[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30242-30256]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1815, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page 30243]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To my colleagues who have labored long and hard to get this Defense 
bill to the floor and to get the conference to the floor, I want to 
thank everyone. This is a very, very important bill. It does wonderful 
things for our men and women in uniform.
  We have a 3.1 percent pay raise across the board. We have TRICARE 
expansion. We have an expansion of hazardous duty pay and an expansion 
of combat pay. We have a very substantial section devoted, some $76 
billion, to modernization and some $70 billion to research development 
and testing. We have a very substantial military construction section 
that will accrue to the benefit of all of our people in uniform who are 
concerned about having adequate housing and a good place to work. And 
most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill moves lots of ammunition, lots 
of armor, lots of equipment to our people in the warfighting theaters 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it provides also for a $50 billion 
supplemental authorization to enable us to bridge the time between now 
and the next supplemental that we can see coming down the pike next 
year.

                              {time}  0000

  This answers our call to duty, Mr. Speaker, which is to provide the 
tools to our men and women in uniform to win the war against terror. 
And let me just say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that we could not have 
done this, especially in such a short period of time, if we did not 
have such extraordinary members on the House Armed Services Committee, 
Democrat and Republican, of whom I am very proud; and a wonderful staff 
which has worked in some cases 16- and 18-hour days to bring this bill 
to fruition and to work this conference report with a very, very short 
time schedule.
  I want to point out, first, my friend, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), who is a wonderful friend and partner in this endeavor 
to serve our people in uniform. He has just done a great job working 
with me and working with his members. Our ranking members, our chairmen 
of the subcommittees all have done a wonderful job, as have all of our 
members right down through the entire ranks of the members of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  So this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It provides the tools for our 
men and women to do the job. I also want to point out the fact that we 
have increased 10,000 Army and 1,000 Marine active-duty personnel in 
this bill. That is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, because we have 
cut the Army over the last 15 years from 18 divisions to only 10.
  It is important to move additional personnel. Right now we have more 
people on the ground under the President's license to call up more 
people; but we think it is important to move the official end 
strengths, and we have done that in this bill.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have a great bill, and I want to thank all the 
Members who have participated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first wanted to ask the chairman a question, because I 
am not sure I heard him a moment ago. Does the chairman confirm that 
this conference report is the report of the conferees as signed and 
intended to come to the floor as it was on 3 p.m. Friday?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that the report 
that was just filed is the exact precise same report, without a comma 
changed, that was in fact signed by all members, Democrat and 
Republican.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise in strong 
support of this conference report. Once again, I am proud to be part of 
the process that delivers our troops the support they need.
  Let me take this moment to commend our chairman, Mr. Hunter, for his 
work on this bill. This is important work, and I applaud all the 
members of the Armed Services Committee on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record at this point two letters, one 
signed by John Warner and Carl Levin and one signed by Erin Conaton on 
my behalf.

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2005.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, Chairman, National 
         Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
         Conference, Washington, DC.
       Dear Duncan: On Friday, December 16, we joined you and Ike 
     Skelton in conducting the final meeting of the conferees 
     along with other Members of the Senate and House.
       At the conclusion of the meeting the ``base bill'' was 
     agreed upon and signatures of Republican and Democratic 
     Committee Members were requested and affixed to the 
     Conference Report with the expectation that the House, 
     following the customary procedure, would be the first chamber 
     to file. It was our further understanding that this would be 
     done Friday evening.
       We are returning to you the signatures of the Senate 
     conferees on the condition that there are no changes made in 
     the ``base bill'' and Conference Report and that the House 
     obtain a Rule which precludes any further amendment.
       You have shown strong leadership during this very brief and 
     unusual conference period and we have confidence that you can 
     achieve passage in the House of the ``base bill''. We believe 
     it is in the interest of the Nation aud the men and women of 
     the Armed Forces that our Conference Report as agreed to on 
     December 16 becomes law.
           Sincerely,
     Carl Levin,
       Ranking Member.
     John Warner,
       Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 2005.
       On Mr. Shelton's behalf, I am returning the signatures of 
     the House Democratic conferees on the condition that there be 
     no changes made in the ``base bill'' and Conference Report 
     and that we obtain a Rule which precludes any further 
     amendment. The signatures of the outside Democratic conferees 
     remain attached to the conference report with the same 
     understanding. Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Erin Conata,
                                          Minority Staff Director.

  As most of you know, this conference report was ready to be filed 
Friday at 5 o'clock. The attempt to insert new and unrelated material 
into this defense authorization bill was wrong. It would have 
jeopardized the many good things in this package for the troops. I am 
very pleased that the Republican leadership reconsidered and I thank 
the Chairman for his efforts to restore the conference report to its 
original form.
  This is a good bill. There are many things in this bill about which 
we all can be proud. I have long argued that we need more troops, and 
this bill raises end strength for the Army by 30,000 and for the Marine 
Corps by 4,000. It delivers our service members a well-earned 3.1% pay 
raise. We can never put a value on the service of those who pay the 
ultimate price in defense of our freedom, but this conference report 
increases the death gratuity for all active and activated service 
members to $100,000, retroactive to October 7, 2001. And for the first 
time ever, all reservists who agree to continue service in the Selected 
Reserves

[[Page 30244]]

will have an opportunity, depending on their status, to buy into a 
government subsidized TRICARE Standard health care program for 
themselves and their families.
  While much of our attention is focused on the current wars we're 
fighting, we must not lose sight of other security challenges that loom 
across the globe. With those in mind, I am also pleased to say that 
this bill requires the Navy to maintain 12 aircraft carriers. It also 
authorizes them to buy five more ships, but it does so in a way that 
will limit the rampant cost growth in the acquisition process.
  Those are just a few examples of the good work in this bill. I 
commend all of the Chairmen and Ranking members of the Armed Services' 
subcommittees for the excellent work they have done on this conference 
report and throughout the year.
  Finally, I'd like to address an issue to which much attention has 
been paid, and rightly so--the question of the treatment of detainees. 
These critical matters suffered the most from the lack of meaningful 
process and debate.
  I am extremely pleased that Senator McCain's amendment involving the 
prohibition on torture and uniform standards for interrogating 
detainees has passed. This is a wonderful step to help us regain our 
rightful place on the summit of the moral high ground.
  However, I am concerned that Senator McCain's language could be 
undercut by the Graham-Levin Amendment. This amendment was negotiated 
largely in a closed process by the White House and a select few 
Majority members. It addresses many aspects of the Combatant Status 
Review Tribunals and military commissions in Guantanamo Bay but there 
are serious questions about the procedures and they are currently being 
challenged in federal court. There are also questions about the 
Amendment's impact on our judicial system and law that's been in 
existence since the founding of our nation. I expect the courts will 
have a real challenge interpreting the Amendment's meaning. At the very 
least--the Graham-Levin Amendment should not apply retroactively or to 
any pending cases.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it does 
great things for our troops. I again congratulate Chairman Hunter and 
urge its adoption.
  For the past two days, the future of the Defense Authorization bill 
has been held hostage for an unrelated and controversial piece of 
legislation that had no connection to defense. My colleagues and I 
expressed our deep concern with this, and I am truly pleased to see 
this bill in its original form come before the House tonight.
  In a time of war, it is essential that we provide our men and women 
in uniform with the resources and equipment they need to succeed, and I 
am pleased that the leadership of this House finally relented and 
allowed us to do that. Legislation for our men and women in uniform 
should never be put in jeopardy for political reasons.
  This legislation provides for the initiation and continuation of many 
important policies that will benefit our servicemen and women, as well 
as their families upon its final passage. This is a wonderful way to 
honor them during the holiday season for all they have done throughout 
the year.
  I am extremely pleased with this bill, and commend all of my 
colleagues who have worked so hard for its passage.
  This statement addresses the provisions regarding the treatment of 
detainees that were under consideration for inclusion in the FY 06 
Defense Authorization Conference Report (referred to as the McCain 
amendment and Graham-Levin amendment provisions, and sections 1401-
1406).
  First, I am deeply troubled by the lack of open and meaningful 
process and debate in the House and Senate on these complex and 
critical matters that affect our troops and intelligence officers--and 
our national security. There are real differences of opinion on these 
matters--and they should have been given the fullest debate and vetting 
because of their implications. Yet, they have been negotiated largely 
behind closed doors by the White House and a select few majority 
Members of Congress.
  With respect to the Graham-Levin amendment provisions (section 1405) 
and other detainee provisions (particularly section 1404), there are 
many unanswered questions and serious concerns about the impact of the 
provisions on our judicial system and law that has been in existence 
since the founding of our Nation--and the final negotiated Conference 
Report language lacks clarity--leaving much open to interpretation.
  I expect the courts will have a real challenge interpreting the 
meaning of these provisions. I also fear that the provisions do not 
provide our troops and intelligence officers with the clear guidance 
and protection they need in combating the war on terror.
  In addition, I am concerned about the potential for the provisions to 
significantly undercut the effectiveness of the McCain amendment 
(sections 1402 and 1403)--an amendment that would help us regain our 
standing and leadership on moral issues; obtain reliable intelligence, 
which is not obtained when torture is employed; and protect our troops 
and intelligence officers, by setting the standard of treatment by 
which we expect them to be similarly treated.
  Although the main professed intent for the Graham-Levin amendment 
provisions and other detainee provisions (particularly section 1404) 
was to limit lawsuits and protect our troops and intelligence 
officers--I am very concerned about the potential for the provisions to 
do just the opposite.
  Specific concerns with respect to the Graham-Levin amendment 
provisions include the following:
  First, the provisions address many aspects of the Combatant Status 
Review Tribunals (CSRTs) and military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba--yet Congress has not authorized these procedures and their 
legality is currently being challenged in federal court. There are 
concerns that detainees are not given a hearing before a CSRT within a 
reasonable period of time; they do not have access to their attorneys 
or evidence; some have not been released from detention after being 
cleared of wrongdoing by a CSRT; and there has never been a military 
commission trial, despite the President's suggestion that, given the 
events of September 11th, it was necessary to establish these new 
commissions so people could be tried immediately.
  Second, the original Graham-Levin amendment would have prohibited 
CSRTs from using evidence obtained with undue coercion. However, the 
final negotiated provisions for the Conference Report leave open the 
possibility that CSRTs and military commissions could consider coerced 
evidence. As Senator Levin has pointed out, this cuts against the 
centuries-old principle of Anglo-American law, enshrined in the 5th 
Amendment to the Constitution, that no person shall be compelled to be 
a witness against himself.
  Third, it is not clear what recourse a detainee would have if there 
is a legitimate claim of torture, in part given the limitations on 
court jurisdiction. While the original Graham-Levin amendment would 
have eliminated federal court jurisdiction only for habeas corpus 
actions, the final negotiated Conference Report provisions eliminate 
``any other action against the United States or its agents relating to 
any aspect of the detention'' at Guantanamo Bay. Further, it is true 
that the Graham-Levin amendment provisions allow for review of CSRT and 
military commission decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit. However, there must first be a CSRT 
or military commission decision--and as noted above, there are serious 
concerns about the process surrounding these decisions. In addition, 
even after a CSRT or military commission decision, the Graham-Levin 
amendment provisions limit access to the Court of Appeals and the 
Court's scope of review--and do not ensure a sufficient factual record.
  It is also important to note that we have tried and tested military 
regulations in place that are excellent, including Army Regulation 190-
8. These regulations have effectively governed detention procedures in 
our past wars--and made it unnecessary to file habeas and other claims 
or set up tribunals and military commissions, such as those currently 
operating at Guantanamo Bay. Many have argued, the problem is really 
that existing military regulations have not been followed. We could 
have simply passed an Amendment that addresses this problem going 
forward and left the courts' jurisdiction alone with respect to 
existing claims. But this was not done and here's where we are.
  At least, as Senator Levin has emphasized, the Graham-Levin amendment 
provisions do not apply to or alter pending habeas cases. The Senate 
voted to remove language from the original Graham amendment that would 
have applied the habeas-stripping provision to pending cases, affirming 
that it did not intend such application. Further, under the Supreme 
Court's ruling in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), the fact that 
Congress chose not to explicitly apply the habeas-stripping provision 
to pending cases means that the courts retain jurisdiction to consider 
these appeals. Finally, the effective date language in the original 
Graham-Levin amendment, and Senate passed Defense Authorization Bill 
(S. 1042 section 1092), was retained in the final negotiated language 
for the Conference Report, thereby adopting the Senate position that 
the habeas-stripping provision does not strip the courts of 
jurisdiction in pending cases.
  In closing, I emphasize that Congress must exercise diligent 
oversight on detainee matters

[[Page 30245]]

going forward. Such matters must be subject to a more open and 
deliberative process--and handled more thoughtfully and responsibly in 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the distinguished chairman of the Air, Land 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay 
tribute to our distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking 
member for such a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances to 
get this conference report to the floor. This was a very difficult 
piece of legislation, but the chairman persevered and we are very happy 
to have the legislation here tonight.
  I know our soldiers all around the world are happy that this bill is 
going to be brought forward because there are so many positive things 
in it. I have the particular pleasure of serving as the chairman of the 
Air, Land Subcommittee; and I want to pay tribute to my good friend and 
ranking member, Mr. Abercrombie from Hawaii, who is not here right now, 
for the excellent work that he did.
  In supporting the global war on terrorism in our area, we have 
included a number of additional programs, including $450 million for 
up-armored Humvees, $260 million for other armored tactical vehicles, 
$450 million for small arms, $250 million for ammunition, $30 million 
for Stryker combat vehicle combat losses, $180 million for radios, $117 
million for blue force tracking, $285 million for night vision devices, 
$35 million to counter improvised explosive devices, $108 million for 
countering rockets, artillery, and mortars, $50 million for Hellfire 
missiles, and $180 million for unmanned aerial vehicles.
  Mr. Speaker, these are all critically important platforms for the 
troops in the ongoing battle against terrorism, as well as the theater 
of operation.
  We have also reinstated the C-130J multiyear procurement. We have put 
some language on the future combat systems budget. We reduced it by $50 
million to make sure we are giving the taxpayers the best possible 
oversight of the SCS program.
  We have also attempted to put some more accountability in the DOD 
acquisition programs and significant language in other provisions that 
we think are going to provide the taxpayers and the warfighter with 
more accountability and more efficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular thanks to the leadership, both 
Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter, for including two very important 
commissions that we worked hard to achieve, the Nuclear Strategy Forum 
and the EMP Commission. I want to pay particular thanks to Mr. Roscoe 
Bartlett, Chairman Bartlett, for his outstanding work on this issue. 
The EMP Commission now will have an ongoing process of evaluating our 
military platforms against the threat of an EMP.
  Overall, Mr. Speaker, this process has been long. I think this is the 
latest we have ever gone with the Defense authorization bill, and the 
credit for all of this outstanding work goes to my distinguished 
chairman. He is a great American. The one thing about Mr. Hunter and 
the one thing about Mr. Skelton, everything that we do, they keep in 
mind the warfighter, the soldier. Each of them has made trip after trip 
into the theater, into Iraq, into Afghanistan, meeting the troops and 
making sure that we are in fact holding the Defense Department 
accountable to giving our troops the best possible equipment and 
technology.
  I am happy to support this conference report. I would ask all of our 
colleagues to give an overwhelming vote of support for this. Again I 
want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their 
leadership.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of the 
Readiness Subcommittee portions of the defense authorization bill. This 
bill represents a lot of hard work and bipartisan work on the part of 
the members of this committee. This bill provides nearly $126 billion 
to the Department of Defense for the operation and maintenance, the 
needs of our military, and over $12 billion for military construction. 
In addition, the authorization contains some important policy direction 
for the Department of Defense. One of the important provisions of the 
bill would protect the interest of civilian workers in the Department 
of Defense during public-private competition, another that extends the 
reimbursement of equipment purchased by soldiers with their own money, 
and still another will eliminate some of the restrictions that keep our 
wounded servicemembers from receiving gifts and support from Americans 
who want to help these soldiers.
  I am pleased with these outcomes but I am very disappointed with how 
the conference on this bill was conducted. The majority leadership's 
delay on appointing conferees for this bill until after the conference 
report was completed is really shameful. This was not a conference. 
Only a few Members had a hand in the deliberations and other Members 
who have an interest in this bill were shut out of this process. I 
sincerely hope that this will not be the norm for conferencing future 
defense bills. Our national defense deserves a more careful, inclusive 
and deliberative approach.
  The war in Iraq and the global war on terror are creating many 
challenges for the readiness of our Armed Forces. The services have 
many pressing needs in every area covered by the Readiness 
Subcommittee. It is impossible to fully address those needs, Mr. 
Speaker, but this report reflects a balance of many competing demands 
to ensure that our troops are equipped and ready to defend our Nation. 
I appreciate that the Members on both sides of the aisle were able to 
put this bill together and bring it to the floor this early in the 
morning.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who has done 
such a great job as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for the job 
that he has done and the ranking member for the job he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by recognizing the gentleman from 
California, our Chairman, an old-time friend of mine and I think 
probably the most patient chairman I have ever served with in my years 
in Congress. His skill in leading this committee has been outstanding.
  And we also have the contributions of the gentleman from Missouri. 
Someone I admire very much and who has good memories of the town I was 
born in and now live--Dothan, AL.
  I rise in support of the conference report to accompany the fiscal 
year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1815). This 
legislation supports the administration's objective while making 
significant improvements to the budget request. Moreover, our national 
security investment must continue the development of transformational 
capabilities of future systems, and this conference report meets that 
goal.
  In the area of military space, the Department of Defense has embraced 
the benefits space provides to our warfighter. Unfortunately, the DOD 
has experienced significant acquisition problems on several high-
priority programs. I look forward to working with the DOD to correct 
areas of concern and ensure their success for the future.
  Within the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of 
Energy, the bill funds the National Nuclear Security Administration at 
$9.2 billion. The conference report includes legislation establishing 
the objectives of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, a program 
that enjoys bipartisan support to ensure our nuclear stockpile remains 
reliable, safe and secure.
  The Conferees have funded defense environmental cleanup activities at 
$6.2 billion.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my 
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas for his contribution, and the 
remainder of my subcommittee Members on both sides of the aisle, and 
their staff. I think we faced some of the most difficult policy 
decisions in the House Armed Services Committee and I want to express 
my appreciation for their hard work in protecting this Nation's 
security.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) for a colloquy.

[[Page 30246]]


  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the conference report does not 
include the language from the House bill precluding procurements from 
companies that benefit from illegal foreign subsidies. Is that correct?
  Mr. HUNTER. That is correct. As the gentleman knows, I have long 
supported efforts to protect American businesses and workers from 
illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, the conferees were unable to 
come to an agreement that would allow us to include this important 
language in the final conference report.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, for over 30 years various European 
governments have provided subsidies to the European civil aircraft 
industry. These subsidies helped the fledgling European aircraft 
industry get started in a highly competitive world market. Now $30 
billion in subsidies later, Europe is the world's largest producer of 
commercial aircraft. Mr. Chairman, would you agree that the aircraft 
production industry is one of the areas that is of particular concern 
with respect to foreign subsidies?
  Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. Foreign governments should not be allowed to 
underwrite the risk of corporations involved in developing new 
airframes, especially when it is at the expense of the American worker. 
I want to assure my friend that the Armed Services Committee will 
continue its oversight on this issue, that we are going to revisit it 
next year.
  Let me just leave the formal colloquy to say to my friend that my 
philosophy is that the American worker pays the taxes that fund these 
enormously expensive programs that manifest in this bill for $441 
billion, that projects American power around the world in defense of 
the free world and provides an umbrella of freedom for hundreds of 
countries. It is only equitable and fair that the American taxpayer who 
pays for the defense of the free world should be able to involve 
themselves in making the very expensive equipment that we utilize. I 
can assure my friend that I will continue to work with him to make sure 
that when those great Americans in uniform come home from places like 
Iraq and Afghanistan they have some jobs in the American aircraft 
industry making the aircraft that support the projection of American 
Armed Forces.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me edit my colloquy a little bit.
  Mr. DICKS. And I thank Chairman Hunter for sharing his views on this 
important matter and urge support for this conference report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this national defense 
authorization bill. But while I support this conference report, I am 
one of many Members very disappointed with the process by which the 
defense bill has been brought to the floor. Last Thursday the House 
leadership approved the conferees to the defense authorization bill 
nearly 3 weeks after the Senate finished consideration of their version 
of the bill. This 3-week delay denied Members the opportunity to 
instruct conferees on issues of great importance to them in the defense 
bill. Members of the committee, particularly our senior members, should 
have been afforded greater opportunity to participate in informal panel 
meetings in order to discuss and debate many of the significant 
provisions that were in either the House or Senate bill. Instead, the 
decisions that were made on many of the highly contentious issues in 
the bill were made by less than a handful of Members. The national 
security of this country benefits from the input of many, not the 
narrow perspective of a few. A great democracy at war must do better. 
We, my colleagues, can do better. Democrat and Republican, we can do 
better. Veteran and nonveteran, we can do better. Senior Member and new 
Member, we can do better.

                              {time}  0015

  This bill is a good one. It is a bill that should bring our country 
and this Congress together united in our support for our fine men and 
women in uniform, their families and our military retirees but the 
process the past few weeks has divided us, divided us so deeply that 
until a few hours ago we weren't even sure we would have a defense bill 
this year. Our troops deserve better.
  I hope that beginning in February, the Republican leadership will 
make a concerted effort to abide by the processes that ensure active 
and open participation for all Members in future deliberations. Our 
troops at all times but particularly during a time of war deserve our 
best democratic deliberations and our united effort. Having made these 
comments, however, I am aware of the great commitment of Chairman 
Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton to our troops and to the 
national security of our country. I thank Chairman Hunter for his 
efforts in getting this bill on the floor tonight.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if you are one of the 2.5 million people who 
wear the uniform of the United States, you can know that you have got 
some great people working for you on this Armed Services Committee. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who just spoke, 
and also thank and commend a very distinguished gentleman from New York 
(Mr. McHugh), who works tirelessly to serve our people in uniform as 
well as they serve this country, the chairman of the Personnel 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind comments 
and for the opportunity to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a full statement that without objection I would 
like to enter into the Record in its entirety and just make a few brief 
comments if I might.
  The hour is late. Fortunately it is not too late. I listened very 
carefully to the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas. I think we 
could all pick any part of any process by which any bill comes to the 
floor of this House and have objections. I understand his perspective 
but I was heartened to hear him say he strongly supports this bill, as 
he should. Because the bottom line, the most important question is, 
what is the quality of this legislation. The gentleman from Arkansas 
seems to think it is very good. I agree with him. I can in fact state 
without hesitation that in my 13 years of having the honor of serving 
on this committee, this is the best personnel provision package I have 
seen. If we look at the components of it, a 3.1 percent pay raise, the 
seventh year in row we have raised pay, reducing the gap between the 
private sector and our hardworking men and women in uniform, an 
increase in the hardship duty pay, a doubling in the assignment 
incentive pay. We require that the government pay for the 
servicemembers' group life insurance when people are deployed into 
theaters like Operation Iraqi Freedom and the OEF theater. We double 
the enlistment bonuses. We add by $30,000 to the reenlistment bonuses. 
On and on and on. We provide for an accelerated enhancement for 
concurrent receipt payments for 100 percent of disabled veterans. We 
provide a program for the first time that ensures that every member of 
the Guard and Reserve has access to some form of TRICARE, of the 
military health care program. Benefit after benefit. It is important 
that we have a broad range of military programs, the best equipment, 
the most modern technology, but at the end of the day as in the 
beginning of the day, the key to the success of the American military 
are the men and women that put that uniform on and today as we speak 
are serving so bravely. This is a terrific bill for them.
  I want to thank the chairman for his great leadership and I certainly 
urge all the Members of the House to strongly support it. It is the 
right thing to do for some absolutely amazing people.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  The military personnel provisions of H.R. 1815 address many problems 
and issues that the men and women in uniform have brought

[[Page 30247]]

to us. Additionally, the conference report will help to relieve the 
tremendous pressure being placed on the military services--active, 
guard, and reserve. To those ends, H.R. 1815 contains these key 
initiatives:
  A military pay raise of 3.1 percent. The raise is 0.5 percent above 
private sector raises and reduces the pay gap to 4.6 percent from 13.5 
percent in fiscal year 1999 culminating seven years of enhanced pay 
raises.
  We recommend continued growth in Army and Marine Corps end strength. 
Under the conference agreement, the Army would increase by 10,000 and 
the Marine Corps by 1,000, bringing the Army end strength to 512,400 
and the Marine Corps to 179,000.
  This bill also provides recruiting, retention and pay initiatives 
that would, for active component recruiting and retention:
  Increase the maximum active duty enlistment bonus maximum from 
$20,000 to $40,000.
  Increase the maximum active duty reenlistment bonus from $60,000 to 
$90,000.
  Provide the Army with unprecedented flexibility to initiate new 
recruiting incentive programs following 45 days, notice to Congress.
  Authorize the Army--active duty reserve, and National Guard--to pay 
$1,000 to servicemembers who refer recruit candidates for enlistment 
and those candidates complete technical training.
  Increase the maximum enlistment age from 35 years of age to 42.
  Authorize the payment of matching contributions to the Thrift Savings 
Plan for new recruits.
  For the Reserve Components, the conference agreement would:
  Authorize the same basic allowance for housing as active duty members 
when mobilized for periods greater than 30 days.
  Authorize a critical skills retention bonus under the active duty 
program up to a maximum of $100,000 over the course of a career.
  The conference report also provides for an expanded death gratuity of 
$100,000 for all military deaths--not just combat-related deaths--and 
two retroactive payments:
  $100,000 for all military deaths that occurred on or after October 7, 
2001; and
  $150,000 to survivors of all military deaths, not just combat-related 
deaths, to compensate for the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 that became effective for 
all military members on May 11, 2005.
  For wounded servicemembers, the conference agreement would provide a 
special pay of $430 per month while the servicemember is in 
rehabilitation. In addition, family members would be provided greater 
travel and transportation allowances to visit wounded and injured 
servicemembers.
  The conference agreement expands eligibility for TRICARE to all 
members of the reserve components, and their families, who continue 
service in the Selected Reserve. Under the agreement, there would be 
three eligibility categories:
  Involuntarily mobilized reservists--as in current law: 1 year TRICARE 
eligibility for every 90 days of mobilized service.
  Persons without employer provided health care, unemployed, self-
employed, and
  Any person not meeting the above criteria.
  This conference agreement also provides enhancements to military 
justice that would:
  Establish the offense of stalking, and
  Clearly define the offense of rape, sexual assault and other sexual 
misconduct in title 10, United States Code, and pattern the elements of 
the offenses after the Federal statute.
  All in all, the conference report on H.R. 1815 is a significant 
package of legislation directed at providing maximum assistance to the 
men and women who are fighting the Global War on Terrorism. I urge all 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. I rise today for the purpose of engaging the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) in a colloquy.
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to join with my colleague from Georgia 
in a colloquy.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, the portions of this bill governing the 
treatment of detainees can serve as a welcome clarification for the 
rest of the world that America condemns torture in the strongest terms. 
These changes should help the world to see that America respects 
freedom when it fights for freedom. I would appreciate the chairman's 
thoughts on this.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARSHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I agree that the language contained in the conference 
report can both be flexible enough to allow our personnel to protect 
America's security interests and fair enough to protect our personnel 
without placing themselves in legal jeopardy when they employ the means 
any reasonable person would in a given interrogation.
  If I might depart from the colloquy just for a bit to explain to my 
colleagues in the House, the Senate injected the straight Senate 
detainee language about humane treatment and the House injected and 
insisted on a section called personnel protections which gave defenses 
to uniform and nonuniformed personnel in detainee actions. It also 
provided for counsel to be employed or provided by the government. That 
was the essence of the provisions that were injected into the 
conference on the House side.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me expand.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that the bill's 
language referencing the Senate's 1994 reservation to the United 
Nations' Convention Against Torture is intended to prohibit conduct 
that shocks the conscience, the standard adopted by the United States 
Supreme Court in Rochin v. California?
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARSHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. That is my understanding.
  Mr. MARSHALL. And, Mr. Chairman, is it also your understanding that 
the bill does not extend constitutional rights to noncitizens of the 
United States?
  Mr. HUNTER. That is my understanding.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to yield at this time to the 
gentleman who chairs the Projection Forces Subcommittee, the wonderful 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who lives on the Monocacy River 
and spends so much of his time and has spent a lot of time this last 
year working on the issues of shipbuilding and power projection of 
maritime forces and he has done a wonderful job.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman 
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for completing the impressive task of 
this conference report in such a short period of time. I also want to 
thank my subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Taylor, for his tireless 
efforts and dedication to the preparation of this report while 
simultaneously coordinating Hurricane Katrina relief efforts in 
Mississippi. The intense work involved in preparing the conference 
report has been accomplished only with the assistance of our able and 
hardworking staff and I really want to commend their efforts and the 
quality of the work they have so diligently done.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement provides the men and women in 
our Armed Forces the tools to effectively project our Nation's power 
and influence throughout the globe. Initiatives within this bill to 
build the Navy of the future, authorize advance procurement funding for 
the Navy's next generation platforms while continuing development and 
buildout of the Littoral Combat Ship and Virginia Class attack 
submarine fleet.
  I am also pleased that this conference report takes steps to improve 
our U.S. shipbuilding industry to make it more efficient and 
commercially competitive in the future. Only by applying downward 
pressure on shipbuilding costs will we be able to afford a fleet of 
sufficient size to meet the national security needs and global 
commitments of tomorrow.
  This agreement authorizes multiyear contract authority for additional 
C-17 aircraft if procurement is consistent with the results of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review. Furthermore, we encourage the Secretary of 
the Air Force to evaluate options for maintaining C-17 production 
capability until results of the C-5 modernization programs are 
available.
  This conference agreement is an important milestone in making our 
country more secure. The National Defense

[[Page 30248]]

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 is critical in meeting the 
challenges and demands placed upon our Armed Services today, supplying 
a foundation on which to build well into the future. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting our soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines by voting for the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me first start by 
thanking my good friend Roscoe Bartlett for his tremendous help this 
year. The bill authorizes five ships, more than the administration 
asked for, unfortunately not as many as I would like to build, but 
very, very great help of the gentleman from Maryland on the part of 
adding an LHA(R) for the Marine Corps to the ship; getting the next 
generation destroyer, the DDX, started; and adding a Virginia Class 
submarine to the fleet.
  Again at five ships, if you figure the typical 30-year life of a 
ship, we are cruising toward a 150-ship Navy. That is entirely too 
small, despite Navy projections that they think they can get the fleet 
up to about 313 by 2013. But again these are important steps in the 
right direction.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland for his help in making 
that happen. There are a lot of people who have a lot of things they 
want to say.
  I want to yield what remains of my time to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would simply add to what my friend from 
Mississippi has said and others have said that this bill is the 
culmination of months of work by the committee in a bipartisan way to 
give the men and women that we have in uniform, particularly those men 
and women in harm's way what we believe they need in order to carry on 
their duty on behalf of the United States. I think everybody on the 
committee agrees with me that everything that we can possibly do to 
support them we are going to do. I want to compliment the chairman, the 
ranking member, and other members of the committee for a job well done.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report, although I am concerned about provisions of the bill that have 
the potential to create a chilling effect that would harm the ability 
of the intelligence community to gather vital information to protect 
our country. I want to first thank Chairman Hunter for his outstanding 
personal efforts to safeguard our Nation's intelligence capabilities 
and our intelligence personnel.

                              {time}  0030

  I appreciate his close coordination with me and with the Intelligence 
Committee during the negotiations on this bill.
  Let me be crystal clear: The United States does not engage in 
torture, and the United States abides by its treaty obligations with 
respect to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The principles of 
the conference report relating to cruel and inhuman and degrading 
treatment should not be controversial or even remarkable. As the 
President said earlier this week, we should make it clear to the world 
that we do not engage in torture.
  But I want to record my substantial discomfort that this bill could 
be read more broadly than intended and have a detrimental effect on our 
national security. After the 9/11 attacks, we learned the hard way that 
excessive restrictions on our intelligence agencies such as the Deutch 
Doctrine and the ``wall'' between intelligence and law enforcement 
often had a chilling effect on operations that was far broader than 
intended and significantly hurt our intelligence gathering 
capabilities. I want to reinforce Chairman Hunter's efforts to make 
very clear that this conference report does not create new criminal 
liabilities and does not create any private right of action with 
respect to interrogation practices. It also does not modify the 
substantive definition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that 
applies to the United States under its existing treaty obligations.
  Despite those concerns I fully support this agreement because of the 
provisions of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Hunter's 
efforts has significantly improved this legislation, clarified its 
intent; so I will vote for the conference report and I encourage my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have handled, the conference has handled, leadership 
has handled, and the staff, a record number of amendments in a record 
period of time. And while I have some problems with the process, I 
commend them for the end result. It is a good piece of work.
  There are many good features to it. We retained intact the McCain 
language which prohibits the United States from engaging in torture of 
prisoners. There are a number of very fine personnel improvements here 
which our service personnel dearly deserve.
  We have given the impetus to start up something called a caps 
reliable replacement warhead program but at the same time put it within 
reasonable and restrictive bounds, which I think is smart. And I could 
go on and on. There are some good features to this bill.
  I am not criticizing anyone in particular when I say that I find 
fault with the process, but I have been on this committee for 23 years, 
all the time I have served here. And, unfortunately, given the time 
restraints, which were largely the result of the fact that the Senate 
put us on abbreviated schedule, they were late getting their bill done, 
we have had to do this with much too much haste.
  Here is the bill right here that we are about to consider, and we 
only saw it really in final form on Friday afternoon. We were appointed 
at one hour, and at the very next hour we were meeting for our first 
and only formal meeting. I hope this will not become a precedent for 
the process in the future, and that is why I express this concern now. 
The bill itself I support.
  I am also very concerned about what is happening to the defense 
appropriations bill, and I do not want to see it happen to our defense 
authorization bill. We do not want our bill to become a must-pass piece 
of legislation to which other bills, other wholly unrelated 
legislation, gets attached because ours is must-pass legislation, a 
moving vehicle. That could have happened to this very bill, and it is 
the reason we are standing here at 12:30 at night instead of dealing 
with it yesterday afternoon with much more leisure than we are giving 
to the bill right now because it was almost hijacked by something 
totally extraneous. And I would say to the chairman I am glad that this 
did not happen, glad that we have got a clean bill, and glad that we 
can vote on it without having these extraneous matters to consider and 
weigh.
  Once again, congratulations on a job well done.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes, I have gone 
through a few hundred pages of this bill, which I think it is 
instructive to know that $1 billion for a so-called Iraqi Freedom Fund 
is being authorized. We do not know what that is. There is $2.5 billion 
for classified ops in Iraq. We do not know what that is, certainly.
  On the issue of alleged clandestine detention facilities for 
individuals captured in the global war on terrorism, here is what it 
says: ``Conferees determined the amendment was outside the jurisdiction 
of the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. So we still do not know whether or not this House has 
any authority to rein in the administration's rendition policies.

[[Page 30249]]

  I would ask the gentleman from California a question. I have just 
read a couple hundred pages. I have not seen the whole bill. Could the 
gentleman tell me if there is a provision in this bill that permits 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. No. As the gentleman knows, the ANWR position is not in 
this bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman explain what the Iraqi 
Freedom Fund is about?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
Iraqi Freedom Fund is a fund that includes money for body armor and 
lots of other equipment. It is a fund that we supply each year. It is a 
revolving fund that we keep money in so that the war-fighting 
commanders can buy what they need immediately when they need it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation.
  Could the gentleman clarify this report language on page 210 that 
says that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the Committees 
on Armed Services in the Senate and the House with respect to alleged 
clandestine detention facilities?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, let me 
just say to the gentleman that is a classified portion that is within 
the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So it is not covered in this report is what he is 
saying?
  Mr. HUNTER. That is correct.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the combination of 
institutional incompetence and ideological extremism that has us 
contemplating this bill at this hour with further important legislation 
to go, all kinds of stuff gets put in and the regular process gets 
degraded.
  I just want to call attention to one wholly irrelevant provision, 
irrelevant to the defense. The Boy Scouts of America have been found by 
States and cities to be violating their anti-discrimination policies 
with regard to both sexual orientation and religion, and some cities 
have said that they do not want anyone who fails to follow their State 
or city's policy getting free facilities. That I suppose can be debated 
or not as to whether it is right or wrong, but it does not seem to me 
that there is any argument for having it in the Armed Services 
authorization bill in a Congress run by supposed States rights 
conservatives, a provision that says to every city in America you will 
let the Boy Scouts use your facilities for free whether or not you 
think they violate the law against discrimination based on religion or 
sexual orientation.
  Now, that is probably going to be found unconstitutional, but I find 
that to be way beyond the scope of this bill and an example of the 
degradation of the legislative process that it is in here.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, for all the meritorious provisions of this 
bill dealing with national defense, there is one that has nothing to do 
with national defense, and that is the provision on Peotone Airport, 
Illinois. The language would make it a requirement of Federal law that 
the governing body of South Suburban Airport in Will County, Peotone 
Airport, Illinois, be comprised of a majority of local residents of the 
county.
  There was an effort to stick this language in our surface 
transportation, SAFETEA-LU, last summer. I vigorously objected. It has 
nothing to do with surface transportation. It has nothing to do with 
the substance of that bill. So now here it reappears. And this is a 
total contradiction to the often professed Republican stance that the 
Federal Government should not tell local governments how to run their 
business. It is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy of 
the Department of Transportation and the FAA that State and local 
governments determine the structure of airport organization and 
management and the Federal Government regulates airport safety. This is 
objectionable.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the provision on Peotone 
Airport, which was inserted into this conference report at the last 
minute. The amendment would make it a federal requirement that the 
governing body of the South Suburban (Peotone) airport in Will County, 
Illinois be comprised of a majority of local residents of the county.
  Insertion of this provision in the Conference Report is but the 
latest example of the abuse of the conference process to enact a 
legislative provision, which couldn't be passed on its merits, as a 
separate bill. The provision was never considered by the Committee of 
jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Last 
summer, there was an unsuccessful, last minute effort to add this 
provision to the Transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. Now the provision 
appears again in a Conference Report that has nothing to do with 
aviation, or transportation. The provision was not in either of the 
defense bills that went to conference. It is now protected against 
points of order. Regrettably, this type of abuse of the process seems 
to happen every time a major conference report comes before the House.
  In addition to the abuse of process, the provision is bad policy. It 
is an unprecedented change in the longstanding policy that state and 
local governments determine the structure of airport organization and 
management, while the federal government regulates airport safety. The 
FAA is a safety organization, and its highest priority is to ensure the 
safe and efficient operation of the airport and airway system, not to 
arbitrate disputes between local authorities. The State of Illinois 
should determine what body will govern and develop the Peotone airport 
and how that body should be structured.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the conference process has been 
abused to pass this undesirable provision.
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 1063. AIRPORT CERTIFICATION.

       For the airport referred to in paragraph (1) to be eligible 
     to receive approval of an airport layout plan by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, such airport shall ensure and 
     provide documentation that--
       (1) the governing body of an airport built after the date 
     of enactment of this Act at site number 04506.3*A and under 
     number 17-0027 of the National Plan of Integrated Airport 
     Systems is composed of a majority of local residents who live 
     in the county in which such airport is located; and
       (2) the airport complies with sections 303, 303A, and 303B 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (41 U.S.C. 253-253b) as implemented by the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant to section 25 of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421) 
     regarding land procurement and developer selection.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the conference report, and I express my 
appreciation that this report affirms the principle that a great power 
should not need to resort to inhuman tactics to pursue its objectives. 
The anti-torture language that is in this conference report is entirely 
appropriate.
  I also appreciate the fact that it strikes the proper balance between 
an affirmation of our principles and an understanding that our 
intelligence agents must act with discretion and flexibility when 
dealing with the very difficult job that we have given them. This is an 
important affirmation that strengthens our country, that improves our 
intelligence, and makes us safer.
  I commend the chairman, the ranking member for making sure the 
provision is in here. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference 
report.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Graham-Levin amendment language 
contained in this bill. This provision restricts the jurisdiction of 
the Federal courts to consider habeas corpus petitions from detainees 
at Guantanamo or complaints about their treatment. It also would 
require military tribunals

[[Page 30250]]

to ``weigh the value of the intelligence gained from an interrogation 
against a judgment on whether the statement was coerced.''
  In other words, even if the bill says they cannot torture, it also 
says they can use the information they obtain by torturing people if 
the military tribunal concludes the statement itself was not coerced.
  These two provisions taken together, Mr. Speaker, make the anti-
torture provision of this bill unenforceable. They cannot complain 
about it through habeas corpus. They cannot get into the Federal courts 
to complain about it, and the military tribunal can use the coerced 
evidence.
  That is not right. This is un-American, and this language ought to 
have been stricken from the bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The Chair will remind Members 
to refrain from wearing communicative badges while under recognition.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member 
very much for his leadership and the chairman.
  As we all know, all of us have constituents in the U.S. military. 
Texas has some of the largest numbers of military in the United States, 
living in Texas.
  I rise to compliment some of the aspects of this bill, such as the 
increase in the death gratuity and the TRICARE increase for the 
military and their families. I see the impact on my constituents for 
improved health care. I also applaud the avian flu provision and as 
well the issue dealing with the Department of Energy that will not 
allowed the DOE to increase our nuclear warheads but will only allow 
the DOE to study the effectiveness of existing warheads.
  Finally the conferees agreed that our that our values do not support 
torture practices, however, I am certainly disappointed that the habeas 
has been taken away from so called enemy combatants. And I might also 
add that here we go again with ``Star Wars,'' and program doubtful in 
value.
  But it is important that the Goode amendment was not included. We do 
not need to use the military at the border. We are a country of laws as 
we are a country of immigrants. And I might say as well that the 527 
campaign reform legislation belongs somewhere else, not in the Defense 
bill.
  Our soldiers need the funding resources. They need our help. They 
need an increase in compensation. They need better health care. And 
their families, tragically, when they die in the line of duty, the 
least we can do is to provide their dependents with a decent, livable 
opportunity to survive.
  I hope that we will have a better process the next time, but I say on 
behalf of my constituents that I hope we will move this legislation 
forward.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just one or two points, Mr. Speaker. Again in the detainee 
legislation, the House inserted protections for American uniform 
personnel and nonuniform personnel.
  The other point that was mentioned by the gentleman from New York was 
on probative value of evidence that might have been obtained under 
coercion. We all know that we have an exclusionary rule in this country 
domestically, and that means, as in Davis v. Mississippi, which is one 
of the threshold cases, the fact that the person did have his 
fingerprints on the threshold of the grandmother that he murdered, was 
picked out of an unconstitutionally developed lineup; and therefore we 
said, as a matter of disciplining our process, we would let people go 
even though we knew they had committed the crime.
  This is a different situation, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where 
a person may have been interrogated and may have disclosed, for 
example, a cache of weapons with which he was going to use to destroy 
American soldiers on the battlefield, the idea that in our review when 
we determine whether we are going to free him and send him back, having 
seen some of the people that we freed at Guantanamo show back up on the 
battlefield intent on killing American soldiers, that we felt we could 
not go that far. We could still take the probative value, and if that 
interrogation developed that cache of weapons, we would look at the 
cache of weapons and say the person who maintained that was in fact a 
combatant and it is not fair to our soldiers to put him back where he 
can shoot at them again.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say one last thing before my great colleague 
winds up on his side. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is our 
champion on the Armed Services Committee for military education. That 
is an area in which he has more expertise than anybody else in this 
body. And I thought, as we move toward the conclusion of this bill, 
that it was only appropriate that as a gentleman who knows more history 
than the rest of us, and, in fact, I went over a book that we were 
going to get him and I found out he was already reading that book, I 
wanted to dedicate to him and to give to him a book from the committee 
signed by all the members of the committee, and the ones that have not 
come to the floor yet will have their opportunity. It is the ``Battle 
of Vicksburg.'' And for a gentleman who knows every battle that was 
fought in America and knows it very well, I thought that this would be 
an interesting tribute to us for a gentleman who really guides us, 
Democrats and Republicans, in this very important area of military 
education.

                              {time}  0045

  So to the great gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I hope you 
have good reading, and let me know the high points.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the chairman, Chairman Hunter, flatters me. 
It is rather interesting, and it is important for me to point out that 
my late wife, Susie Skelton, went to All Saints High School, which is 
in the middle of the Vicksburg, Mississippi battlefield. And because of 
that, that has special meaning to our family and, Mr. Speaker, I am 
most appreciative.
  This is an excellent bill. It includes language regarding detainees, 
pay raises, and medical help. I hope that this does not set a pattern 
on process. I realize that there was a time problem with the Senate 
passing the bill so late, and with the Thanksgiving recess coming up. 
But I hope that the panels will be able to meet fully, explore each of 
the issues, and as we are not able to do that as nearly as fully as we 
should, we had to rely on our wonderful staff, and they did an 
outstanding job.
  Toward the last, Mr. Speaker, this was a rather torturous procedural 
effort. We jumped two major hurdles toward the end; and at the end of 
the day, the bill is an excellent one for those in uniform and for 
those who defend our country.
  So with that I thank all of the members of the committee. Chairman 
Hunter, thank you especially for your help, your leadership, and to 
each member on our committee for the tremendous work that they did. 
Hours and days went into this. And a special thanks, Mr. Chairman, for 
this book on Vicksburg.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman. I 
thought it would be appropriate for us also to thank this wonderful 
staff, this great bipartisan staff who put this product together. Let 
us thank them for what they did.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman's time has 
expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional 
minute so the gentleman from Georgia could make a presentation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 30251]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much. It was when 
Chairman Hunter provided the book to Ike about Vicksburg that I thought 
that perhaps it was appropriate here publicly to say that there is 
probably no person on the Armed Services Committee today, nor perhaps 
no person in the history of the Armed Services Committee, who has done 
so much for military education. Ike Skelton has constantly talked about 
the need to provide education and training for our men and women in 
uniform, and he is known throughout the armed services for that great 
contribution that he has made.
  A couple of years ago, he came up with the idea of commissioning a 
scholarship program for the graduates of 2-year military colleges to 
continue their education, with DOD paying for it if DOD thinks that it 
is appropriate to do so; scholarships for these graduates as newly 
commissioned officers to finish their college educations. This year, 
unbeknownst to Ike, that scholarship program was named the Ike Skelton 
Early Commissioning Program Scholarship.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to present Senator Isakson's, a Member of 
the other body, his bill originally signed by him naming that program 
the Ike Skelton Early Commissioning Program Scholarship.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an 
additional 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I am indeed flattered, and I do thank the 
gentleman from Georgia for this unexpected tribute, and a special 
thanks to Senator Isakson, the fellow Georgian, for his efforts in 
this. I am indeed flattered, and I will do my best to merit the 
confidence both of the chairman for his presentation and the 
presentation Mr. Marshall made, and with deep appreciation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
bill, but not without great reservation. Despite my concerns, I am 
pleased to see that the bill really provides good provisions for our 
troops and their families. Moving into the specifics of the bill, H.R. 
1815 authorizes $441.5 billion for defense programs in FY 2006, 
slightly less than the President's request. The total is $20.9 billion 
(5%) more than the current regular authorized and appropriated level 
not counting $75.9 billion in FY 2005 emergency supplemental defense 
funds appropriated last month for operations in Iraq. Among other 
things, the bill increases the death gratuity for all active and 
activated service members to $100,000 retroactive to October 7, 2001. 
This authority is needed to pay the higher death gratuity to all 
service members, and more importantly pay it retroactively to those 
what do not qualify under the combat-related requirements since October 
7, 2001. Furthermore, for the first time ever, all reservists who agree 
to continue service in the Selected Reserves will have an opportunity, 
depending on their status, to buy into a government subsidized TRICARE 
Standard health care program for themselves and their families. This 
authority is needed to allow expansion of the program to all drilling 
Selected Reservists, and enhances the current TRICARE Reserve Select 
program.
  In addition, H.R. 1815 authorizes the President's request of an 
across-the-board 3.1% pay increase for military personnel. Further, the 
measure authorizes targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non-
commissioned officers and mid-grade officers. The raises would reduce 
the pay gap between the military and private sector to 4.6%, from 5.1%. 
Even more important, the measure increases payments to survivors of 
deceased military personnel to $100,000, from $12,000, and eliminates 
the requirement that these families have to deduct those payments from 
the total they can receive from a similar program at the Veterans 
Affairs Department. The bill also report increases the bonuses for 
enlistment and reenlistment and raises the eligible enlistment age to 
42. These authorities are needed by the Department and most will expire 
on December 31, 2005.
  From a health care prospective, for the first time ever, all 
reservists who agree to continue service in the Selected Reserves will 
have an opportunity, depending on their status, to buy into a 
government subsidized TRICARE Standard health care program for 
themselves and their families. This authority is needed to allow 
expansion of the program to all drilling Selected Reservists, and 
enhances the current TRICARE Reserve Select program. H.R. 1815 also 
extends TRICARE coverage for children of service members killed in the 
line of duty until 21 years of age, or 23 years, if a full-time 
student.
  Under the bill the Department of Defense is required to report back 
on its plans to respond to an international and/or domestic outbreak of 
avian flu. This is very important as our nation combats the potential 
outbreak of this flu. Lastly Requires the establishment of a Mental 
Health Task Force that will look at how the Department and the Services 
can better identify, treat, and support the mental health needs, 
including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, for service members and their 
families. An effort to provide a comprehensive examination of the 
mental health programs and policies of the Department of Defense and 
other federal programs, this effort will not be initiated without a 
defense authorization bill.
  Title 3 of the bill allows the Department of Defense to accept gifts 
on behalf of wounded service members, Department of Defense civilians 
or their families. Soldiers are currently restricted from accepting 
more than $20 in gifts. This makes it impossible for well meaning 
people to give gifts to wounded troops or their families without 
violating ethics laws. The provision will only partially fix the issue 
as people will not be able to give gifts directly to the soldier. The 
bill recognizes the diversity of members of the Armed Forces who serve 
and died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 
Additionally, the bill authorizes $30 million for Department of Defense 
Impact Aid. These are funds provided to states that have military bases 
in communities and these bases are feeding of the economy of the 
community.
  Before closing, let me take a few moments to express my concerns with 
the bill. In terms of ``Star Wars'' I would only say, here we go again 
providing for additional testing on unproven technology that will not 
ensure our safety. Finally I am disappointed that the bill provides 
limited judicial review of appeals from prisoners seeking 
determinations of enemy combatant status. This does nothing but closes 
the court doors which going against the principle of judicial review 
and due process.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I support the extension of the Defense 
Department's 1207 program, which ensures that the Department's federal 
contracting process in no way supports or subsidizes the discrimination 
that has long existed in the contracting business. The extension of the 
program through September 2009 is needed to help achieve that goal.
  Overwhelming evidence has shown that minorities historically have 
been excluded from both public and private construction projects, 
particularly from defense contracts. Since its adoption in 1986, the 
Department of Defense's 1207 program has helped level the playing field 
for minority contractors, but there is still much work yet to be done.
  A 2004 North Carolina study by MGT America, an independent research 
and consulting firm, revealed that North Carolina continues to 
underutilize businesses owned by minorities or women in nearly all 
categories of transportation contracts. More specifically, African 
American and Hispanic businesses are underutilized in every business 
category of contracts awarded by the North Carolina Department of 
Transportation. In an earlier Charlotte study, Hispanic contractors 
reported that they are treated differently and experience more pressure 
to get the work done. Clearly, efforts to encourage minority 
participation in government contracting are still necessary.
  The Department of Defense's 1207 program helps to counter 
discrimination without imposing an undue burden on white-owned 
businesses. Small businesses owned by white contractors are eligible to 
receive the benefits of the program if they are socially and 
economically disadvantaged.
  I strongly support the reauthorization of the Department of Defense's 
1207 program.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the defense 
authorization bill conference report for fiscal year 2006. The bill 
includes language regarding U.S. policy concerning the war in Iraq, 
which reflects substantially House Joint Resolution 55 of which I am a 
prime cosponsor, with regard to phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 
Iraq during calendar year 2006. There is also language in this bill 
that clearly lays out how detainees in the custody of the U.S. 
Government will be treated. However, it does not address the question 
of the outsourcing torture or contracting with third parties for 
interrogation and detention not subject to the provisions of this bill. 
We will pay a heavy price in terms of world condemnation for this 
deliberate omission when such activities are revealed.

[[Page 30252]]

  There are several measures to improve the oversight of major 
acquisition programs for the Department of Defense. Each year the 
nation gives the Pentagon hundreds of billions of dollars, and each 
year the Pentagon spends a good portion of that money buying things: 
ships, planes, tanks, helicopters, and other items. Unfortunately, in 
recent years almost every single high-profile defense acquisition 
program has experienced cost overruns, performance shortfalls, or 
testing problems. I believe that one reason for these problems is that 
Congress hasn't done everything it could to make sure that these 
important programs stay on track and that the companies building the 
systems deliver what they promise to deliver. At the end of the day, 
this is about getting our troops in the field what they need, when they 
need it. Making sure this happens is one of Congress' primary 
Constitutional duties.
  I am pleased then that this year, the defense authorization bill puts 
measures in place that will improve Congress' visibility of several 
major programs that are facing challenges, including the Future Combat 
System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and the new Presidential 
helicopter. In each case, both myself and my subcommittee chairman 
Congressman Curt Weldon, are committed to making sure that these 
programs deliver the capability our military needs at a price we can 
afford.
  I am also encouraged that for the first time, this bill requires the 
Department of Defense and the military services to report back to us on 
options for moving to a capital budgeting approach for defense 
acquisition, which I have advocated. Today, the DOD is one of the few 
government entities in the United States that continues to cash-finance 
the purchase of multi-million dollar capital items such as ships and 
aircraft. As I've pointed out many times during committee discussions, 
this cash-financing and budgeting system is leading the Department to 
make poor decisions on major capital acquisition programs. In effect, 
the way we budget for new equipment is determining what we end up 
buying. That is a completely backwards system and one that needs to 
change. The conference report before us today will require the DOD and 
the Armed Services to take a serious look at using an alternative, 
modern, and more flexible capital budgeting approach that will help the 
DOD get our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs.
  As I indicated earlier, this bill includes language in Section 1227 
on U.S. Policy in Iraq that I think represents bipartisan agreement 
with House Joint Resolution 55, which I introduced with Congressman 
Walter Jones this past June. Joint Resolution 55 called for the 
President to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006. 
Similarly, the bill before us today says that:
  ``Calendar Year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to 
full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the 
security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions 
for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.''
  I think the bipartisan support in Congress for a phased redeployment 
and the President's eventual signature for this measure should signal a 
significant step toward getting US troops out of Iraq. I'm pleased that 
despite the recent White House overheated rhetoric about ``total'' or 
``complete'' victory and casting aspersions on the patriotism of those 
opposed to this war that we may finally be at a point where we can all 
agree that in 2006 US troops will begin to come home from Iraq. If the 
President signs this bill it follows that support for this language 
requires beginning the drawdown of US forces in Iraq as soon as 
possible.
  Again, as I indicated earlier, this bill contains language clarifying 
how individuals detained and held by the United States Government will 
be treated and interrogated. The language originally sponsored by 
Senator John McCain that prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading'' 
treatment of prisoners is retained in the conference report in its 
original form. However, while I'm pleased that this language is 
included in the bill--after the President threatened to veto this very 
same language--I am troubled by an issue that this bill does not 
address.
  This issue is the issue of whether or not the United States condones, 
by default, the torture of prisoners by ``outsourcing'' interrogations 
to other nations. The technique of handing over prisoners in our 
custody to other countries is called ``extraordinary rendition,'' and 
has been described in numerous press reports. In some cases, it may 
even be an appropriate way to deal with a prisoner wanted for crimes in 
their home country.
  However, what happens to those prisoners when they leave U.S. custody 
is not addressed in this bill in any way. As a result, while the bill 
prohibits people in our direct custody and control from being tortured, 
it is silent--and thus, complicit--with regard to our handing over 
prisoners to other nations so that they can be tortured on our behalf.
  So, while we have made some progress with regard to making it clear 
to our military and intelligence services how they are to treat 
prisoners in our custody, I am concerned that this bill doesn't go far 
enough. I intend to support this bill today based on what is in it, but 
I want to make it clear that Congress must, as soon as possible, deal 
with the issue of the outsourcing of torture. If Congress does not do 
so soon, there will likely be some kind of incident somewhere involving 
a prisoner in our care that is handed over to another country and is 
subsequently tortured, or even killed. When that happens, if Congress 
has remained silent on this issue the United States will suffer another 
needless defeat in the court of global public opinion. When that 
happens, millions around the world may conclude that Congress condones 
the outsourcing of torture simply because we have chosen not to act to 
stop it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1815, and 
thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work. 
Once again the committee has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring 
the security of our nation and the safety of our men and women in 
uniform.
  I am extremely pleased that we were able to consider this measure 
without extraneous and controversial provisions that would have 
endangered its passage. Our troops and the civilian employees in the 
Department of Defense have performed valiantly and made enormous 
sacrifices to safeguard the United States, and H.R. 1815 recognizes 
their commitment by providing much-needed assistance to them and their 
families. The conference report includes a pay raise of 3.1% for 
military, increases certain enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses, and 
allows certain members of the reserves to buy into the TRICARE health 
care program for themselves and their families. The measure also 
increases the endstrength of the Army and the Marine Corps, which 
should help relieve some of the stress on troops who have experienced 
repeated deployments.
  The legislation also contains $50 billion in supplemental funding to 
provide force protection equipment, such as up-armored Humvees and 
jammers for improvised explosive devices, to our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as to replace equipment that has been degraded by 
the high operations tempo. Though the military has accomplished a great 
deal with what they have, we have clear indications that we are wearing 
down our equipment, perhaps faster than we can replace it. The 
investment in this bill is an important step, but we must not forget 
that it will take billions more to completely reset and recapitalize 
our force.
  This bill also contains important language to ensure that Department 
of Defense does not contract out existing government work without 
realizing actual cost savings. Earlier in the year, I drew the 
committee's attention to DOD's practice of reorganizing or 
reclassifying existing government work in order to circumvent required 
contracting rules without demonstrating savings. The language in this 
measure closes that loophole and goes much farther by establishing much 
clearer standards about how DOD can contract out work. I thank the 
chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, as well as the 
committee staff, for working with me and my office to address my 
original concern, and I will continue to work with the committee to 
monitor the implementation of this new language to ensure that all 
parties involved are treated fairly and that taxpayer dollars are used 
as effectively as possible.
  Finally, H.R. 1815 demonstrates its interest in maintaining a strong 
Navy through a continued commitment to the next-generation destroyer, 
DD(X). It also includes language affirming the committee's support of 
the VIRGINIA-class submarine and directing the Navy to initiate a 
program to improve future submarine technology in a cost-effective 
manner. This provision should be welcome news to Electric Boat, a major 
employer in my district, which has announced as many 2,400 layoffs in 
2006, primarily due to insufficient submarine design and construction 
work. To prevent our submarine force from shrinking to dangerously low 
levels, I will continue my efforts to integrate cutting-edge technology 
into VIRGINIA-class submarines and to increase procurement of these 
ships to two per year. Given other nations' investments in their navy 
and undersea capabilities, we cannot afford for the United State to 
lose its undersea dominance.
  Again, I commend the Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton and my 
colleagues on the committee for a well-balanced bill, and I urge its 
adoption.

[[Page 30253]]


  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report for H.R. 1815, the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense 
Authorization. This legislation is critically important to our troops 
and our efforts in the global war on terror. In addition, the 
conference report contains a provision that is extremely important to 
my constituents in Illinois's 11th Congressional district. The ``Weller 
Amendment'', which pertains to Chicago's South Suburban Airport, 
ensures that the airport is built with local control and through a 
transparent process.
  The South Suburban Airport will be one of Illinois' largest 
infrastructure projects to be undertaken since the construction of 
Chicago O'Hare International airport. With the construction of the 
South Suburban Airport, an estimated 236,000 jobs will be created and 
it is projected to generate $5.1 billion in economic growth. In 
addition to the boost it will give the local economy, the South 
Suburban Airport will further reduce the congestion that currently 
plagues Chicago O'Hare.
  The ``Weller amendment'' is necessary to protect the taxpayers of 
Will County who will have the ultimate responsibility for the 
infrastructure and development associated with the airport. Local 
responsibility, accountability and control is essential for the airport 
to be successful. For Will County, where the entire footprint of the 
airport is located, to have a majority control on how this airport 
should take shape and operate. It is just common sense.
  The first section of my provision will ensure that Will County 
residents will receive a majority of the seats on the governing board 
of the airport. Since my days in the Illinois General Assembly, I have 
been a strong supporter of the Third Airport and have always maintained 
that local control is vital to the airport governance. It is the 
residents of Will County who will have to live with both the benefits 
and the consequences the new growth will bring to the county. They must 
have a majority of seats on the governing board to represent Will 
county taxpayer interests.
  The second section of my provision applies to current law, requiring 
that all contractual dealings of the airport follow federal procurement 
laws. There must be transparency and open bidding in the contracting 
for this airport. There is no room for sweetheart deals or backdoor no 
bid contracts which is the practice of the Abraham Lincoln Airport 
Commission, which is composed of communities in Cook County who seek to 
control the Will County site. This point has also been reinforced by 
the recent opinion by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. In her 
opinion, issued last Friday evening, the process that the Abraham 
Lincoln Airport Commission used to pick two airport developers violated 
state procurement laws.
  I also realize that some of my constituents, especially near the 
airport site, do not support the construction of a suburban third 
airport. With this understood, should an airport be built, I think they 
would agree that those that have to live with the airport should 
control the operation of the airport.
  I would like to deeply thank Speaker Hastert and Chairman Hunter for 
their support of this amendment. I would also like to thank Will County 
Executive Larry Walsh, Will County Board Chairman Jim Moustis, Illinois 
State Senator Debbie Halvorson and all of the public officials in Will 
and Kankakee counties for their support.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, let me start by 
adding my thanks to the Armed Services Committee staff for their hard 
work and long hours in getting this conference report to the floor.
  On the whole, I think this is a solid bill--a bill that does a lot of 
good for our servicemembers and their families.
  It raises basic pay and hardship duty pay. It provides TRICARE 
coverage for Reservists. It increases the death gratuity for all 
activated servicemembers. It begins the much-needed reform of the DOD 
acquisition system.
  And with the inclusion of the McCain language, this bill makes a 
strong statement to the world that the United States does NOT condone--
and will not tolerate--the torture or abuse of detainees.
  But I'm particularly happy to note that the final conference 
agreement includes two important revisions to the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice (UCMJ).
  The first revision would update Article 120 of the UCMJ making it a 
modern, complete sexual assault statute that protects victims, empowers 
commanders and prosecutors, and improves good order and discipline of 
the armed forces.
  It offers military prosecutors a clear definition of sexual assault 
and better tools for prosecuting sexual offenses, and it affords 
increased protection for victims by emphasizing acts of the perpetrator 
rather than the reaction of the victim during an assault.
  The second revision to the UCMJ involves the addition of stalking as 
a specifically defined offense, bringing the UCMJ in line with federal 
laws and the laws of all 50 states.
  The language in this bill will offer commanders and prosecutors a 
clear definition of stalking. It will raise awareness, strengthen law 
enforcement, and underscore the criminality of this conduct to all 
members of the military community.
  Furthermore, it will give commanders a powerful tool to cut stalking 
off in its early stages--before a stalker's behavior escalates.
  I have pushed for these changes for a long, long time, and I am 
thrilled to see both chambers finally agree on these major steps 
forward for the military justice system and for the men and women of 
our armed forces.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, today we are being asked to vote on the 
Department of Defense Authorization conference report. Once again, the 
House is being required to vote on a bill in the dead of night, without 
the opportunity to read the language or consider its ramifications. I 
am especially concerned about two provisions in this bill--provisions 
that were not in the original House bill, were not the subject of 
Congressional hearings, and have not been carefully scrutinized. Yet, 
those two provisions--one that undermines the fundamental right of 
habeas corpus and the other that undermines the ban on torture--will 
have profound implications for our legal traditions and our reputation 
throughout the world.
  The first provision, based on a Senate amendment, would limit U.S. 
courts' historic habeas corpus jurisdiction to review detentions. This 
would cut off access to the courts by persons held at Guantanamo Bay.
  Habeas corpus is one of the most fundamental precepts of American 
Constitutional tradition. The court-stripping provision included in 
this legislation would do grievous harm to the rule that the government 
cannot just lock up people without showing cause to a court. It is not 
a change that we should enact without careful consideration by the 
appropriate committees in the House and Senate.
  In a letter to Members of Congress commenting on the Senate 
amendment, Leslie H. Jackson, head of the POW organization, American 
Ex-Prisoners of War, said ``As we limit the rights of human beings, 
even those of the enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us 
weaker and imperils our troops. I am proud to be an American and proud 
of my service to my country. This Amendment, well intentioned as it may 
be, will diminish us.'' William D. Rogers, former Under Secretary of 
State during the Ford Administration, also expressed serious concerns 
about the possible impacts of this amendment. He warns, ``To proclaim 
democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme form of 
government at the very moment we eliminate the most important avenue of 
relief from arbitrary governmental decision will not serve our 
interests in the larger world.''
  Second, this legislation also includes a provision that would 
undermine a ban on torture by allowing testimony obtained by torture to 
be used to hold and to punish detainees. Both the House and the Senate 
have voted overwhelmingly in past weeks that our nation should prohibit 
the use of torture. We have agreed that the use of torture is 
antithetical to a moral nation and that it harms our reputation as the 
exemplar of democracy and freedom throughout the world. We have also 
heard from intelligence experts that information obtained in 
interrogations that use techniques like ``waterboarding'' or simulated 
drowning, often produce unreliable information. Yet, while this 
legislation condemns the use of torture on one hand, on the other hand 
it countenances the use of information obtained through torture to 
eliminate legal rights.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these provisions in order to protect 
our time-tested judicial review process and to keep our commitment to 
end the use of torture.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this conference report has flaws, 
and I dislike the way it was developed. But I think it deserves to be 
approved, and want to highlight a few reasons why.
  First, the conference report includes the original McCain amendment 
related to treatment of detainees, with additional language agreed to 
by the conferees and the Administration that provides our military and 
intelligence personnel with criminal and civil defenses modeled on 
those already provided to military personnel under the Uniformed Code 
of Military Justice in specific circumstances.
  I strongly supported the McCain amendment because, while it's said 
actions speak louder than words, reputations depend on both--and, 
fairly or not, for people around the world the actions of a few 
Americans at Abu Ghraib have left a stain on America's reputation and 
have made it harder for our troops to win the

[[Page 30254]]

war against Islamic terrorists. Erasing that stain and protecting our 
soldiers from abuse will take both respectable actions and credible 
words--and enactment of this part of the conference report will give 
credibility to our words.
  I also am glad to note that the conference report includes the 
language adopted by the Senate saying that says 2006 should be a period 
of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi 
security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and 
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased 
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq, and requiring quarterly reports 
until all combat brigades have been redeployed from Iraq.
  With my colleagues Representatives Osborn, Tauscher, and Schwarz, I 
urged that this be retained in the conference report as a step toward 
the greater unity among Members of Congress and the Administration that 
I think will be needed for a successful outcome in Iraq. So, its 
inclusion is another reason I support the conference report.
  There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our 
troops. An important one increases the end strength for the Army and 
Marine Corps by 30,000 and 4,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease 
the strain on our troops. I'm also glad that the bill includes 
provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, increase 
the death gratuity to $100,000, and provide a 3.1% pay raise for 
members of the armed forces. The bill also provides better force 
protection for our troops, including nearly doubled funding for up-
armored Humvees.
  Also critical is the report's provision authorizing reservists who 
agree to continue service to buy into a government-subsidized TRICARE 
healthcare program for themselves and their families. Along with many 
of my colleagues in the House, I have fought for some time to expand 
TRICARE for the Guard and Reserve, so I take great pleasure in knowing 
that the report includes this provision that will improve healthcare 
access for our men and women in the Selected Reserve. As long as our 
Nation continues to use our reserve components in the same capacities 
as active duty troops, they deserve similar benefits for similar 
service. The needs of our Reservists will continue to grow as we 
continue to call them to service in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the 
report's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, 
particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have 
relied on immature technology. Similarly, provisions included to reform 
the acquisition system will strengthen current law governing cost 
overruns.
  I am also pleased that the report fully authorizes Cooperative Threat 
Reduction funding as well as additional funding for a Department of 
Energy nonproliferation program to implement agreements between the 
U.S. and Russia. One of the biggest dangers we face is the threat of 
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of 
terrorists, yet the CTR program is currently funded at a lower level 
than it was before September 11th. So I am glad that report conferees 
recognized the importance of increasing CTR funding.
  On a less positive note, I am concerned that the report authorizes 
nearly $50 billion in a ``bridge fund''--over and above the $440 
billion in the regular bill--for FY06 supplemental appropriations for 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. While 
inclusion in the report does mean that the authorizing process has been 
followed to an extent, still, the additional money in this bridge fund 
should be included in the regular budget request, since there is 
nothing unexpected about the need for these funds. The ``emergency'' 
label that these funds bear hides the fact that they do increase the 
size of the budget deficit. I don't believe this is a responsible way 
for us to pay for our military operations.
  And I have concerns about the provision related to the ability of 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay to seek judicial review of their 
situations. My understanding is that this could have the effect of 
allowing use of evidence obtained by coercive interrogations. At least 
one lawyer who represents detainees at Guantanamo has described the 
combination of the McCain amendment and this provision as one step 
forward and two steps back. I think we must carefully monitor 
implementation of this provision and be prepared to consider revisions 
in the near future.
  Further, Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the Armed Services 
Committee, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hunter and for 
working with me on a number of provisions in the report that are 
important to me and my state of Colorado.
  In particular, I am pleased that the report includes favorable 
language on the Pueblo Chemical Depot, a former chemical weapons site 
located in southeastern Colorado. Coloradans were alarmed last year 
when the demilitarization project was put on hold, so they want to see 
that the Defense Department is committed to using the neutralization 
technology to destroy the 2,600 tons of mustard agent stored at 
Pueblo--not transporting the weapons to a different site for 
destruction. The Colorado delegation has worked hard to put the project 
back on the right track, so I am grateful for language in the bill 
directing the Secretary of the Army to continue to implement fully the 
neutralization technology at Pueblo.
  And, finally, the conference report includes provisions dealing with 
a matter of particular interest to Coloradans--the future of Rocky 
Flats.
  Located at the edge of the Denver metropolitan area, Rocky Flats 
formerly was part of the complex of sites where nuclear weapons were 
made. After that use ended, the Department of Energy and its 
contractors worked to have the site cleaned up and closed. That 
monumental task is now complete, and when the regulatory certification 
of cleanup and closure is issued, and most of the site will be 
transferred to the Interior Department for management as a national 
wildlife refuge pursuant to the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge Act.
  That Act, which I sponsored with Senator Wayne Allard, includes some 
provisions related to the non-Federal minerals--primarily sand and 
gravel--at Rocky Flats. The purpose of those provisions is to make 
clear that while these mineral rights are to be respected as private 
property, their future development could have adverse effects on the 
land, wildlife habitat, and other values of the future wildlife refuge. 
I think the best way to avoid that is for the Federal Government to 
acquire the minerals. This conference report will facilitate 
acquisition of part of those mineral rights, and while I think its 
terms leave room for improvement its enactment will enable valuable 
progress to be made.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the conference report deserves 
enactment and I urge its approval.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the extension 
of the Defense Department's Section 1207 Small and Disadvantaged 
Business Utilization (SADBU) program through September 2009. I am very 
pleased to see this program extended in this bill because it has proven 
to be extremely effective in fighting discrimination in the defense 
contracting process, and has been tremendously successful in ensuring 
that African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans are able 
to compete more effectively for government contracts.
  The goal of the SADBU program is to provide opportunities for all 
Americans to take part in the defense contracting process. Since its 
inception in 1987, the SADBU program has helped to level the playing 
field for small and disadvantaged businesses. However, there is still a 
lot that needs to be done. Years of Congressional hearings have shown 
that minorities have historically been unfairly excluded from both 
public and private construction contracts in general, and from federal 
defense contracts in particular. And a recent study by MGT of America 
revealed that minority-owned and women-owned businesses in New Jersey 
still faced significant challenges in obtaining state contracts. Many 
business owners and representatives stated that their opportunities to 
perform work as subcontractors on state contracts decreased after the 
suspension of the state's minority and women business enterprise 
program. If the federal SADBU program were to end, a lot of the 
progress we have made to this point would likely be erased. That's why 
this extension is so important.
  Mr. Speaker, the 1207 program helps to correct the problems of 
discrimination without imposing an undue burden on other businesses. It 
is not a quota. It is not a set-aside. It is not a guarantee of 
contracts or dollars. It is simply about fairness, and the ability of 
minority-owned businesses to compete more effectively for federal 
defense contracts. All of us benefit when recipients of federal 
opportunities reflect America's diversity, and I'm proud to support the 
reauthorization of the 1207 program.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of this bill, but I 
do not support all of the provisions in it. I am especially concerned 
about the McCain language related to treatment of detainees in the War 
on Terrorism and about the consequences of that language on our ability 
to prevent attacks against Americans.
  A recent editorial in the December 14, 2005 issue of USA Today 
expresses my views very well, and I include it at this point in the 
Record:

[[Page 30255]]



                    [From USA Today, Dec. 15, 2005]

                           Misguided Morality

              (By Andrew C. McCarthy and Clifford D. May)

       No one favors torture. Torture is already illegal under 
     both U.S. and international law. Nonetheless, the United 
     States is fighting a war against ruthless enemies who obey no 
     rules. We cannot afford to treat all of them with kid gloves 
     all the time.
       On the battlefield, we can--and do--kill our enemies. Those 
     we don't kill but only capture should be treated humanely, 
     despite the fact that they do not return the favor when they 
     seize Americans. But those who have information that could 
     save lives must be interrogated effectively. That does not 
     imply torture. It does imply measures that the McCain 
     amendment would ban.
       Contrary to what you might have heard, ``ticking time-
     bomb'' scenarios are not uncommon. Consider the situation 
     faced by Army Lt. Col. Allen West: Fighting near Tikrit, he 
     captured a suspect who refused to divulge information about a 
     planned ambush.
       West fired his revolver to frighten the suspect. The trick 
     worked. The terrorist talked. American lives were saved. And 
     West was accused of torture, charged with assault and drummed 
     out of the military. Next time, will an officer in the same 
     situation decide to let Americans be killed--believing that's 
     what Americans back home demand?
       Even more common than the ticking time bomb is the scenario 
     in which a ``high-value'' suspect is captured, for example a 
     senior al-Qaeda commander who might not know about an 
     imminent attack but who does have information on terrorist 
     recruiting, training and communications.
       In this circumstance, torture is not only unneeded but also 
     unhelpful. But the use of ``stress and duress'' techniques, 
     including rewards for cooperation and punishments for 
     defiance, can, over time, induce a subject to reveal what he 
     knows.
       Good policy requires clarity and accountability. Though 
     torture is to be avoided, vague terms such as ``cruel'' and 
     ``degrading'' inevitably would be stretched to coddle 
     terrorists unduly. Congress should instead set clear 
     standards, consulting intelligence experts and medical 
     professionals to flesh out which techniques should always be 
     prohibited (for example, those likely to cause death or 
     permanent disability), and which are permissible--and most 
     likely to yield reliable lifesaving information.
       Accountability means not leaving serious judgments to 
     junior personnel. Harsh interrogation methods, such as covert 
     operations under current federal law, should require approval 
     by a highranking administration official.
       Obviously, distinctions must be made between terrorist 
     leaders and low-level operatives. Even so, those arguing that 
     it is better to sacrifice the lives of U.S. troops--or even 
     an American city--rather than cause a terrorist temporary 
     discomfort are making a terrible mistake. They urge a self-
     destructive policy and a misguided morality.

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support 
for H.R. 1815, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, torture can never be tolerated. As a country that has 
historically stood for the promotion and strengthening of human rights, 
our government must not be allowed to blur the line, bend the rules or 
otherwise distort the truth on acts that are clearly degrading, 
inhumane and cruel. Senator John McCain's amendment to the Fiscal Year 
2006 Defense Authorization, and subsequently Appropriations, bills, was 
overwhelming supported in the Senate, and had bipartisan support in the 
House. Regardless of who we are fighting, and regardless of how the war 
is going, as Americans, we must never allow ourselves to again be 
accused of torture. Torture destroys the lives of those who are its 
victims as well as the lives, moral authority and strength of those who 
commit such devastating acts or support them.
  As a cosponsor of the Interrogation Procedures Act of 2005, H.R. 
3985, which is identical to Senator McCain's amendment, I am pleased 
that conferees were able to come to a good agreement in regard to 
Senator McCain's amendment. This amendment deserved the utmost support 
and respect, and I believe that in the end, the conferees were able to 
incorporate a clear, unambiguous statement on the unacceptability of 
torture by the U.S. government and military.
  As media reports of alleged torture and extraordinary rendition 
become increasingly common, and as reports continue of ``secret'' CIA 
prisons operated throughout Eastern Europe, I am extremely pleased that 
the Administration has finally, publicly supported the McCain ban on 
torture. I was appalled earlier this month, and in November, to hear of 
Vice President Cheney's lobbying of Members of Congress to have this 
provision stripped, arguing that the provision would restrict the 
``flexibility'' of the intelligence and military communities to wage an 
``effective'' war against terror.
  With this conference report, the United States has made a clear, 
unambiguous, and strong statement condemning torture and outlawing its 
use by any U.S. military personnel or on any U.S. facility in the 
world. This is to be greatly commended and I thank my colleagues for 
their support of this provision.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006.''
  I am thrilled that this legislation includes provisions to provide 
retirement credit to the members of the National Guard serving on State 
duty who responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
  I, along with Representative King and other members of the New York 
delegation, introduced legislation earlier this year which would 
accomplish the same goal, and I am thankful that the committee has 
worked with us to correct this inequity.
  I especially would like to thank Chairman McHugh for his steadfast 
support of these provisions.
  My friend and colleague Representative King has been invaluable in 
this endeavor, and I thank him for his efforts.
  I also would like to commend Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, 
Ranking Member Snyder, and their staffs for their work on this issue.
  Lastly, I would like to acknowledge Senator Clinton for her support 
and for introducing the companion legislation in the Senate.
  In the aftermath of 9/11, the National Guard responded to the call of 
duty heroically.
  While others were moving toward safety, the Guard moved into unknown 
dangers around Ground Zero.
  They did not know if another attack was coming, but they did not 
hesitate to respond. All they did was their selfless duty.
  For almost a year after 9/11, these National Guard heroes streamlined 
the movement of rescue personnel during the critical first phases of 
the response and they endured the toxic air conditions of Ground Zero 
with thousands of responders.
  However, the National Guard units that served in the disaster zones 
of New York after 9/11 did not receive Federal retirement credit, while 
the National Guard units that protected Federal sites like West Point 
are receiving Federal retirement credit.
  While protecting Federal sites was an important duty after 9/11, 
those who risked their lives at Ground Zero, in the most dangerous 
conditions anywhere in the country, deserve the same fair treatment.
  By including these provisions in this conference report, we are 
showing our gratitude to the brave men and women who responded on 
September 11th by giving them the retirement benefits to which they are 
entitled.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, while I am a strong supporter of the brave 
men and women who serve in our armed forces, I am deeply opposed to the 
unnecessary and pernicious last-minute amendment added to this bill by 
Senators Graham, Levin, and Kyl. I am also disappointed that the 
conferees have made further changes to the provision that will only 
further damage our rule of law and compromise the efforts of our 
soldiers around the world.
  Their amendment, which is now Section 1405 of this bill, may severely 
curtail the federal court's review of detainees operations in ways that 
do irreparable damage to our rule of law. The provision also fails 
unequivocally to condemn torture and abuse, or the erratic and 
unreliable information that practice yields. These flaws are contrary 
to the fundamental principles of our legal traditions.
  Let me first focus on the torture issue. Never before in America's 
proud history have we countenanced a system in which there is even a 
possibility that human liberty might be taken away based on evidence 
extracted by torture. And it is this refusal to debase ourselves, by 
resorting to immoral and illegal techniques, that lies at the core of 
our best and most noble traditions.
  We should have made clear beyond doubt in this provision that we do 
not approve of and we are not willing to tolerate a system that rests 
on torture today. Even if it were true that there may be some extreme 
case--say, the infamous ``ticking time-bomb'' scenario--that could 
vindicate the use of abhorrent physical coercion, that exceptional case 
would not warrant the use of that evidence--evidence that our 
intelligence services have told us is very often unreliable--in 
subsequent judicial proceedings. There is simply no excuse or 
justification for this omission.
  As we try to establish new democracies and the rule of law for Iraq 
and Afghanistan in place of sanctuaries for terrorists, Congress's

[[Page 30256]]

failure to condemn and bar abuse is shameful, intolerable, and deeply 
hypocritical: How can we refuse to practice what we preach to other 
countries?
  Congress must return to this issue as soon as possible and make good 
the promise of Senator McCain's wise anti-abuse provision; after all 
standards are important but, as we have learned time and time again, we 
also need accountability and enforcement.
  Time is of the essence because continued torture and abuse hurts our 
efforts in Iraq and beyond against al Qaeda. The persistent wave of 
stories about prisoners detained for the wrong reasons, or subjected to 
inappropriate treatment or abuse while in U.S. custody has inflicted 
terrible harm on our reputation, and on the efforts by our brave men 
and women in Iraq to win the hearts and minds campaign. Establishing a 
meaningful system of accountability for detainee operations is not only 
a matter of restoring America's honor in the eyes in the world, it is a 
vital part of our counterterrorism strategy.
  Accountability, moreover, cannot be achieved without independent 
monitoring mechanisms. The rule of law, as events of the past four 
years have made clear, dies behind closed doors and barbed-wire. 
Cutting off meaningful judicial supervision of the Guantanamo Naval 
Base will not restore the military's honor. And turning the federal 
courts into rubber stamps for decisions generated through the rack and 
the screw would stain our legal traditions.
  As Senator Specter powerfully urged, these difficult issues must be 
assigned to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their careful 
and expert consideration. Senator Specter's wise counsel has been 
repeated in letters from senior members of our armed forces, who have 
already retired; a bipartisan group of respected former federal judges; 
the American Bar Association; and a broad cross-section of professors 
from the legal academy. This wide-ranging opposition indicates how 
thorny these issues are, and how unwise it is to move so quickly on 
them.
  I am heartened, however, that we have been able to preserve much that 
is not harmful in this provision. There are some sound ideas embedded 
in these provisions that we should use when we reconsider these issues.
  Central to Congress's aim in this provision is a distinction between 
those detainees who have already been subject to a Combatant Status 
Review Tribunal (CSRT) and new detainees who will be subject to a 
future CSRT procedure that Congress will certify more than six months 
from now. For those who have already been subject to a CSRT and now 
challenge either that procedure or the lawfulness of the military 
commission system, the provision does not affect access to the federal 
courts.
  Through section (h)(2), Congress has crafted a new system of judicial 
review for cases that will be brought under a new system of CSRTs, to 
be designed by the Secretary of Defense and reviewed with care by 
Congress. These appeals from new CSRTs will be heard in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And even 
in these new cases, the provision does not alter the now-established 
ability of attorneys to visit clients at Guantanamo. Attorneys 
litigating their cases in a circuit court need access to and 
communication with their client, as recent filings in the Hamdan v. 
Rumsfeld case show.
  But section (h)(2) also circumscribes the new system of review to new 
cases, which will of necessity arise more than six months from now, 
when the new CSRT procedures have been promulgated. We have preserved 
the existing, expansive review role of the federal courts for the 
habeas petitions filed by those who have already been through a CSRT. 
So detainees who have already had a CSRT hearing, including those who 
have pending habeas petitions, will continue to have traditional habeas 
review.
  We also chose in paragraph 3 of subsection (e) not to legislate an 
abstention rule. For those who have filed challenges to their military 
commissions, we did not take the extraordinary step of requiring 
convictions or other exhaustion before they come into federal court. As 
in Ex Parte Quirin, we have permitted pre-conviction challenge to be 
brought up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Paragraph 3 simply governs 
challenges to ``final decisions'' of commissions, and does not impact 
challenges when they are not brought ``under [that] paragraph.'' See 
Section 1405 (e)(3)(c),(d).
  To be sure, a few provisions are singled out to apply to pending 
cases, but these are provisions that give those who have filed cases 
additional rights, instead of taking any rights away. One such 
provision was added in conference with respect to coerced testimony, 
Section 1405(b)(2). But that provision does not in any way alter the 
clear intent of the Congress, which was to grandfather the jurisdiction 
of existing Guantanamo habeas and mandamus lawsuits under Lindh v. 
Murphy.
  As such, nothing in the legislation alters or impacts the 
jurisdiction or merits of Hamdan. And, quite obviously, nothing in the 
legislation constitutes affirmative authorization, or even toleration, 
for the military commissions at issue in that case. That is the 
question that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming months. Our 
mention of commissions simply reflects, but does not endorse, the fact 
that the lower court in Hamdan held them legal.
  This provision attempts to address problems that have occurred in the 
determinations of the status of people detained by the military at 
Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. It recognizes that the CSRT procedures 
applied in the past were inadequate and must be changed going forward. 
As the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Court found, in In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, the past CSRT 
procedures ``deprive[d] the detainees of sufficient notice of the 
factual bases for their detention and den[ied] them a fair opportunity 
to challenge their incarceration,'' and allowed ``reliance on 
statements possibly obtained through torture or other coercion.'' Her 
review ``call[ed] into serious question the nature and thoroughness'' 
of the past CSRT process. The former CSRT procedures were not issued by 
the Secretary of Defense, were not reported to or approved by Congress, 
did not provide for final determinations by a civilian official 
answerable to Congress, did not provide for the consideration of new 
evidence, and did not address the use of statements possibly obtained 
through coercion.
  To address these problems, this provision requires the Secretary of 
Defense to issue new CSRT procedures and report those procedures to the 
appropriate committees of Congress; it requires that going forward the 
determinations be made by a Designated Civilian Official who is 
answerable to Congress; it provides for the periodic review of new 
evidence; it provides for future CSRTs to assess whether statements 
were derived from coercion and their probative value; and it provides 
for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for these future CSRT 
determinations.
  At the same time, in accordance with our traditions, this amendment 
does not apply retroactively to revoke the jurisdiction of the courts 
to consider pending claims invoking the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus 
challenging past enemy combatant determinations reached without the 
safeguards this amendment requires for future determinations. The 
amendment alters the original language introduced by Senator Graham so 
that those pending cases are not affected by this provision. 
Accordingly, subsection (h)(1) establishes that generally the 
provisions of this section, including subsection (e)(1), which affects 
the substantive rights of parties, apply only as of the date of 
enactment of this provision in accordance with the Supreme Court's 
decision in Lindh v. Murphy.
  Recognizing the Supreme Court's concerns about judicial independence 
in cases such as City of Boerne v. Flores and United States v. 
Morrison, we have underscored that Congress is not attempting to settle 
any constitutional question that is the proper province of the federal 
courts. Thus in sections (e)(2)(C)(ii), (e)(3)(D)(ii), and (f), we have 
made clear, out of an abundance of caution, that we not purport to 
decide any constitutional question that remains within the proper 
bailiwick of the federal courts pursuant to Article III of the 
Constitution. Thus, this provision does not speak to the 
constitutionality of the military commissions or the old CSRTs. We 
leave it to the courts to decide these questions.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________