seeks to reinforce war powers granted solely to 
Congress under the U.S. Constitution to ensure the President cannot 
launch a major war against Iran, Syria, North Korea or any other nation 
without a vote from Congress.
  Some will say, Is that really necessary? On April 18, 2002, in 
response to a letter I and other Members sent to the President about 
the need to authorize the war with Iraq, I received a letter from then-
White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez, now Attorney General. Mr. 
Gonzalez stated that the President has broad Constitutional authority 
as Commander-in-Chief, and as the sole organ of the Federal Government 
in foreign affairs to deploy the Armed Forces of the United States, a 
formal declaration of war or other authorization from the Congress is 
not required to enable the President to undertake the full range of 
actions that may be necessary to protect our national security. That is 
an extraordinarily broad assertion not supported by a President after 
more than 200 years of interpretation of the Constitution.
  So I feel my amendment, as narrow as it is, is necessary to protect 
the war powers separation of the President as the Commander-in-Chief. 
The Congress of the United States has the sole authority to declare 
war, except in case of sudden attack upon the United States, its 
citizens, or armed forces. Ample opportunity exists for the President 
to continue to pursue al Qaeda and others and the war in Iraq under 
this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues, if they support that interpretation of the 
Constitution, which is broadly acknowledged by most legal scholars, 
except Mr. Gonzalez, and I do not know if he is a legal scholar, and 
would uphold our authority.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the war we are involved in now is not a war against a 
country or against an armed force that is organized and structured and 
representing a country. We are in a war against terrorism. We did not 
start the war. They started it. The terrorists started it when they 
attacked the World Trade Center, when they attacked the Pentagon, 
attacked the USS Cole, attacked Khobar Towers, which housed our airmen. 
They started it in many, many ways.
  But who would we declare war against for the World Trade Center or 
for the USS Cole? They were acts of terror. They were not acts by some 
nation or some organized military.
  This amendment sounds good. I can almost be persuaded, but it just 
does not work. Let us suppose our military intelligence detected that 
an enemy of the United States was preparing to take military action 
against our country or our troops overseas. We could not take military 
action to prevent that attack without a specific declaration of war.

                              {time}  1730

  It might be too late then. Prohibiting initiating military operations 
could be read to prohibit military action to capture, kill, or pursue 
terrorists who are operating in a third country, not as part of that 
country but operating within the country, which is what they do. Even 
if that country is a friend of ours, they would still operate within 
that country.
  Do you really want to say that we should not try to capture or kill 
Osama bin Laden if we find that he has traveled to a country where we 
currently do not have ongoing military operations? I think we hunt 
Osama bin Laden no matter where he is, a friend or a foe or anyplace 
else. Waiting for formal congressional approval for such military 
action might mean we miss the opportunity to capture the man who is 
responsible for thousands of American deaths. On its face, it sounds 
like a pretty good idea; but it just does not work in the type of world 
that we live in today, in the type of enemy that we face today, the 
enemy that has killed so many innocent Americans right here in our own 
country.
  This is not a good amendment, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
appreciate what the gentleman from Oregon is doing, and I know what he 
has in mind. I know in 1991, President Bush had a number of us at the 
White House. He did not think he needed to come to Congress, but he 
did.
  I know that this last war, a number of people from the former 
administration called me, from the former Bush administration, called 
me and asked me to talk to the President about making sure he came to 
Congress and came to the U.N. before they went. So I understand what 
the gentleman is trying to do. I cannot imagine a President going into 
an independent country, and we have been trying to keep as close ties 
as we can in this bill on the President or the administration when they 
try to go into these other countries. I know that they thought they 
could go before, and they did not.
  And so I would say to the gentleman, I would hope that he would 
believe that Congress would have a role and we certainly have to fund 
it, so at any time we could just not fund it. Our role is a big role, 
and I know to stop the Vietnam War, the funding was reduced 
substantially. I can remember the exact incident on this floor when 
that happened. The public was for it up to a point. The public has 
turned against this war, as all of us know, in Iraq. But we still have 
some problems.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Florida's speech 
was written by his staff, but he said that we could not pursue Osama 
bin Laden. If he had listened to my speech where I quoted back 
legislation that he voted for and I voted for which authorized the war 
with Afghanistan, it went on to the fact of any nation that harbors 
such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of 
international terrorism. That pretty well covers Osama bin Laden.
  I do not appreciate the gentleman raising these bizarre allegations. 
He may disagree with me, he may want to cede this authority to the 
President of the United States and abdicate our constitutional duties. 
That is fine. But do not raise these false issues. It does not go to 
Osama bin Laden. He is already covered. It does not go to Iraq. It is 
already covered. It does not go to a third country that is potentially 
threatening or any group threatening the United States. That is covered 
under war powers.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand that, but 
what I am saying is under the Constitution we have a responsibility. I 
do not think any of us want to cede that responsibility to any 
President, no matter if he is Democrat or Republican. The only time it 
happens is when we may be misled or something like that, but as a whole 
the Congress wants to do what is right. I would be very concerned if we 
passed something that might limit us here.
  I appreciate the passion of the gentleman. I feel the same way. I 
feel just as strongly as he does, that the Congress has the ultimate 
say about whether we go to war. I would urge the Members to vote 
against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 13245]]


  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering deals with the 
issue of the outsourcing of torture. It is identical to amendments that 
this House has previously approved to the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill in March and the State-Justice appropriations last 
week. Very simply, it states that none of the funds appropriated in 
this bill may be spent in contravention of laws and regulations adopted 
to implement the convention against torture.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I want to say to him that this is a good amendment. As the gentleman 
pointed out, it was agreed to overwhelmingly in the supplemental. We 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for his acceptance. I will try to 
conclude briefly on my time so that the House can understand what it is 
that they are accepting.
  The convention against torture is a treaty signed by the United 
States under President Ronald Reagan, and it was ratified by the Senate 
in 1994. It prohibits any use of torture or other cruel or degrading 
treatment. It also prohibits the outsourcing of torture by sending 
people to any country where there is a reasonable likelihood that they 
will face torture.
  My amendment simply ratifies America's commitment to the convention. 
It does not change current law. It is a simple funding restriction 
aimed at underscoring to all of the defense and intelligence agencies 
funded under this bill that they need to ensure that all of their 
activities are fully compliant with America's treaty obligations and 
with the requirements of United States law and regulation.
  It is wrong for the United States to capture prisoners, put them on 
Gulfstreams and fly them to Syria or Uzbekistan with the assurance 
given by those countries which we know are human rights abusers that 
they will not torture prisoners. If the United States captures a 
prisoner, we should keep that prisoner in our possession, or send him 
to a country which has the same values which we have. But it would be 
wrong to continue to engage in a process where we send these prisoners 
to Syria, for example, which administers electrical shocks, pulling out 
of fingernails, forcing prisoners to engage in inhumane acts.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his acceptance of this 
amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment to the 
Defense Appropriations Bill. This important amendment prohibits defense 
funds from being used for torture, or to transfer prisoners-of-war to 
countries that employ the use of torture. That should be a simple 
decision, a ``no brainer'' vote for Markey--stop funding torture. Vote 
against Markey--agree to funding torture.
  This decision is important because the way we treat our enemies 
speaks volumes about our character as a Nation, as Americans. I am 
embarrassed to say that America's treatment of prisoners over the last 
several years does not speak highly of our national integrity, of the 
people we really are.
  Over the last 2 years, news of prisoners being mistreated, beaten, 
sexually assaulted, and even killed while in U.S. custody has become 
all too commonplace and I fear we have yet to hear the whole story.
  Prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo 
Bay. Considering the widespread use of torture, no one can claim that 
these are isolated incidents, that it's merely the work of ``a few bad 
apples.''
  The fact that torture occurred in separate places, and under the 
command of different interrogators, leads me to believe that a more 
systemic failure took place, a system that starts from the very top, 
not from a few misguided enlisted personnel.
  You could say that the turning point--the day torture became a 
routine tactic employed by the United States--was August 1, 2002. The 
day the Justice Department sent a memo to the White House, stating that 
torturing terrorists in captivity ``may be justified.''
  It's not just that physical abuse has taken place under our watch. 
That's bad enough, but what is just as appalling is that legal abuses 
have taken place here at home. We have kept people in prison for more 
than 3 years without charging them with a crime, and the administration 
has affirmed this practice through legal memos.
  This approval of torture--by the White House, the Pentagon, and the 
Justice Department--is not only shameful, it also endangers the United 
States.
  At a time when the U.S. is courting the support of the international 
world--particularly the Arab world--the torture of foreign prisoners, 
along with our invasion of Iraq, gives the world's extremists what they 
believe to be a legitimate reason to hate the United States. There has 
been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than preemptively attacking 
Iraq and the events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
  Mr. Chairman, we must end this shameful chapter in our Nation's 
history by pledging that the United States will not engage in the act 
of torture. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Markey 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to carry out sections 701 through 722 of the 
     Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of 
     1988 (Public Law 100-656; 15 U.S.C. 644 note).

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Federal marketplace has experienced 
amazing growth over the past 4 years, increasing by $100 billion. Given 
this increase, it would only be logical that our Nation's small 
businesses would see similar growth in contracting opportunities. 
However, this has not been the case. The reality is that small firms 
continue to be shut out of the Federal marketplace. The Federal 
Government has failed to reach its small business goal of 23 percent 
for the past 4 years now, costing small businesses $15 billion in lost 
contracting opportunity in fiscal year 2003 alone.
  The Department of Defense has been an agency that has had a 
significant amount of trouble with this. One of the main causes has 
been contract bundling, which is the practice of combining contracts 
previously performed

[[Page 13246]]

by small businesses into one mega-
contract that is simply too large for small firms to bid on. But often 
overlooked is that a significant contribution to the inability of the 
Department of Defense to make its goal is the comp demo program.
  The comp demo program was created in 1989, but was made permanent 
during the Clinton administration under the guise of increasing small 
business participation. The theory behind it was to give agencies 
direction in finding small business contracting opportunities in 
nontraditional industries. This would be done by capping the amount of 
contracts in those industries that have been historically dominated by 
small businesses.
  However, this is not what the program has done. Instead, it has 
limited small business participation in the Federal marketplace. The 
comp demo program diverts contracting opportunities to large firms, 
effectively limiting the ability of small companies to compete. While 
DOD is required to meet a 23 percent small business goal, the comp demo 
program ties its hands and restricts awarding contracts in the 
industries where small businesses excel. At a time when agencies are 
already struggling to meet their small business goals, this simply 
makes no sense. For an agency that represents 70 percent of all 
government contracting, this is clearly having a negative impact on our 
Nation's entrepreneurs.
  The reality is that this program simply does not work, and this 
program has been recognized by the administration and the Department of 
Defense themselves. They proposed to eliminate the comp demo program 
altogether in the DOD's legislative package for 2006.
  My amendment acknowledges the problem and provides a viable solution 
to fix it by prohibiting the use of funds for fiscal year 2006 to 
implement the comp demo program. This is supported by the Associated 
General Contractors, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, 
the National Small Business Association, and the National Black Chamber 
of Commerce. This action alone would have the impact of awarding some 
$4.3 billion in additional contracts to small businesses.
  In today's Federal marketplace, small businesses are losing traction, 
and they cannot afford to be deprived of these opportunities. The comp 
demo program is only making small business owners' struggle to break 
into the Federal marketplace all the more difficult. By adopting this 
amendment, we will be taking a step to fix this problem. When small 
businesses say the program does not work, DOD says it and the 
administration is saying it, clearly something needs to change.
  My amendment will do this. It is not only good for small businesses 
but also for the taxpayer and our Nation's economy. If we want to get 
this economy back on track and create the jobs we need, then we must 
give small business the opportunity and tools to do so. The comp demo 
program is simply not doing that, and it needs to end.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on this amendment for 
better use of the taxpayers' dollars and to help our Nation's small 
businesses compete in the Federal marketplace.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the concerns of the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Small Business. I know exactly what 
she is trying to do here, because I understand that the Defense 
Department also would support suspension of the small business 
competitive demonstration program. But it is also my understanding that 
the chairman of the Committee on Small Business supports its 
continuation. To me, this appears to be a dispute between the chairman 
and the ranking minority member of the authorizing committee. It seems 
to me that it should be addressed on an authorizing bill rather than on 
the appropriations bill. The appropriations committee is being asked to 
referee a program where we do not really have sufficient knowledge of 
the program.
  I just wonder how the gentlewoman would react if I suggested that she 
might withdraw her amendment and work with her chairman on these 
matters of concern. It seems to me the Committee on Small Business is 
the proper place to adjudicate this matter.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the authorizing committee 
was not able to come together for the small business authorization to 
report a bill out of our committee. And for those people and Members 
who are always talking about helping small businesses and providing 
opportunities in the Federal marketplace and when the Department of 
Defense is saying that this does not make sense, this is an opportunity 
to do it, and this is why I want a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, believe me, I 
understand the gentlewoman's concerns. As I suggested, the Department 
of Defense understands that concern as well. But it was just a 
suggestion that maybe we could have the two of them work this out. But, 
anyway, I have made my suggestion.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me say to my friend from New York, I appreciate very much the 
intention of the amendment. I have got to oppose it in its current 
form. It seems to me that this Act has some very good attributes to it, 
and the argument may be in some of the designated industry groups that 
are listed.
  One of the problems is that the participating agencies currently will 
designate areas that are currently dominated by small businesses as 
small business set-asides. These are areas that in full and open 
competition, small businesses are going to win anyway, and by using 
their percentages in these areas, it means that small businesses who 
could use the set-asides in other areas are not able to use it. So I 
think what we have here is the law of unintended consequences.
  We are taking areas such as lawn services, roofing, siding 
contractors, glass and glazing contractors, masonry, areas that in full 
and open competition, small businesses are winning by overwhelming 
margins; but the agencies are taking these areas and saying we are 
going to designate these as small business set-asides and use their 
percentages in these areas, and that means that small businesses cannot 
penetrate other areas.
  So it is really for these reasons that I rise to oppose the 
amendment, because I think it shifts the burden in these cases where 
small businesses are currently winning open competition, and it uses 
the allocation for set-asides into these areas that I think small 
businesses could benefit in other areas, in some of the technology 
areas, in some of the IT areas. That is my concern.
  Let me just make one point. I think the argument ought to be some of 
the designated industry groups in this case where maybe we see large 
businesses coming in and taking over, and we could work under those 
areas appropriately if the case can be made that small business 
dominance in these areas is not hit, but without that we have not added 
a nickel to what small businesses get under the set-aside programs. We 
have not added a percentage. We just shift the burden.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, before the Comp Demo program, small 
businesses in those selective industries were making 78 percent of all 
the contracts. Right now they are doing only 38 percent, almost cut in 
half. And, besides, I thought that the gentleman represented the party 
where people are rewarding small businesses or businesses that are 
exceeding. So now if they are doing a little bit better, then we are 
going to punish them?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
absolutely because what happens is when we shift the small business 
set-aside allocations into these programs, we are

[[Page 13247]]

taking it away from other programs, these areas where small businesses 
are designated.
  I do not know about the gentlewoman's percentage of 78 percent 38 
percent, but what I would argue is if there is an issue here, I know I 
would be happy to work with her, and I am sure the chairman of the 
Committee on Small Business, to look at some of these designated 
industry groups where perhaps small business is not dominating and was 
intended to, and we work on that rather than gutting the whole 
provision. That would be the approach that I would take. I would be 
happy to work with the gentlewoman on that.
  But this amendment guts the whole program, and I think ultimately it 
is not good for the government because I think the government is not 
getting small business set-asides in some of the innovative areas where 
they can go and they are giving it to areas where small businesses tend 
to dominate in full and open competition. So that is my rationale for 
opposing the amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, this is about economic opportunity for 
small businesses. The fact of the matter is that the Federal 
marketplace is growing and that small businesses are losing out; that 
their number of dollars and contracts are shrinking, and the Federal 
Government is not achieving the 23 percent statutory goal set by 
Congress.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this 
does not add a percentage. This does not add a nickel to the small 
business set-aside program. It does not add a percentage. It just 
shifts the burden. And the argument ought to be going into the 
particular designated industry groups where the gentlewoman is claiming 
small businesses used to dominate and are losing out, and let us look 
at those and let us try to be fair in that way.
  But for heaven's sake, in areas like lawn care, in some of these 
services levels that are low tech, let us not set aside small 
businesses set-asides there where small businesses dominate in full and 
open competition. Let us put them in areas where we can improve it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense is saying that 
immediately small businesses will get $4.4 billion if this is fixed.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they may 
get it here, but they will take it away from set-asides in other areas 
because the overall set-aside percentages in these participating 
agencies does not change at all. So the problem with that is that we 
are shifting it and we are moving the small business set-asides into 
areas that small businesses also dominate.
  I will refer the gentlewoman, frankly, to the statute in the areas 
that are the designated industry groups under the statute, and I think 
it is clear looking at this that many of these areas, siding 
contractors, roofing, masonry, framing contractors, these are areas 
that are traditionally dominated by small business and will continue to 
be.
  But I will be happy to work with the gentlewoman on designated 
industry groups and changing that around if she can make the case.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this Velazquez amendment is an effort to kill the Small 
Business Comp Demonstration program. The issue is more appropriately 
settled in the authorizing committee and not on an appropriations bill.
  First of all, the Comp Demonstration program does not cost the 
taxpayers one dime. There is no money appropriated for it. The Small 
Business Competitive Demonstration program began in 1988 with three 
purposes: first, to help emerging small businesses; second, to expand 
the participation of small businesses and industries that were 
traditionally dominated by large businesses; and, third, to test the 
competitiveness of small businesses in industries in which small 
businesses are well represented. The Comp Demo program was renewed in 
1992, made permanent in 1997, and slightly expanded in 2004 as a part 
of larger bills that passed by wide margins or unanimous consent.
  Prior to the adoption of the Comp Demonstration program, small 
businesses were relegated to industries dominated by small businesses. 
Federal agencies could say they met their overall small business goals 
while not doing much to provide more contracts to small businesses in 
more higher-end, higher-paying industries. The Comp Demo program ended 
this practice all while showing that small businesses are still 
competitive in the industries where they have been historically well 
represented. These industries include construction, garbage collection, 
architectural engineering, surveying and mapping, non nuclear 
shipbuilding and ship repair, landscaping, and pest control. The Comp 
Demo program requires that small businesses receive a ``fair 
proportion'' of government contracts in each industry rather than just 
a few.
  The principles upon which the program were established are still 
valid. Emerging small businesses still need help. Small businesses need 
to participate in industries in which they have traditionally not had a 
chance to obtain a Federal contract.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, not very often will Members hear me contradict the 
ranking member of the Committee on Small Business. But I rise in 
opposition to this amendment and will include my entire statement in 
the Record.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, even though I have the utmost 
respect for its author and have long appreciated her work and her 
leadership on so many issues which have come before this House.
  But the amendment before the House today attempts to effectively 
repeal the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program Act of 
1988, better known as the ``Comp Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of 
funds to carry out its implementing provisions.
  Comp Demo has not been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping 
assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain 
Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not affect 
contracts which are set-aside for minority-owned, socially 
disadvantaged, and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.
  From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the 
tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of 
NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than 
finding and developing a broad array of codes from which to meet these 
goals, a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical effect 
of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately used 
industries from assessing the benefits of the small business set-aside 
program.
  And that is why I oppose this amendment. The Comp Demo law has proven 
its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is fair to small 
businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures that Federal 
agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law regarding small 
business set-asides.
  I agree with those who would suggest that this program, as well as 
practically all, need to undergo changes and need to be shaped in a 
better way to help make absolutely certain that small businesses have 
the greatest amount of opportunity to procure business from the Federal 
Government.
  However, I also believe that small businesses that have reached a 
certain level of their being also need the opportunity to continue to 
grow and to develop, that small businesses that might be part of 
franchises but are nevertheless small businesses need the opportunity 
to participate.
  And for those reasons, I would be in disagreement with this 
amendment. I urge that it be not approved and would look forward to 
working with all of

[[Page 13248]]

those who would want to work to try to reshape the law in such a manner 
that it would be more fair and more equitable to small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentlelady 
from New York, Ms. Velazquez, and I ask unanimous consent that my 
entire statement be included in the Record.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment even though I have the utmost 
respect for its author and I have long appreciated her good work on so 
many other issues which have come before this House.

       The amendment before the House today attempts to 
     effectively repeal the Small Business Competitiveness 
     Demonstration Program Act of 1988, better known as the ``Comp 
     Demo'' law, by prohibiting the use of funds to carry out its 
     implementing provisions.

  Comp Demo has been an effective tool for over 17 years in helping 
assure that small businesses across a wide array of industries gain 
Federal contracts. Equally important, Comp Demo does not effect 
contracts which are set aside for minority-owned, socially 
disadvantaged and service disabled veteran-owned businesses.
  From its inception, the Comp Demo law has sought to address the 
tendency of agencies to disproportionately rely upon a small number of 
NAICS codes to meet their small business set-aside goals rather than 
finding and developing a broad array of NAICS codes from which to meet 
those goals--a practice which, if unremedied, would have the practical 
effect of precluding small businesses outside those disproportionately 
used industries from accessing the benefits of the small business set-
aside program that Congress intended.
  That is why I oppose the amendment before the House today. The Comp 
Demo law has proven its effectiveness during its 17-year history. It is 
fair to small businesses interested in Federal contracting and assures 
that Federal agencies meet the spirit and the letter of the law 
regarding small business set asides.
  As background, Members should be informed that the Comp Demo program 
was passed in 1988 to assure that small businesses in all product and 
service categories receive the benefits of the current Small Business 
Set Aside program when pursuing Federal contracts, rather than just a 
few, ``easy-to-do'' industries.
  As such, Comp Demo has effectively worked for the past 17 years to 
assure that competition and diversity occurs in small business 
procurement (See: section 921 of P.L. 99-661) and that small businesses 
receive a ``fair proportion'' of government contracts in each industry, 
rather than just a few.
  The Comp Demo program recognizes that contracts in certain NAICS 
codes--including construction, architectural and engineering, surveying 
and mapping, shipbuilding and ship repair, refuse systems, landscaping 
and pest control services--have had a history of being 
disproportionately set aside for small business, even though overall 
small business participation in the open marketplace in these 
industries was high.
  And while the NAICS codes covered by the Comp Demo program had a 
significant amount of contracts historically set aside for small 
business, very talented small businesses in many other NAICS codes have 
seen little, if any, small business set-aside contracts come their way, 
despite representation of capable small firms in those other NAICS 
codes.
  Moreover, the practice of disproportionately using a small, 
unrepresentative sample of NAICS codes for meeting small business set-
aside goals has the practical effect of precluding small businesses 
outside those disproportionately used industries from realizing the 
benefits of the small business set-aside program as Congress intended.
  This practice can also operate to relegate the small business set-
aside program to lower-tech products and services while leaving higher-
tech NAICS codes less open to small business penetration and success in 
Federal contracting--something that clearly runs contrary to Congress's 
desires to both strengthen the diversity of the defense industrial base 
and assure fairness in Federal contracting.
  On the basis of its operation over 17 years, Comp Demo has shown that 
small businesses covered by Comp Demo can and do compete for and win 
the majority of the contracts, though on an unrestricted basis. Equally 
important, Comp Demo does not effect set asides for:
  Minority-owned and socially disadvantaged businesses--that is, set 
asides for 8(a) and HUB Zone companies are not subject to the Comp Demo 
law.
  Similarly, Comp Demo does not apply to set asides for service-
disabled veteran owned businesses either.
  In addition, very small/local businesses retain important set-aside 
protections under Comp Demo as well, including:
  All contracts under $25,000 on the Comp Demo list must be set aside 
for restricted competition only among qualified emerging small 
businesses, i.e., small businesses that are less than 50 percent of the 
applicable size limit.
  Moreover, Comp Demo also requires that all contracts over $25,000 in 
each designated NAICS category on the Comp Demo list must be set aside 
for restricted competition only among qualified small businesses, until 
the agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of contracts within 
that industry group to small businesses.
  Only after an agency has met its goal of awarding 40 percent of 
contracts within a listed NAICS category can contracts over $25,000 in 
that designated NAICS category be awarded on unrestricted competition--
again, except for those contracts set aside as 8(a), HUB Zone or 
service-disabled veteran owned companies.
  Finally, Comp Demo was begun as a demonstration project some 17 years 
ago. It was renewed in 1992, made permanent in 1997, and slightly 
expanded in 2004 to include two additional NAICS codes. In all 
instances, Comp Demo was part of a larger bill which passed by wide, 
bipartisan margins or unanimous consent.
  Comp Demo was set up to expand opportunities for small businesses 
across a broad and diverse set of NAICS codes, rather than in a few, 
``easy-to-do'' categories. The repeal of the program has no real 
justification, would harm overall, broad-based small business 
participation in Federal contracting, and harm the development of a 
diverse defense industrial base. As such, I urge its rejection by the 
House.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had not planned on speaking on the small business 
issue, but let me give an area in which my friends may be able to work 
and not just even in this bill, but in the Military Construction bill.
  In San Diego, where we have a lot of military construction in bases, 
a lot of those packages are put together so large that only an out-of-
town, out-of-State company can bid on those packages to build houses 
and military facilities. And we have tried over the years to try to 
break it down where they can break down those large packages so that 
smaller firms, the independent contractors, the little guys, can have a 
shot and an opportunity at building those. And I would work with the 
gentlewoman and the gentleman to make that happen because it is just 
not right to have an out-of-town company because the bid is so large to 
do that.
  I would also like to bring up the bill itself. When one is in the 
military, they look at a couple of things. One, they look at a Congress 
that will give them the tools to fight, to train, and to win. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), it is the 
most bipartisan committee that we have, I think, in this House. The 
work that they have done to make sure that our troops are taken care 
of, even the ones coming back. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) 
wife, I do not think there is a day that she is not out there at one of 
the hospitals comforting the men or the women that came back that are 
wounded. But even more in this, for San Diego to shipbuilding, ship 
repair, Admiral Clark, who is CNO, has done his absolute best to make 
sure that it is balanced between the private and the public yards, 
between the east and the west coast.

                              {time}  1800

  There is an aircraft in here that is key. There is a system called 
the F-22. Right now, our fighters, our best fighters, which most people 
do not know, the F-14, the F-16, the F-18, if they go against the SU-30 
or the SU-37, our American fighters lose over 90 percent of the time, 
both in the intercept and in the dog fight. The F-22 gives us the 
opportunity to put our pilots back into an airplane that can at least 
go neutral with the enemy. The Joint Strike Fighter is coming up; and 
in my personal opinion, we need to add to that to make sure that it is 
viable against whatever the threat is as well.
  But I also want to thank the chairman and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman

[[Page 13249]]

from Florida (Mr. Young). San Diego or any port that has a lot of bases 
is very critical to homeland security. From the Coast Guard to the 
border patrol, to INS, to this bill, they have done a good job. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been, and I have been on 
this committee ever since I have been here, and I want to thank him for 
his personal attention, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) as well.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  There was no objection.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, there are some who said that capping 
small business opportunity in certain industries increases 
opportunities in other industries. That might have been the theory 
behind the program in 1988 when it was created, but that has not been 
the case. Different industries offer different opportunities; some are 
very favorable to small businesses.
  The Department of Defense has not achieved its small business goal 
for the past 4 years. That is the reality. So, clearly, they are not 
making up the difference someplace else.
  Under the comp demo program, small businesses are guaranteed 40 
percent participation in the targeted industries. If the agency does 
not achieve 40 percent with small firms, it can reinstate small 
businesses' set-asides. One need look no further than the goal for 
architectural and engineering services, which has never been achieved. 
We have asked the Department of Defense. They do not reinstate set-
asides when the achievement with small businesses is less than 40 
percent.
  Forty percent small business participation is a good thing. Normally, 
small businesses only get 23 percent. If a small business's 
participation decreases from 78 percent to 40 percent, that is the loss 
of 38 percent, and that is what is happening now.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is, if you support small business 
opportunity in the Federal marketplace, you should support this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) will be postponed.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise to engage in a colloquy with a great 
leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who, of course, 
is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.
  First, I just want to thank the gentleman for the very hard work that 
he consistently does for the security of our Nation. I appreciate this 
opportunity to discuss an issue that is of great importance, and that 
is ensuring that our Federal defense dollars are not used to support 
groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically 
elected governments.
  Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, we would not need to have to 
explicitly stipulate this, but events in Haiti last year and, more 
recently in Venezuela, have led me to wonder whether we need to codify 
this straightforward, nonpartisan position.
  Furthermore, the administration has committed its second term to 
spreading democracy around the world. This is an important sentiment, 
Mr. Chairman, but we need to be sure that if this administration, or 
equally any future administration, does not agree with certain 
democratically elected governments, that it does not use the Department 
of Defense funds to overthrow those democratically elected governments. 
Such actions fly in the face of our own fundamental democratic 
principles.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) if 
he could comment on this and what his views are with regard to the 
ideas that we are presenting today.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from 
California that I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a 
democratically elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure her that as this 
bill moves forward, we will be mindful to work with her and her staff 
to do everything we can to help.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to thank the 
gentleman for his attention to this issue and so many issues that are 
important to our Nation. I also look forward to working together and 
especially will request his help in developing a working definition in 
the United States Code because now, quite frankly, there is no working 
definition for ``democratically elected governments.'' We have been 
searching legal databases, and I am frankly quite surprised that no 
such definition exists in the U.S. Code.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to see that the amendment that was 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to prevent any 
funds in this bill from being used to contravene the United Nations' 
acts and other acts against torture. I think that is a very good thing.
  But I need to take this opportunity to point out to the House that we 
are foregoing our responsibility here to investigate these kinds of 
acts that have taken place over the course of the last 2 years or so in 
places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, Bagram Air Base in 
Afghanistan; and we have an increasing amount of evidence indicating 
that these kinds of torturous activities were not just carried out 
incidentally by low-ranking members of the armed services, but that 
this was systemic and systematic.
  We have, for example, recently released documents from Lieutenant 
General Ricardo Sanchez which seem to indicate that he approved 
interrogation techniques outside of the Geneva Convention, outside of 
international law, and outside the U.S. Army's own field manual. These 
activities included prolonged stress positions, sensory deprivation, 
use of dogs to induce stress and fear. We have the first Abu Ghraib 
report directed by U.S. Army Major General Antonio Taguba, who wrote in 
his conclusion that ``between October and December of 2003 at the Abu 
Ghraib confinement facility, numerous incidents and sadistic, blatant, 
and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted. This systemic,'' he says, 
``systemic and illegal abuse was intentionally perpetrated.''
  It is clear from General Taguba's reports that these were not 
incidental, and that they were inflicted broadly.
  The Red Cross reported, by eye witnesses at about the same time, 
``these methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the 
military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and 
extract information or other forms of cooperation from persons who had 
been arrested or deemed to have security value.'' That is a quote from 
the Red Cross report.
  Officials implicated in abuse now, interestingly enough, are being 
promoted. There has been no action taken against the officials 
implicated in this abuse at the highest levels.
  This Congress is abrogating its responsibility. This House of 
Representatives should be holding hearings. It may be necessary to 
appoint a special counsel out of the Justice Department to look into 
this. We need to get to the bottom of this. Our reputation as a Nation 
is at stake.
  Now, we might ask, as others have, how did all of this begin? Well, 
here is what the circumstantial evidence indicates. The circumstantial 
evidence, backed up by the report from which I just quoted, written by 
Major General Antonio Taguba, shows that it originated at the highest 
levels of the Pentagon, communicated by Steven

[[Page 13250]]

Cambone, who was appointed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to be the 
first Under Secretary for Intelligence.
  This is the first time that the Secretary of Defense or that the 
Pentagon has had an Under Secretary for Intelligence. That man is 
Steven Cambone. He communicated to General Geoffrey Miller, the 
commander of the detention and interrogation center at Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba, that these kinds of activities needed to take place.
  Now, General Geoffrey Miller, according to the Taguba report, said 
that detention operations must act as enablers for interrogation. He 
introduced into Iraq the exclusive and illegal interrogation tactics 
used at Guantanamo to ``GITMO-ize'' the prison system in Iraq. They 
told our good soldiers in Iraq that no rules apply, no rules apply; and 
then people wonder how these low-ranking individuals carried out the 
acts that have been documented now in court proceedings as well as in 
photographs.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the House of 
Representatives is not fulfilling its obligations under the law and 
under the Constitution. The system of checks and balances has broken 
down. It seems as though the executive branch of government is behaving 
in a way outside of the law. We need to pay attention to this. This 
House needs to engage itself in the right kinds of activities for the 
right kinds of purposes.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. If funds provided in this or any other Act for 
     military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan would cause 
     Federal deficit levels to exceed those set in House 
     Concurrent Resolution 95 for FY 2006 or any subsequent year, 
     the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     shall report a concurrent resolution on the budget that would 
     maintain the deficit levels set in House Concurrent 
     Resolution 95 while including this additional discretionary 
     spending in spending totals.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we have so far appropriated $277 billion for 
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq; $168 billion of that has been 
appropriated after the President declared an end to major conflict in 
the region. The budget resolution, which passed this House about a 
month ago, provided authority for an additional $50 billion to be spent 
this year for Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill spends $45 billion of 
that $50 billion.
  The problem that we will face is that this bill is only enough to pay 
for that war for the first 6 months of the fiscal year. That means that 
when a new supplemental is submitted to the Congress to pay for the 
last half of the fiscal year, we will wind up having to appropriate at 
least another $40 billion. And when we do that, it will mean that the 
Congress will have, in effect, busted the budget by at least $40 
billion.
  So what this amendment says is that if and when that happens, and it 
will assuredly happen, if and when that happens, we are saying that the 
Committee on the Budget must then bring forth a new budget resolution 
which shows us how we can pay for that extra $40 billion without 
raising the deficit.

                              {time}  1815

  If we are not prepared to do that, then that means that we will 
simply slip in that extra $40 billion, without any notice by the 
public, without any attention being paid to the fact that what we are 
really doing is raising the deficit by another $40 billion.
  Regardless of how any Member of this House feels on this war, Members 
ought to feel that if we pass a budget resolution, it ought to be a 
legitimate one, that it ought to be laying out honestly what we expect 
to spend.
  Without this amendment, it will mean that we, sometime during the 
fiscal year, will spend $40 billion more, only we will not be admitting 
it on the budget resolution side. If we do not adopt this amendment, 
what we will really be saying is that the budget that was adopted just 
a month ago was a sham, that it was just a device to govern and to 
limit the amount of spending that we were going to be engaged in for 
education, for health care, for science, for agriculture, but that we 
intended to really bust the budget to the tune of least $40 billion 
when it came to the war in Iraq.
  I do not think that many Members of the House would like to say that 
that was their position, but absent the acceptance or the adoption of 
this amendment, that is precisely what will happen. The administration 
will come up here with another budget in order to pay for the last 6 
months of the fiscal year for the war, and we will have busted the 
budget to the tune of $40 billion and jacked up that deficit by the 
same amount.
  The administration is fond of saying that they adopted a budget 
resolution which is going to cut the deficit in half. Without this 
amendment, not a prayer, not a prayer. So I would urge adoption of the 
amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, therefore it 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment gives affirmative direction.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, the purpose of this amendment 
is to see to it that the House stays within the deficit levels laid out 
by the budget resolution passed just a few weeks ago.
  The Budget Committee routinely sends instructions to the 
Appropriations Committee about what it must do. I think this is an 
instance in which the Appropriations Committee ought to send a signal 
back that the Budget Committee ought to conform itself to reality and 
budgetary honesty.
  As I understand it, the rule under which this bill is being debated 
provides that if no Member does lodge a point of order, than indeed 
this amendment could be passed by the House. Unfortunately, the rule 
did not protect this amendment from a point of order. And so if the 
gentleman persists in his point of order, I will have to reluctantly 
concede that point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  The amendment is not in order.
  Are there any further amendments?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we conclude debate, all of us want to thank again 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their leadership, putting 
together this bipartisan bill, and especially the good men and women 
behind them, both of the minority party and the majority party who 
helped to put this appropriations bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, as we consider this important legislation, we must be 
mindful that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, all volunteers, I may 
add, are on the battlefield as we speak, brave men and women fighting a 
new kind of war where everyone literally is on the front line.
  As we all know, the Army and Marines are carrying the brunt of the 
battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, with an unprecedented level of 
partnership by our Guard and Reserve components. And the young men and 
women from the Air Force and Navy stand with them, as do we.
  Their service and dedication on the battlefields of Iraq and 
Afghanistan are making our Nation safer from terrorists who seek to do 
us harm and other freedom-loving nations. Make no mistake, our success 
in Iraq is hugely important. And our enemies in Iraq are thinking 
enemies. They are adaptable and would like nothing better for us to 
step back, or as some say, retreat, or to set arbitrary dates for 
withdrawal and then come back after our departure to reinstall a new 
Saddam Hussein or a regime even more oppressive, fanatical or more 
horrendous and more dangerous than the last.
  We should never forget that the soldiers we support through this 
appropriations have freed nearly 50 million

[[Page 13251]]

people in Iraq and Afghanistan from killer regimes, where protests and 
dissent were answered by killing fields and genocide, where women were 
denied basic freedoms: Education, health and the right to vote.
  But, of course, the loss of any young soldier from our ranks is 
heartbreaking. And so is the death of innocent civilians killed by 
roadside bombs, but we are dealing with Saddam loyalists, jihadists, 
imported terrorists and domestic criminals who play by no rules. And do 
not hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, funerals, gatherings of school 
children, and behead innocent civilians as well as kill our soldiers.
  Since we are engaged in a global war on terrorism with Iraq and 
Afghanistan being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and 
Marines need every possible advantage as this appropriations bill 
allows. This legislation provides our fighting men and women with the 
resources they need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible, 
more interoperable and more lethal in the execution of their mission.
  It provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons. Of 
course, our bill supports the troops by providing a pay increase, 
enhanced life insurance coverage, and housing allowances. And this bill 
also provides funding for new equipment, additional trucks, radios, 
electronic jammers, uparmored HUMVEES, attack helicopters, warships and 
fighter aircraft.
  Most important, this bill provides an additional $1.2 billion for 
personnel protection items, such as body armor. As troops rotate in and 
out of the theater, they need the latest equipment and weapons systems. 
Mr. Chairman, I also welcome increased funding for research and 
development. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.3 billion, 
so we can speed important new technology from the drawing board to the 
laboratory, to the test bed into the arsenal of our warfighter.
  My colleagues, the global war on terrorism will not be short, it will 
require deep and enduring commitment. As we look down the road we face 
many potential and real threats. We cannot know what hostile forces 
will face us next year, much less 5 years from now. So we must take 
care to ensure that we have laid the proper foundation for a secure 
national defense. These investments now and these appropriations will 
pay off in more capability in the future. They deserve to be supported.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen a lot of chairmen presiding over the House 
in the many years that I have been on one side or the other of this 
bill. And I want to tell you, you do as good as job as anybody. And my 
compliments to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the way you 
handled this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 
We are not at the 6:30 time for voting yet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to take just this minute to express my deepest respect and appreciation 
to both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for a fabulous job. We had a rather extended 
discussion today, which is not usual for this bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, you think he is kind of giving us a little business 
here, Mr. Chairman, on this thing here? We did the best we could do 
under the circumstances. Right?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate both of 
my friends yielding and having this discussion. But, this extended kind 
of dialogue and exchange we had on the floor today was one that was a 
very healthy discussion.
  I have had many experiences here of late with my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). And when I have had a great day, 
and when I really had a great day, it has involved a week in which we 
have worked our way through the processes that lead to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I having more than one discussion a day 
for several days during that week.
  And I go home to California. And then, kind of taking in a deep 
breath on Saturday. Sunday morning I go out back, smile when I am 
feeling good, and I walk across the pool. And, gentlemen, I want you to 
know I get wet every time.
  In the meantime, it is a wonder, and a wonderment working with the 
two of you. You have done a fabulous job. We very much appreciate the 
leadership on both sides of the aisle on this very important matter.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of our 
chairman. He did such a tremendous job when he chaired this 
subcommittee for the past 6 years.
  I want to take now just a minute, because we have, before we can 
start to vote, we have 2\1/2\ minutes to the 6:30 hour. This 
subcommittee has worked really hard and on a very bipartisan basis. We 
had the largest part of the supplemental early this year. We have this 
very large bill now, which is the largest appropriations bill in the 
system.
  And the Members of the subcommittee, with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), we have had an opportunity to be the leaders 
of the subcommittee. But all of these Members have worked really hard 
and have paid strict attention to what it was that we were about, to 
provide for our Nation's security.
  But I also want to pay tribute to members of our staff. Members of 
our staff, during the hearing periods and during the markup periods, 
they do not have weekends. They are here on weekends. They have very 
few hours at night with their families, because they are here many 
times all night long.
  That is when you hear about, something was done in the dark of night. 
Well, my friend, if we do not do things in the dark of night, we would 
never get them done, so we knew we worked long days, long hours, long 
nights.
  But the staff on both sides are just as bipartisan and nonpartisan as 
the Members. And this is just a really good positive subcommittee, and 
the work that it does is very bipartisan. We believe strongly in our 
country. We believe strongly in those volunteers who serve in our 
military, and who carry the burden of providing for the security.
  I just recently attended the burial of a soldier from my district 
killed in Iraq. And my final comment was that you can sleep in peace 
tonight, America, because our heroes are out there on the front line 
standing guard.
  And that is what this bill is all about.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin to the amendment by Mr. Hunter of 
California.
  Amendment by Mr. Hunter of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Doggett of Texas.
  Amendment number 8 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment by Ms. Velazquez of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.

                              {time}  1830


  Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 13252]]

  The Clerk will designate the amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment to the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 210, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 283]

                               AYES--198

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

                               NOES--210

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Baker
     Brown, Corrine
     Conyers
     Ehlers
     Flake
     Granger
     Harris
     Herseth
     Istook
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Knollenberg
     Lantos
     Lewis (KY)
     Moore (WI)
     Platts
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Towns
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Wexler

                              {time}  1854

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROSS and Mrs. BIGGERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 283, I was 
detained today because of flight delays, and had I been here, I would 
have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283 I missed the vote 
because my flight arrived nearly two hours late. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283, I missed 
the vote due to a traffic delay. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283 I was unavoidably 
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Hunter

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Doggett

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 329, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 284]

                                AYES--84

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                               NOES--329

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon

[[Page 13253]]


     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baker
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Crenshaw
     Flake
     Granger
     Harris
     Herseth
     Istook
     Lewis (KY)
     Moore (WI)
     Reynolds
     Schwarz (MI)
     Souder
     Towns
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1903

  Mr. McINTYRE and Mr. CLEAVER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 284, I was unavoidably 
delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 284, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, 
noes 280, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 285]

                               AYES--136

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--280

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton

[[Page 13254]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baker
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Crenshaw
     Flake
     Granger
     Harris
     Herseth
     Istook
     Lewis (KY)
     Moore (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Souder
     Towns
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Wexler

                              {time}  1911

  Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, BOREN and VISCLOSKY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. ENGEL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180, 
noes 235, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               AYES--180

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

                               NOES--235

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baker
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Crenshaw
     Flake
     Granger
     Harris
     Herseth
     Istook
     Lewis (KY)
     McKinney
     Moore (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Souder
     Towns
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Wexler

                              {time}  1919

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the last two lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2863) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had directed him to report 
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 315, the 
previous question is ordered.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


          Announcing the Passing of Hon. J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of 
the passing of a friend to many of us and a long-term colleague here in 
the House, J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle of Austin. Jake passed away at the age 
of 91, peacefully, on Saturday. He had a long career here in 
Washington, having served as a night watchman over in the Cannon 
Building, a job he told me he never did very well, but he sure worked 
night and day in the 31 years that he served here in the House of 
Representatives, working with colleagues on both sides

[[Page 13255]]

of the aisle, bringing not only his legislative talents but his 
tremendous good humor.
  He has more stories than anyone can remember, many of them collected 
with his daughter Peggy in a book. We have got an elementary school, a 
research center and a Federal building named after him, but I think he 
lives on in the hearts of the many who worked with him here in 
Washington and certainly in the lives of the thousands of people he 
helped in central Texas, most of whom have a squeaky green pickle to 
remember him by, along with his many good deeds.
  Services will be at 4 o'clock on Wednesday in Austin. I know all of 
our colleagues will join in expressing our sympathies to his wife, 
Beryl; daughter, Peggy; and all the members of the Pickle family and in 
saying, Jake, a job well done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 398, 
nays 19, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 287]

                               YEAS--398

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

                                NAYS--19

     Baldwin
     Conyers
     Duncan
     Filner
     Hinchey
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Rangel
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Waters
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baker
     Boyd
     Brown, Corrine
     Crenshaw
     Flake
     Granger
     Harris
     Herseth
     Istook
     Lewis (KY)
     Moore (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Souder
     Towns
     Waxman
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1939

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________