[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21249-21253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5122, JOHN 
     WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1062 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1062

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2007 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. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
attach tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a special rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the fiscal year 
2007 National Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration and 
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the 
underlying legislation. Today, we are at a critical juncture. The 
conference report for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Act is before us. This legislative companion to the 
fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill authorizes and provides 
critical legislative language for full implementation of our defense 
policies.
  Let us be clear: This is an excellent piece of legislation, a good 
bipartisan package that represents the best work of the House Armed 
Services Committee. Recognizing that, I would like to personally thank 
both the gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman 
from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, for delivering a package that I 
am sure almost all of us can support.
  Mr. Speaker, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and 
currently being a member on leave of absence from that committee, I 
know how closely the members of that committee work together to achieve 
a bill that is bipartisan, that is good for our servicemen and women 
and that is good for increasing the security of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, this year, the Armed Services Committee produced a bill 
that contains several major legislative initiatives and funding 
impacts. Among them are an additional $70 billion in supplemental 
bridge funding to support the war on terror's operations costs; 
personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment; additional funding 
for force protection needs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, including up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED 
protection kits and gunner protection kits, IED jammers and state-of-
the-art body armor; a 2.2 percent pay raise for all members of our 
Armed Forces; and an increase of 30,000 personnel for the Army and 
5,000 personnel for the Marine Corps to help them sustain their 
required missions.

                              {time}  1600

  The bill blocks the Department of Defense proposed TRICARE Prime, 
Standard, and Select Reserve fee increases. The bill authorizes grants 
and loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to approve their efficiency, cost 
effectiveness, and international competitiveness. The bill fully funds 
the immediate Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for replenishing 
supplies and replacing equipment in the amount of $17.1 billion for the 
Army and $5.7 billion for the Marines.
  Mr. Speaker, more importantly this legislation directly supports our 
servicemen and -women in the field and on deployment. Operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on us passing this legislation that 
contains so many changes in legislative language.
  Mr. Speaker, a bumper sticker we often read says: ``I support our 
troops.'' Today we have that opportunity and responsibility. We could 
support our troops and improve the security of our Nation in a way that 
other Americans cannot. We can offer our vote in support of this 
legislation as 60 of 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee 
did when they initially passed the bill.

[[Page 21250]]

  This is not a controversial proposition. This is something we should 
be proud to do, regardless of our perspectives and different positions 
on the war in Iraq. All of us are proud of our troops. All of us are 
committed to them and commend them for their courage and their 
professionalism, and all of us will do everything we can to increase 
their safety and effectiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also note that the Afghan 
and the Iraqi people also deserve to be commended for their efforts in 
our common struggle. During this war, the citizens of both these 
countries have held elections, written constitutions, and formed 
permanent governments. Afghan and Iraqi citizens are watching what we 
do here today. They require and request our continued support as they 
move forward in their efforts to build new and better countries. The 
passage of this rule and underlying legislation is an important sign 
that this country and Congress will keep its commitments. Afghanistan 
and Iraq are striving to create a future of hope and promise. We can 
play an important role in helping them do that here today.
  Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. 
Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are 
superfluous to providing for the needs of our men and women in uniform. 
And I welcome that exchange, if indeed it occurs.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we should focus on what should count. We have 
committed hundreds of thousands of our service men and -women to fight 
terrorism and advance the cause of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We 
owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the 
American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying 
bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment 
to the sons and daughters of America. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge 
support for the rule and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a conference report 
for the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill. The underlying 
agreement has been a long time in the making, and I am happy to report 
that it is a clean agreement. I applaud the conferees for refraining 
from adding extraneous provisions. This bill is about our troops, and I 
appreciate the Members preserving that focus.
  I am not unsympathetic to the desire of many Members in this Chamber 
to do more before we adjourn. As my colleagues and I have been urging 
all week, Congress should not leave town without allowing for floor 
debate on the American people's priorities. These include fully 
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, allowing a clean vote 
to increase the minimum wage, and restoring the massive cuts in student 
financial aid passed by this Congress earlier this year. Despite being 
the waning hours of this Congress, there is still time to conduct the 
business of the American people. There is certainly time for debate and 
a vote on these other urgent priorities.
  But to return to the rule we now debate, it allows for consideration 
of a bill of our national defense and it is a good agreement.
  When H.R. 5122 was first considered by the House, I discussed that 
this bill serves two critical roles: first, as a planning blueprint in 
order to ensure that our military has the resources and tools to meet 
any threat from abroad; and, second, to provide for the men and women 
on the front line of our Nation's defense.
  I am happy to report that the conferees kept both of these goals in 
mind in crafting this responsible agreement. It goes far in the support 
of the most professional and dedicated military in the world.
  The agreement does not permit increases in the military's TRICARE 
prescription drug program, as the House version of this bill would have 
done. That is a very good thing. Our men and women in uniform should 
not pay more to access their benefits, particularly in a time of war.
  Additionally, the agreement also maintains a critical role of our 
military chaplains and what they play in the spiritual lives and health 
of our troops. In a time of war, we cannot afford to change the rules 
in ways which may degrade readiness and unit cohesion.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that conferees preserve the wisdom 
in the underlying bill, which preserved the troop strength of our 
National Guard. The tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the annual 
wildfires in my home State of California and other parts of the West, 
as well as many members of the Guard called to duty in Iraq, 
demonstrate the numerous demands placed on the Guard and the important 
role they play.
  For all that we ask of them, these individuals, be they members of 
the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves, or National Guard, 
ask very little of us in return. What they ask is that we provide the 
equipment they need to get the job done, provide for them, provide for 
their family. And the agreement we have before us today would do that. 
I thank the conferees for their efforts to craft this compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as 
he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who does so much 
to make sure that we operate in an orderly and expeditious fashion in 
this Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the conference report. I want to begin by congratulating Mr. Cole and 
Ms. Matsui for their management of this rule and to say that this is a 
great example of bipartisanship.
  Our friends Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton have worked very closely on 
this bill, which is, if I recall, $562.8 billion. It includes that $70 
billion bridge fund, a 2.2 percent increase which is part of a 40 
percent increase over the past 8 years that has been provided for our 
men and women in uniform. It is a very important thing as we continue 
to fight this ongoing struggle against terrorism that we are dealing 
with all over the world.
  Only the United States of America can provide the kind of leadership 
that is being provided today. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is 
absolutely essential that this Department of Defense authorization bill 
continue to set the example of bipartisanship in our quest to win that 
war against terrorism.
  The reason that I wanted to take a few minutes here, Mr. Speaker, is 
that I wanted to underscore the fact that our reforms are working.
  Now, why would I be talking about the issue of reform as we bring up 
the Department of Defense conference report's rule? It is the fact that 
this is the first time in a conference report that we have actually had 
a required listing of the so-called earmarks, items that were not 
included in either the House-passed authorization bill or the Senate-
passed authorization bill. We use this term ``air dropped.''
  There are five particular provisions, Mr. Speaker, that have been 
listed. This list is now made available, and the American people, our 
colleagues and the American people through the media, and obviously 
this is online, can see exactly what items were provided. And it 
enjoyed bipartisan support this reform. We had Democrats, whom I am 
happy to say joined with us in our quest to reform. Very few, but we 
had some Democrats joined with us in our quest to ensure that we could 
have greater transparency, disclosure, and accountability so that the 
American people will be able to see on these very important items that 
relate to our Nation's defense capability. They now don't have those 
hidden; they are in fact open for everyone to see, and that is a reform 
led by Speaker Hastert that we have been able to implement. And I want 
to thank Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for, as we were 
going into the August break, making a commitment.

[[Page 21251]]

  The three of us introduced the legislation that called for this rule 
change, and we were able to implement it expeditiously; and it is now 
in effect, and this conference report is the first time that we have 
seen it.
  So I just want to join in extending congratulations again to Messrs. 
Hunter and Skelton and all of those who have been involved in this 
process and to say that we look forward to the passage of this rule, of 
course, and passage of the legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying bill. And I do so because of a ridiculous earmark, despite 
what the Rules Chairman has just stated, which was added by Chairman 
Hunter in order to keep the public out of a national park, which 
happens to be in my district, the Channel Islands National Park.
  This provision monkeys around with a court settlement to end a 
lucrative privately run trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island.
  The owners of the elk and deer herds, the Vail family, were already 
paid $30 million by taxpayers when they deeded over the island back in 
1986. They were supposed to end this hunting operation in 2011. A 
trophy hunt, which, by the way, costs hunters up to $17,000 per 
weekend, shuts the island to park visitors for 5 months out of each 
year. Mr. Hunter is seeking to allow private hunting in the park to go 
on indefinitely, and this will result in more lawsuits.
  One might wonder why this provision is in a bill which deals with 
supporting our troops. The proposals and reasons behind it have evolved 
over time. At one point it was to establish a hunting preserve for the 
military's top brass and their guests. When that didn't fly, it was 
quickly changed to making Santa Rosa a place for disabled vets to hunt. 
But when the paralyzed veterans of America actually went to the island, 
they told Chairman Hunter, and I quote, ``the Santa Rosa initiatives is 
not viable.''
  Then the provision morphed into saving the animals from extinction. 
That is right. The intention is that we are going to save the animals, 
though they continue to be hunted indefinitely and on the island. This 
provision is opposed by the Park Service, the PVA, the Humane Society, 
and many public lands groups. Even the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a 
resolution against this proposal.
  So why is it in the bill? Who knows. What we do know is that 
taxpayers who paid $30 million for the island are now being told by our 
chairman they can't visit it for nearly half the year. This is an 
insult to our constituents, to all taxpayers. It is also an insult to 
our troops whose service to this country is being used as a cover for 
this special interest boondoggle.
  Now, I know the underlying bill will pass by a wide margin, and I 
understand that. I also know that this House has never endorsed this 
proposal. And given the opportunity for an up-or-down vote, I am sure 
they would agree with me. And so this is yet another sad day for 
taxpayers, for our national parks, and for this House.

                                                          PVA,

                                                    July 26, 2006.
     Hon. Vic Snyder,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Snyder: On behalf of the Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America (PVA), I am responding to your inquiry 
     regarding efforts to provide hunting opportunities for 
     paralyzed and disabled veterans on Santa Rosa Island. While 
     PVA applauds the efforts by Chairman Duncan Hunter to open 
     hunting and outdoor venues for our members, other disabled 
     veterans and current service members we have come to the 
     conclusion that the Santa Rosa Island initiative is not 
     viable. PVA has sent one of our members to the island and we 
     have explored possible solutions to the challenges posed by 
     the site; however, it is our opinion that the numerous 
     obstacles inherent to the island, including ingress and 
     egress, logistics, personal safety and cost, far outweigh the 
     possible, limited benefit it could provide.
       It is our hope that the concept of expanded hunting and 
     outdoor opportunities on federal facilities for our members, 
     other disabled veterans and service personnel will continue 
     to receive the attention of Congress. Chairman Hunter's 
     efforts should serve as a starting point for future 
     initiatives to provide accessible venues for both veterans 
     and active duty personnel. We would be happy to work with you 
     and other members to explore alternatives to this issue and 
     identify other opportunities across the country that may 
     afford veterans expanded options.
           Sincerely,

                                           Douglas K. Vollmer,

                                      Associate Executive Director
     for Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of the Interior would 
     like the opportunity to provide its views on section 1036(c) 
     of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2007, as approved by the House of 
     Representatives.
       We recommend deletion of section 1036(c) in order to ensure 
     that the National Park Service is able to continue its 
     progress toward the recovery of native species and providing 
     year-round access for other recreational activities on Santa 
     Rosa Island.
       Section 1036(c) states that ``[t]he Secretary of the 
     Interior shall immediately cease the plan, approved in the 
     settlement agreement for case number 96-7412 WJR and case 
     number 97-4098 WJR, to exterminate the deer and elk on Santa 
     Rosa Island, Channel Islands, California, by helicopter and 
     shall not exterminate or nearly exterminate the deer and 
     elk.''
       We believe section 1036(c) is intended to overturn this 
     settlement agreement that prescribes a phase-out of the 
     privately-owned deer and elk from Santa Rosa Island, 
     culminating in their complete removal by the owners by 
     December 31, 2011. The National Park Service is party to that 
     settlement agreement and stands by its terms. Fulfillment of 
     the agreement is necessary to accomplish the purposes for 
     which the National Park Service acquired Santa Rosa Island.
       The National Park Service purchased Santa Rosa Island for 
     $30 million in taxpayer funds in 1986 after Congress included 
     the 54,000-acre island as part of Channel Islands National 
     Park in 1980. The purpose of this acquisition was to restore 
     the native ecology of the island and open it to the public 
     for hiking, camping, sightseeing, and other recreational 
     activities. Although hunting is usually not allowed in 
     National Parks, a private hunting operation for deer and elk 
     was permitted to continue under a special use permit at the 
     request of the owner, who had retained a 25-year reservation 
     of use and occupancy (through 2011) in 7.6 acres on the 
     island. Subsequently, the settlement agreement provided for 
     the phased elimination of the deer and elk population.
       Elimination of the nonnative deer and elk is needed to 
     allow native plant and animal species, including some that 
     are endangered and threatened, to flourish on the island. 
     Also, more visitors will be able to enjoy the island after 
     the closure of the deer and elk hunting operations that 
     currently close about 90 percent of the island to National 
     Park Service visitors engaged in other recreational 
     activities for 4 to 5 months every year.
       Section 1036(c) also raises several other issues. It gives 
     direction to the Secretary of the Interior with respect to 
     the settlement agreement, yet the Secretary is not 
     responsible for removing the deer and elk from the island--
     the former owner of the island, who retains ownership of the 
     deer and elk, is responsible for their removal. Furthermore, 
     1036(c) suggests that the National Park Service has an 
     approved plan to exterminate the deer and elk by helicopter, 
     yet no such plan exists. In fact, as already noted, the deer 
     and elk are the property of the former owner of the island 
     and, under the terms of the settlement agreement, must be 
     removed by them. Only if the deer and elk become 
     extraordinarily difficult to remove would the National Park 
     Service share the cost of removing the animals, which could 
     include the use of helicopters.
       Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide these 
     comments. The Office of Management and Budget has advised 
     that it has no objection to this letter from the standpoint 
     of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                       Acting Assistant Secretary,
     Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
                                  ____



                                           The Humane Society,

                                                   August 7, 2006.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Ranking Member, Armed Services Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Warner & Senator Levin: On behalf of the more 
     than 9.5 million members and constituents of The Humane 
     Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest 
     animal protection organization, I urge you to reject efforts 
     by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter to 
     establish a hunting reserve on Santa Rosa Island in 
     California.

[[Page 21252]]

       The HSUS urges you to follow the guidance provided by S. 
     Res. 468, the Senate resolution that deemed that the Channel 
     Islands should be managed in a manner consistent with the 
     mission of the National Park Service. This would preclude 
     establishing a hunting operation on the Channel Islands, as 
     advocated by Chairman Hunter.
       Chairman Hunter's proposal to keep Santa Rosa Island open 
     to guided trophy hunts of deer and elk under the guise of a 
     benefit to disabled veterans is not only inhumane and 
     unsporting, but is also opposed by the Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America and the local community. It is also opposed by 
     Representative Lois Capps, whose district includes the 
     Channel Islands. Trophy hunting on this island is not viable 
     for disabled veterans, and is not consistent with the wishes 
     or the mandate of the National Park Service.
       Although a large island, the deer and elk managed for 
     trophy shooting have no opportunity to escape their pursuers. 
     It is effectively a ``canned'' hunt. Conservation groups, 
     hunters and animal protection organizations have openly 
     agreed in their opposition to canned hunts. Canned hunts are 
     commercial enterprises conducted under circumstances that 
     generally guarantee a kill. Canned hunts can all be 
     identified by the two traits they have in common: (1) they 
     charge their clients a fee to kill an animal; and (2) they 
     violate the generally accepted standards of the hunting 
     community, which are based on the concept of fair chase, by 
     eliminating escape possibilities. Our national park land 
     should be safe havens for animals, not privileged playgrounds 
     for a small group of trophy hunters.
       We hope you will omit Rep. Hunter's language to establish a 
     canned hunting operation on a unit of the National Park 
     Service in the final version of the FY07 National Defense 
     Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Wayne Pacelle,
     President & CEO.
                                  ____

                                                    National Parks


                                     Conservation Association,

                                Washington, DC, September 8, 2006.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 327,000 members of the 
     National Parks Conservation Association, I am writing to 
     express our strong opposition to Section 1036(c) of the 
     House-passed National Defense Authorization Act, which 
     attempts to nullify a court-approved settlement agreement in 
     a lawsuit regarding the management of the Channel Islands 
     National Park. I urge you not to include this harmful 
     provision in the conference report on the DOD bill.
       Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement in this 
     proceeding (NPCA v. Kennedy. Civil Action Number 96-7412 WJR) 
     non-native deer and elk are to be removed from the Park's 
     Santa Rosa Island, and the lucrative private hunting 
     operations on the island, which undermine restoration efforts 
     and limit public access to the park, are ended by the year 
     2011. The onerous language in the House bill attempts to 
     alter that agreement by forestalling removal of the animals.
       The ostensible purpose of the language is to create a 
     hunting preserve for among others, disabled veterans, but the 
     Paralyzed Veterans Association has stated unequivocally that 
     Santa Rosa Island is not suitable for that purpose because of 
     its rugged terrain, accessibility, and cost. This altogether 
     worthy idea is in fact addressed in another section of the 
     bill [Section 1036(a)(b)] which would provide increased 
     hunting and fishing opportunities for disabled veterans and 
     other armed service personnel at many existing, suitable DOD 
     owned locations throughout the country.
       On August 6th of this year, the Senate passed S. Res. 488, 
     supporting the continued administration of the Channel 
     Islands National Park, including Santa Rosa Island, in 
     accordance with the laws, regulations, and policies of the 
     National Park Service. The Congressional mandated purpose of 
     the park is, ``to protect and interpret the internationally 
     significant natural, scenic, wildlife, marine, ecological, 
     historic, archeological, cultural and scientific values of 
     the Channel Islands.'' The Senate is, therefore, clearly on 
     record in strong support of restoring, managing, and 
     providing public access to all the Channel Islands as 
     required by the terms of the court directed Settlement 
     Agreement.
       The National Park Service is strongly opposed to this 
     provision, the Department of the Interior has recommended 
     deleting the provision from the bill, and the Department of 
     Defense has never requested it. This unrelated and non-
     jurisdictional controversy has no place in an important 
     defense authorization bill. If Section 1036(c) is enacted, as 
     a party to the court's Settlement Agreement, we will have no 
     choice but to pursue every legal means available to preserve 
     the settlement's integrity. I hope that will not be necessary 
     and that you will drop this ill-conceived, unwarranted and 
     damaging provision from the final Defense Bill.
           Sincerely,

                                            Thomas C. Kiernan,

                                         President, National Parks
                                         Conservation Association.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care 
to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Hunter, from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And the 
only reason I am rising is to set straight the record which, sadly, has 
been not accurate that has just been laid out by my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California.
  I was taking a bunch of marines who were up hunting up in northern 
California down the California coastline, and one of them brought up 
the point that Santa Rosa Island off the coast, which is owned by a 
private company and which has deer and elk on it, was going to see 
those deer and elk exterminated, and wouldn't it be a great place for 
our wounded people returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than 
exterminating these animals with helicopters in the end, which is in 
the court order, to allow our people who like to pursue hunting in the 
Armed Forces who have been wounded to have a place to go and have a 
great time with their families.

                              {time}  1615

  Taking that under advisement, I put a provision in to allow that to 
happen. I have never put in a provision that was intended to have the 
Navy brass or VIPs or Army brass or Marine Corps brass out there 
hunting. This is for wounded people, and right now it is operated by a 
private company.
  The ranching family, whom I have never met, I will tell the 
gentlewoman I have never met them. I have never had discussions with 
them, except one of them called up and asked me to tell the Park 
Service that I have never met him because my name was an anathematism. 
We say simply, listen, the island is going to be turned over by the 
private family to the Park Service in 2011. The court orders that all 
the animals be wiped out, be exterminated, be killed; the entire herd 
be killed. All we say is, don't exterminate the animals. Don't shoot 
them from helicopters, as the court order now directs. Let the herd 
stay and let us let our disabled veterans hunt.
  Now we had the Paralyzed Veterans go over and check out the island. 
They wrote a letter back saying this is not their cup of tea. It is 
pretty rough terrain. It is hard to get over to the island. That is why 
almost nobody from the public comes over. The number of people who 
visit this 50,000-acre island per day, it is extremely small. There are 
almost more Park Service people on the island than there are members of 
the public. And this would only be for a short time during the year.
  All we are asking is that they don't shoot the animals, don't 
exterminate them, and they let the disabled veterans hunt.
  Now after the Paralyzed Veterans said this is not our cup of tea, 
because of the spartan circumstances over there, it is going to be 
tough for people with spinal cord injuries to really enjoy this island, 
so the Wound Warriors went over.
  That is a great organization that takes wounded GIs and Marines and 
Navy and Air Force personnel, takes them skiing, takes them on outdoor 
outings and shows them a good time. They went to the island, and the 
report I got back, and I will give the letter to the gentlewoman, said 
they really enjoyed it. They really liked it, and they would like to 
have this opportunity. All we say is, don't exterminate the herd. That 
is the real import of this bill.
  What I would like to see is a situation in which those people, only 
those people, only disabled American veterans get to hunt there. 
Because it is a wonderful outing. They can take their families. Their 
families can visit the seashore. They can take pictures. They can have 
a wonderful outdoor time while these people who gave so much to our 
country have a special place to go.
  They don't have to pay any money because this will be when it is 
turned over to the government by the ranch family. All we are saying to 
the ranch family is, when you turn it over, don't exterminate the deer 
and elk. Leave them for the veterans. That is all they have to do. 
Inaction is what we are asking for.

[[Page 21253]]

  I would tell the gentlewoman she has my word I will never hunt on 
that island. The only thing I will do is help the wounded veterans get 
over and help them in any way to have a good time. I think this is 
absolutely appropriate. It is not going to push a single member of the 
public off that island. Almost nobody goes to it right now because it 
takes a boat ride or plane ride to get to that island. This will bring 
happiness to many, many military families. I think it is appropriate 
that we do this.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time when maybe the gentlewoman 
and I could go over with some of our wounded guys and watch them having 
a good time over there and agree that this is a good thing.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me speak.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps) to respond.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, just in response, because I am happy to 
accompany the chairman any time he wishes to go to the island. I have 
been there. There have been many thousands of visitors this year. Yes, 
it is a rugged place. That is one of the appeals of it. Much of the 
natural resource that is there, cultural and animal and flora, that 
have been destroyed in part by first the cattle, now the cattle are 
gone, and by the deer and elk, it is a prized area for archaeologists 
and others to understand the history of the geography of our country. 
That is one of the reasons to remove the elk.
  Extermination has been ameliorated by the Park Service's interest, 
and an invitation has already been extended to offer support to the 
family in removing without injuring the animals at the appropriate time 
after the settlement has been arranged.
  It is also the case that the park superintendent is looking forward 
to an opportunity to make this island more accessible to those with 
disabilities. Veterans are not excluded from the island, nor would they 
ever be.
  Also, hunting has been especially provided for our veterans on all 
kinds of public lands, including many military bases, as I am sure the 
chairman already knows. That is why the Paralyzed Veterans said there 
are many other places we can hunt, and now they would be extended an 
opportunity with special accommodations to visit the island like the 
rest of the public has.
  There have been many attempts on the part of the Park Service, and 
this will continue, to reach out to people with special needs to make 
available the wonderful resources on the island.
  I am happy to take the chairman up on his invitation to visit the 
island.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. That island is over 50 square miles. Can the gentlewoman 
tell me how many people from the public visit the island per day on a 
given day?
  I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I don't have those numbers, but I can certainly make them 
available to you. Even with it being off limits to the public 5 months 
of the year, it is either 5,000 or 8,000 visitors that were out there 
last year. Part of the attraction of the island is its remoteness and 
the fact that it is set apart.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, if there are 5,000 people per year, 
that means roughly 20 people per day on that entire island. That's 
5,000 people. With 365 days a year, 10 people a day, so 3,000 people 
and if you double that, 20 people a day for 50-square miles. That means 
there is one visitor from the public per 2 square miles on that island 
per day.
  Now we have many, many places in America where we have mixed use, 
where you have hunters and fishermen and members of the public. These 
disabled veterans, they are not going to push anybody off the island. 
If you compare that to our other parks like Yosemite, with thousands of 
peole coming per day, 10 or 20 people per day on a 50-square mile is no 
density whatsoever.
  In fact, I bet you that the park employees, the U.S. Government 
employees, on many days outnumber, because there are more than 20 of 
them at any time on the island, I bet you they outnumber the number of 
visitors.
  I will tell the gentlewoman, because you have to take a boat trip or 
an airplane to get to that park, you will never have the type of 
visitors you get in parks where people can drive up. So that makes it 
perfect for these wounded people, these great American veterans, to 
come on over and have a great outdoor experience.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a balanced agreement 
on the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. I urge all Members 
to support its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this 
rule. This rule allows us to move forward and pass necessary 
legislation and do the business of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly again want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), and also the ranking member, the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). They have worked together on 
this legislation and presented us with a truly model bill and one I 
think they adjusted during the legislative process to meet the needs of 
American men and women who are serving under very difficult 
circumstances to protect this country.
  I particularly appreciate the fact that they made sure that these 
deserving individuals got a pay raise, that they made sure that the 
people who defended the country in the past were not subjected to 
unnecessary fee increases in the Tricare system, and they worked hard 
to shift funds towards force protection and the protection of 
individual American soldiers. And, at the same time, they addressed the 
very, very serious and critical needs of the Army and Marine Corps in 
terms of additional personnel and additional equipment.
  I think the chairman and the ranking member can be exceptionally 
proud of their efforts, and I think all of us can appreciate the 
bipartisan spirit that the members of the House Armed Services 
Committee acted in, and I am sure when we vote later today we will have 
a strong vote in support of the legislation.
  Obviously, it comes as no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule 
and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________