[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7798-7805]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 806 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5122.

                              {time}  1817


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Duncan (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 109-459 by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 237, not voting 4, as follows:

[[Page 7799]]



                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--237

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cardoza
     Evans
     Kennedy (RI)
     Smith (WA)

                              {time}  1834

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by 
     Mr. Franks of Arizona:
       At the end of title XII (page 419, after line 7), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 12__. HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT FOR IRAQI CHILDREN IN URGENT 
                   NEED OF MEDICAL CARE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Secretary of Defense has discretionary authority to 
     permit space-available travel on military aircraft for 
     various reasons, including humanitarian purposes.
       (2) Recently, 110 Iraqi children journeyed 22 hours by bus 
     from Baghdad, Iraq, to Amman, Jordan, for urgently needed 
     oral/facial surgery. While traveling, armed insurgents 
     stopped and boarded the children's bus, raising serious 
     questions about the safety of further travel by ground.
       (3) Pursuant to the Secretary's discretionary authority 
     referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary authorized the 
     Iraqi children to travel on military aircraft for their 
     return trip from Amman to Baghdad.
       (4) The Secretary is to be commended for his initiative in 
     providing for the safe return of these children to Iraq by 
     military aircraft.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense should continue to provide space-
     available travel on military aircraft for humanitarian 
     reasons to Iraqi children who would otherwise have no means 
     available to seek urgently needed medical care such as that 
     provided by a humanitarian organization in Amman, Jordan.
       (c) Funding Support.--Within the amount provided in section 
     301 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide--
       (1) $1,000,000 shall be available only for Department of 
     Defense support of the Peace Through Health Care Initiative; 
     and
       (2) the amount provided for Budget Activity 4 is reduced by 
     $1,000,000.

    Modification to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my 
amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
considered in accordance with this modification.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 
     109-459 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
       In the text proposed to be inserted by the amendment, 
     insert ``due to operational unobligated balances'' before the 
     period at the end.

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will provide 
funds for a critical component in our Nation's effort to win the hearts 
and minds of Iraqis and others in the global fight for freedom and 
democracy.
  For 25 years, groups like Operation Smile have sent teams of 
volunteer surgeons and medical personnel throughout the world to 
provide medical treatment and surgery to children

[[Page 7800]]

suffering from facial injuries, cleft palates and other facial 
deformities.
  Last year, I had the wonderful opportunity to travel to Jordan to 
take part in the first mission of the Iraq Initiative of Operation 
Smile. I was able to observe the indescribable joy of families as the 
lives of over 50 Iraqi children were transformed.
  Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to describe how moving such an 
experience really is. It made clear absolutely to me the vital role 
these efforts play in our Nation's diplomatic efforts.
  Recently, the Secretary of Defense exercised his discretionary 
authority to permit space available travel on military aircraft in 
order to safely return 110 Iraqi children to Baghdad from Amman where 
they had undergone urgently needed oral and facial surgeries. This 
intervention was deemed necessary and appropriate because armed 
insurgents had stopped and boarded the children's buses when they were 
traveling to Amman, raising serious questions about the safety of 
undertaking the return trip by ground.
  Mr. Chairman, such activities are vital to our efforts in Iraq. Not 
only are many young children receiving critical, life-changing 
reconstructive surgeries, Iraqi physicians are also being trained so 
that even more children can be helped. This helps the Iraqi people 
understand that our war is with the terrorists and not with the Iraqi 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans have a genuine and abiding compassion for 
their fellow human beings, and if our diplomatic efforts and our 
military efforts in other Nations are to truly succeed, compassion must 
always be a centerpiece of those efforts. Groups such as Operation 
Smile provide a clear, tangible demonstration of such compassion. They 
put a smile on the face of freedom and our Nation's commitment to 
liberty in Iraq and the world over.
  I truly believe these efforts save American lives by helping to win 
the peace, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, although we do not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman's amendment. 
The amendment would provide $1 million for the Peace Through Healthcare 
Initiative to provide humanitarian assistance for critically ill Iraqi 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, it is well known that nothing aids the international 
reputation of our country, and particularly our image in the developing 
world, as much as our humanitarian and our relief efforts. Following 
the aid we provided after the recent disasters of the tsunami in 
Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan, polls in both countries 
showed a significant increase in those who viewed America favorably. 
Yet humanitarian relief is more than just a tool of international 
politics. It is exactly who we are.
  Americans are the most generous people in the world. We give more to 
charity each year than any other nation. We are just and we do not hold 
a people guilty for the sins of their leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, health care in Iraq is in a perilous state, but time 
and time again American servicemembers in the field, warriors and 
medics, and American hospitals and doctors back home have gone out of 
their way to help those in need. I have read numerous cases of Iraqi 
children being medivaced out of the country in order to receive first 
class medical treatment for everything from cleft palate to congenital 
heart disease.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman has heard these stories as 
well, and we both recall one case of the chief of police in the 
southern Iraqi province of Wasit. He worked hand-in-hand with our 
troops every day, putting his own life at risk. And then, one night, he 
turned to his American advisers and said, ``My son is dying of leukemia 
and the road to Baghdad is too unsafe for me to drive him to a good 
hospital.''
  Within 24 hours, the child and his mother were helicoptered to 
Baghdad. The child was treated there by U.S. Army medics in the 
International Zone and airlifted to Jordan.
  In Jordan, very sadly, Mr. Chairman, the child passed away, but with 
tears in his eyes, the chief of police turned to his American friends 
only days later and said, ``I will never forget what you have done for 
me.''
  That, Mr. Chairman, is what this amendment is about. It is about 
doing the right thing for innocent children. It is about making friends 
and building relationships with the people of Iraq and all for only $1 
million.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would just thank the gentleman 
for his kind words and support. I now yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to reinforce and echo the very eloquent words of the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Israel).
  I listened to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) when he brought 
in Operation Smile, and I saw the pictures and I listened to his 
description of how important this is. This is part of the American 
ripple. It is part of the effect that those 138,000 ambassadors in 
desert camouflage uniforms have in that theater on a human basis, on a 
personal basis.
  If the gentleman would just tell us, because I thought this was the 
neatest part of your presentation when you brought Operation Smile in, 
the effects of this operation, because you had these kids with cleft 
palates. I saw the pictures of their fathers and mothers with their 
children after the operation. If the gentleman could describe that, I 
think we would all appreciate it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
  I guess the only way I can describe this, Mr. Chairman, is as they 
begin to create these surgeries, as they begin to pull the child's lip 
together with a giant hole in the center of his face or her face, it 
not only seems to pull a face together, it seems to pull a life 
together. If you understand the significance of going through life with 
an uncorrected cleft palate or cleft lip, this is to also take the 
child out of an emotional darkness that is almost impossible to 
describe.
  The ultimate impact to these families is one that is emotional beyond 
words. When you hand the child back to the mother or the father, there 
is a wailing and a moved feeling that they express that, again, is just 
beyond my ability to describe.
  But it does have I think an effect, as I said, of putting a smiling 
face on the face of freedom, and I just am so grateful that this is 
something that we can do together as a House and that while we may have 
differences on a lot of our policies throughout the world, the one 
thing remains that America is a noble Nation and we are committed to 
making sure that all of God's children, as it were, have an opportunity 
to lay hold on this miracle of life and to live as meaningful as they 
can possibly can, and I appreciate the support that is demonstrated for 
the amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no additional speakers on our side. So I would 
close by again thanking the chairman and the gentleman for his 
leadership and agreeing with them that nobility is a bipartisan virtue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am not sure what else I can add to this except to just simply 
express that

[[Page 7801]]

we are not only changing the lives of children in the profoundest 
sense, but we are letting our soldiers in different parts of the world 
demonstrate their own compassion to these children as they are a part 
of the logistical process of making this real.
  I would just suggest to you that the bottom line is that this is a 
diplomatic effort, a medical diplomacy, that is in the best interests 
of America. It saves Americans lives, and it transform the lives of all 
the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1845


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Simmons

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by 
     Mr. Simmons:
       At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 10__. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPIRE CLEARANCES REVOKED.

       (a) Prohibition on Expired Clearances.--No security 
     clearance granted by the Department of Defense that has been 
     requested to be renewed, based on a requirement for periodic 
     reinvestigation, shall be permitted to expire until the 
     Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense 
     committees and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives that--
       (1) the Defense Security Service has continued to accept 
     industry requests for new personnel security clearances and 
     periodic reinvestigations; and
       (2) the Defense Security Service has fully funded its 
     requirement for fiscal year 2007 security clearances and 
     taken steps to eliminate its backlog of requests for security 
     clearance and periodic investigations by September 20, 2008.
       (b) Exception to Prohibition.--The prohibition in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary of Defense 
     determines that sufficient cause exists to revoke a security 
     clearance, that has been requested to be renewed, based on 
     other requirements of law or Department of Defense policy or 
     regulations.
       (c) Duration of Prohibition.--The prohibition on expired 
     clearances authorized by this section expires on September 
     30, 2008.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section alters 
     the process in effect as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act for security clearances and periodic investigations.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``backlog'' 
     means the body of industry requests for new personnel 
     security clearances and periodic reinvestigations that have 
     not yet been completed or that have not yet been opened for 
     investigation.
       (f) Reports.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report 
     detailing the actions required by subsection (a)(2) no later 
     than September 30, 2007. A final report shall be submitted no 
     later than September 30, 2008.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I would like to commend Chairman Hunter and Mr. Bartlett, as 
well as Mr. Skelton and Mr. Taylor for their leadership and vision on 
this bill. This bill is particularly historic with respect to the 
shipbuilding programs that it supports.
  But I am rising today, Mr. Chairman, to offer a bipartisan amendment 
that would protect our industrial base workers from losing their jobs 
because of the failure of our Federal bureaucracy to process security 
clearances and periodic updates. Last month, without warning or notice 
to Congress, the Defense Security Service stopped processing security 
clearance background checks and periodic updates for defense contractor 
workers.
  What makes this most frustrating is the fact that the Department of 
Defense said it had fixed the security clearance problems last year 
when it transferred responsibility for these investigations to the 
Office of Personnel Management. Many of us who have defense workers in 
our district questioned DSS on that point, but they were emphatic that 
OPM could get the job done.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, they were wrong. We cannot allow their failure to 
result in cleared defense workers losing their jobs.
  Very simply, this amendment would prevent the Department of Defense 
from firing workers whose security clearance may have expired through 
no fault of their own. It does not change the security clearance 
process or prevent the Department from revoking security clearances for 
reasons other than the backlog, but it does protect our workers who 
currently have clearances that simply need to be updated.
  Those already at work eventually need renewals to stay on the job, 
and there are thousands of shipyard workers in my district and 
elsewhere across the country who need clearances updated to design and 
build the best ships in the world. But we must give these defense 
workers peace of mind that they won't be out on the street because of a 
botched job in the bowels of the Pentagon.
  Our amendment has support from both sides of the aisle as well as 
from numerous national security organizations, and I include for the 
Record a list of these associations. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment to keep American defense workers at 
work.

 Security Clearance Coalition Supports Simmons/Davis Amendment to H.R. 
                                  5122

       The associations listed below have joined in coalition to 
     work to address the significant problems their members 
     encounter negotiating the security granting process. All of 
     the problems that this process has experienced for the last 
     several years were severely compounded when the Defense 
     Security Service placed a moratorium on the acceptance of new 
     security clearance applications and applications for periodic 
     reinvestigations at the end of April.
       The coalition supports the Simmons/Davis amendment as a 
     positive first step toward reversing the impact of this 
     decision and to mitigating its impact. While the ability to 
     attract, hire and retain qualified personnel who are able to 
     get a clearance has been greatly impacted, this proposal will 
     at least assure those that currently employed and holding a 
     clearance that their job will not be impacted because of 
     their inability to submit an application for reinvestigation.
       The actions by DSS are symptomatic of the chronic problems 
     found in the Federal government's security granting process. 
     We hope that Congress will act to mitigate the impact of this 
     action by adopting the Simmons/Davis amendment. It is also 
     our hope that Congress will recognize the need to overhaul 
     the entire clearance granting process and work with this 
     coalition and others to bring about a more enlightened and 
     21st Century approach to providing trusted personnel to meet 
     our National Security needs.
       Please vote yes in support of the Simmons/Davis Amendment.

     Aerospace Industries Association
     Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association
     Contract Services Association
     Information Technology Association of America
     Intelligence and National Security Alliance
     National Defense Industrial Association
     Professional Services Council

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition even though I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is critical that our Department of Defense provides 
clearances to the right people to get access to the right information 
so they can do their jobs in support of our troops. Access to 
classified information should be need driven rather than budget driven.
  For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I 
want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. It is 
a fair amendment, and I ask and urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the

[[Page 7802]]

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis amendment in the defense 
authorization bill.
  This amendment will safeguard national security and ensure fiscal 
responsibility by preventing the security clearances of defense 
contractors from expiring until the Department of Defense resumes 
processing their requests for security clearance investigations and 
fully funds its personnel security clearance program for fiscal year 
2007. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

  On Friday, April 28, I discovered DOD's security clearance processing 
arm, the Defense Security Service, was imposing a moratorium on all 
requests for private sector security clearance investigations. DSS 
reported that it experienced a massive spike in the number of clearance 
requests and that it didn't have the resources to handle this spike. 
DSS, therefore, decided to just turn off the spigot. This is, frankly, 
unacceptable. It is an unacceptable solution to what should have been a 
very foreseeable problem.
  I will be chairing a Government Reform Committee hearing on May 17 to 
examine this issue in more detail. In the meantime we cannot put 
defense contractors that need to review employees' clearances in the 
position of having to choose between firing their employees or granting 
uncleared personnel access to classified materials and facilities.
  The government spends billions of dollars each year on defense 
contracts requiring workers with security clearances to do the work. If 
contractors are unable to find enough cleared personnel who have access 
to classified information, the cost of these contracts increases 
dramatically. Simply supply and demand, not enough people with the 
clearance, too much work to do, and the taxpayers are then forced to 
pick up the tab and our national security suffers.
  Therefore, I rise in strong support of the Simmons-Davis-Davis 
amendment to prevent the Department of Defense from revoking expiring 
security clearances until DOD is able to get a handle on the current 
crisis and resume processing requests for security clearance 
investigations in a timely and efficient manner.
  This amendment does not fix the problem, but it keeps it from getting 
worse. It is an important issue for national security and fiscal 
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
thank the chairman and my colleagues from across the aisle for bringing 
fairness and peace of mind to our defense workers.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of this amendment that I am offering with my colleagues from 
Connecticut and Virginia.
  As we continue to fight the Global War on Terror, the Department of 
Defense must adapt to meet the challenges posed by this new kind of 
war. I believe that it is our responsibility in Congress to exercise 
proper oversight and direction of our military, and the recent 
developments regarding the processing of security clearances deserve 
the attention of this body.
  In our post 9/11 world, the need for precise and timely security 
clearance processing has never been more important. The demand for 
clearances of all types and levels continues to increase, yet our 
budgets and our processes are not up to date.
  I represent thousands of workers in my district who rely on their 
security clearance to perform their jobs, from the shipbuilders in 
Newport News to the thousands of uniformed service members and 
contractors that are working to support our national defense. In fact, 
I've heard from a lot of them in the last few weeks. Our amendment will 
temporarily prohibit the Department of Defense's authority to expire 
clearances that have requested renewal until September 30, 2008, unless 
certain criteria are met. I firmly believe that we should not be 
penalizing our military and contracting community because the 
Department cannot adequately estimate or budget its future security 
clearance requirements.
  Additionally, I'm pleased that a separate amendment offered by 
Congressman Simmons and myself was included in the underlying 
legislation that is before the House today. The provision requires the 
Department to submit a series of reports on their progress in solving 
these problems, and I believe this is an important step in our 
congressional oversight of this extremely vital program for our 
national defense. I want to thank Chairman Hunter for working with me 
on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of our amendment.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

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

       Amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by 
     Mr. Gutknecht:
       At the end of subtitle B of title VI (page 220, after line 
     8), add the following new section:

     SEC. 624. ELIMINATION OF INEQUITY IN ELIGIBILITY AND 
                   PROVISION OF ASSIGNMENT INCENTIVE PAY.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of the Army should promptly correct the pay 
     inequity in the provision of assignment incentive pay under 
     section 307a of title 37, United States Code, to members of 
     the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve serving on 
     active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq that arose from the 
     disparite treatment between--
       (1) those members who previously served under a call or 
     order to active duty under section 12302 of title 10, United 
     States Code, and who are eligible for assignment incentive 
     pay; and
       (2) those members who previously served under a call or 
     order to active duty under section 12304 of such title and 
     who are currently ineligible for assignment incentive pay.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall 
     submit to Congress a report--
       (1) specifying the number of members of the Army National 
     Guard and the Army Reserve adversely affected by the 
     disparate treatment afforded to members who previously served 
     under a call or order to active duty under section 12304 of 
     title 10, United States Code, in determining eligibility for 
     assignment incentive pay; and
       (2) containing proposed remedies or courses of action to 
     correct this inequity, including allowing time served during 
     a call or order to active duty under such section 12304 to 
     count toward the time needed to qualify for assignment 
     incentive pay.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 806, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this as simple as I can. We have one 
of the largest deployments right now of National Guardsmen from the 
State of Minnesota since World War II. It has created a disparity.
  Back in January, members of the 1st Platoon Bravo Company asked my 
office to help with a pay problem. It just so happens that most of them 
were called up to serve in the Balkans back in 2003. Part of them were 
called up under a Presidential Reserve Call Up, and others were called 
up under a Partial Mobilization.
  What this has led to is a discrepancy in how much they may be 
eligible for in terms of what we used to describe as combat pay. The 
bottom line is that about 400 members of the Minnesota National Guard, 
who will be doing the same duty as the other members of the National 
Guard in Iraq, will not be eligible for roughly $7,000 in incentive 
pay. This is an inequity. It is unfair, and it is something that we in 
Congress can and should do something about.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member 
and the staff as well. We have been working with them for several weeks 
and they have been extremely helpful on this matter. Hopefully tonight 
we can adopt this amendment and send a clear message to the Pentagon 
that this inequity needs to be resolved and it needs to be resolved 
soon.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 7803]]


  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment and I am unaware 
of anyone on our side of the aisle who opposes this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very straightforward amendment 
supported by the entire Minnesota delegation. My understanding is it 
expresses very clearly that we expect people who perform equally for 
their government are meant to be treated equally. I also ask for the 
study and I support the amendment, as does this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Gutknecht for his leadership on 
this issue and for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of this amendment. In my 25 years of 
military service, sadly I have witnessed other examples of pay 
discrepancies. It is unfortunate that even today such issues arise, but 
I am pleased to be in a position now to help solve this problem.
  In a true sign of their dedication to duty and camaraderie, many 
members of the 34th Brigade Combat Team volunteered to join their 
fellow Guardsmen in Iraq despite having previously deployed to Bosnia 
and Kosovo. I was disappointed to hear that many of these dedicated 
citizen-soldiers were denied incentive pay simply because of the 
administrative mechanism used to mobilize them. This is not the way we 
as a nation should treat those who have volunteered to serve.
  Mr. Gutknecht and I promptly engaged the House Armed Services 
Committee professional staff to help solve this problem. As a member of 
the House Military Personnel Subcommittee, I was gratified by the 
staff's prompt action, and I would like to thank them as well as 
Chairman McHugh and Chairman Hunter for their efforts.
  I would also like to commend the entire Minnesota delegation for 
their strong support in both the House and Senate.
  This past week, my staff delivered a letter signed by the entire 
delegation to the Department of Defense requesting their assistance in 
resolving this inequity, and I will include a copy of the letter for 
the Record.
  This amendment is a fitting addition to that initial effort, and it 
is my hope it will help spur the resolution of this significant 
problem. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
     Hon. Thomas F. Hall,
     Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Hall: We are writing to request a review and 
     adjustment of the current policy regarding Assignment 
     Incentive Pay (AIP). Several activated members of the 
     Minnesota National Guard (MNNG), now deployed to Iraq, 
     recently brought to our attention a pay technicality that 
     makes the distribution of AIP inequitable. Specifically, 
     under current finance rules, the soldiers who previously 
     deployed and served in Kosovo are eligible for AIP, whereas 
     the soldiers who previously deployed and served in Bosnia are 
     not. We believe these soldiers, whether having served in 
     Kosovo or in Bosnia, should be treated equally for purposes 
     of AIP eligibility.
       After consulting with House Armed Services Committee staff, 
     we conclude that this would best be treated as a Department 
     of Defense (DOD) policy matter. There appears to be nothing 
     in the law that would preclude DOD from modifying the 
     technical eligibility criteria, making these soldiers, and 
     others like them, eligible for AIP.
       Enclosed please find the letter we received from the MNNG 
     soldiers who brought this matter to our attention. Also 
     enclosed is a letter from Major General Larry W. Shellito, 
     Adjutant General of the MNNG. General Shellito's letter 
     supports our view that a change to current policy regarding 
     AIP is needed.
       After an initial review of this issue, we would request an 
     update from your office. If you have any questions, please do 
     not hesitate to contact Fred Chesbro in Congressman John 
     Kline's office at (202) 225-2271.
           Sincerely,
         John Kline; Martin Olav Sabo; James L. Oberstar; Collin 
           C. Peterson; Jim Ramstad; Mark Kennedy; Mark Dayton; 
           Gil Gutknecht; Betty McCollum; Norm Coleman.
       Enclosures.
                                  ____

                                                 January 27, 2006.
       Dear Congressman Ramstad: We are soldiers in the Minnesota 
     National Guard currently in Mississippi training to go to 
     Iraq, and we have a concern we hope you can help us with.
       As you know, for some of us, this is not our first 
     deployment; many of us also went to Bosnia or Kosovo in 2003-
     2004. Because of our prior deploymemt those of us that went 
     to Bosnia or Kosovo had to sign a volunteer form to go on the 
     OIF rotation we have been tasked with. But, here comes the 
     problem, there is a type or pay called COTTAD that is 
     specific to soldiers who have been recently deployed. The 
     guys who went to Bosnia are not going to receive this pay; 
     however, the soldiers that went to Kosovo are going to 
     receive this pay. We feet that anyone who volunteered to go 
     to Iraq after recently going on a separate deployment are 
     entitled to that extra pay, and should not be discriminated 
     based on where and when they were deployed before.
       Being deployed is a hardship. We take time off from our 
     fami1y and friends, many of us are trying to finish our 
     civilian educations or advance our civilian careers, and we 
     have put all that on hold and volunteered for this rotation. 
     Now, because of what best we can tell is a technicality, we 
     will not be receiving a substantial amount of pay. This 
     affects a lot more soldiers than those that signed this 
     letter; hundreds are affected by this. But we, unfortunately, 
     do not have the time to have them all sign this letter. 
     However, I believe that most would have the same viewpoint as 
     we do.
       Congressman, we would appreciate any help you can give us. 
     If you have time can you please respond to us and let us know 
     if there is anything you can do. Thank you for taking the 
     time to read this.
     1st Platoon Bravo Company Crews.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                         House of Representatives, March 24, 2006.
     Interested Soldiers from 1st Platoon,
     Company B, 2nd Battalion, 136th CAB 1 BCT, 2490 25th SF, Camp 
         Shelby, MS 39407 (ATTN: B Co. 1SG)
       Dear Soldiers: Thank you very much for taking the time to 
     write to me. While it is always good to hear from fellow 
     Minnesotans, it is especially meaningful to hear from members 
     of the Minnesota Army National Guard. I appreciate that you 
     brought to my attention the issue of compensating Soldiers 
     who, like you, are mobilized in support of the Global War on 
     Terrorism.
       In response to your request, I've asked my staff to 
     research the current law and to provide me with possible 
     recommendations taking into account your special 
     circumstances. I believe it is particularly important to 
     provide fair and equitable pay and benefits to all members of 
     our armed services, active and reserve components alike.
       Please know that I am very proud of you and I applaud each 
     of you for stepping forward and volunteering to serve our 
     State and Nation during these challenging times.
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Kline,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____



                                       Department of the Army,

                            Saint Paul, Minnesota, March 13, 2006.
     Hon. John Kline,
     Representative in Congress, Burnsville, MN.
       Dear Congressman Kline: Thank you for your inquiry of March 
     10, 2006 raising concerns regarding the compensation of 
     Soldiers mobilized for deployment in support of the Global 
     War on Terrorism. Your issues were researched by Colonel Greg 
     Langley, Mobilization and Readiness Officer for the Joint 
     Force Headquarters in Minnesota. Detailed below is an 
     explanation of the different categories of mobilization and 
     what qualifies a Soldier for the entitlement to the 
     Assignment Incentive Pay requested by the Soldiers in their 
     letter of January 27, 2006. In their letter they referred to 
     Assignment Incentive Pay as ``pay called COTTAD''.
       Within federal law there are different types of authority 
     to mobilize the Reserve Components (RC). The two types of 
     authority pertaining to this matter are Title 10, USC 12302, 
     called Partial Mobilization (PM) Authority and Title 10 USC 
     12304, referred to as Presidential Reserve Callup (PRC). 
     Since President Bush signed Executive Order 13223 on 
     September 14, 2001 authorizing partial mobilization of the 
     reserve components, Minnesota Soldiers have been mobilized 
     under the provisions of both Partial Mobilization Authority 
     and Presidential Reserve Call-up Authority, depending upon 
     the needs of the Army.
       The Soldiers from 1st Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 
     136th Infantry who wrote to you were previously mobilized in 
     July 2003 and sent to Bosnia as part of Stabilization Force 
     (SFOR) 14. The Army mobilized those Soldiers using Title 10, 
     USC 12304, PRC. The

[[Page 7804]]

     maximum length of this types of mobilization is 270 days and 
     most of these Soldiers returned from the mission and left 
     active duty in March or April of 2004. Each Soldier's 
     individual record may have a different release from active 
     duty date based on their flight back to the United States and 
     the length of time out-processing at Ft. McCoy, WI.
       Other Soldiers from the same organization, 2nd Battalion, 
     136th Infantry, mobilized in October 2003 and went to Kosovo 
     as part of KFOR 5B. These Soldiers mobilized for a period of 
     365 days, which exceeds the time limit on PRC and therefore 
     the Army mobilized these Soldiers using Title 10, UCS 12302, 
     PM authority. Partial Mobilization authority has a maximum 
     time limit of 730 days. The KFOR Soldiers returned to the 
     United States in the August or September 2004 time period.
       Another provision of federal law impacting on this 
     situation is Title 10, USC 12302 (b), whereby all members of 
     the RC must receive fair treatment when being considered for 
     recall to duty without their consent. Secretary of Defense 
     Rumsfeld has directed he will personally approve or 
     disapprove any member of RC who has previously been 
     involuntarily mobilized under either PM or PRC since 
     September 11, 2001. All of the Soldiers writing to you on 
     January 27, 2006 were asked to volunteer for remobilization 
     during their Soldier Readiness Processing in Minnesota during 
     the June through September 2006 time period and did sign a 
     Volunteer/Waiver Certificate. Soldiers not signing the 
     Volunteer/Waiver Certificate were removed from this current 
     mobilization.
       The maximum length of Partial Mobilization for any RC 
     Soldier is 730 days. The mission length of the mobilization 
     for the Soldiers in the 1st Brigade Combat Team is 608 days, 
     ending in May and June 2007. No RC Soldier is required to 
     serve more than 730 days of PM time under this current 
     Executive Order 13223. Any Minnesota Soldier who served in 
     Kosovo has already accrued a previous PM period of 
     approximately 330 to 360 days, depending on their return 
     flight and out-processing time. When added together the 608 
     days on this current mission, plus at least 330 days from the 
     previous Kosovo mission, the Soldier's mobilization time 
     exceeds the maximum of 730 days. Soldiers in this situation, 
     in addition to volunteering to be remobilized, had to 
     volunteer to serve beyond the 730th day in a different 
     portion of federal law called Contingency Temporary Tour of 
     Active Duty (COTTAD), which is Title 10, USC 12301 (d).
       Soldiers mobilized to go to Bosnia previously served under 
     the provisions of Title 10, USC 12304, not 12302. Service 
     time in Title 10, USC 12304 by law, does not apply toward an 
     RC Soldier's 730 days of PM (Title 10, USC 12302) time. When 
     they mobilized for this current mission under the provisions 
     of Title 10, USC 12302, they still had 730 days remaining on 
     their PM mobilization clock. They will never reach the 731st 
     day of mobilization since this mission will end in 
     approximately 608 days. Therefore, their signing a Volunteer/
     Waiver Certificate agreeing to be remobilized is all that is 
     required by the Army.
       The provisions of federal law creating Assignment Incentive 
     Pay (AIP) recognized the hardship of prolonged periods of 
     mobilization on RC Soldiers. When Congress passed the law 
     they included Soldiers accruing 730 days of PM (12302) 
     mobilization time and volunteering under the provisions of 
     Title 10, USC 12301 (d) to remain on duty past 730 days with 
     their unit to finish their current mission as qualifying for 
     AIP. Congress omitted PRC (12304) mobilization time as 
     counting toward the 730-day maximum a Soldier can accrue 
     before being required to volunteer for COTTAD (12301 (d)).
       This situation was explained to the Soldiers from 1st 
     Platoon, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 136th Infantry who 
     previously mobilized for the Bosnia mission under the PRC 
     (12304) mobilization authority prior to their signing of the 
     required Volunteer/Waiver Certificate. None of these Soldiers 
     will reach the 730th day of PM authority on this current 
     mission and will not serve under the COTTAD provisions of 
     Title 10, USC 12302 (d).
       We believe any mobilization should count towards qualifying 
     for AIP. Soldiers sent to Bosnia served under the same 
     conditions as their fellow Soldiers who went to Kosovo. They 
     underwent the same hardships caused by separation from family 
     and civilian employer. However, we have no options to grant 
     AIP to the soldiers who previously mobilized under PRC 
     (12304) until they have also served 730 days under PM 
     authority.
       The solution to this problem is for Congress to change the 
     federal law authorizing AIP and include previous mobilization 
     under either authority, PM (12302) or PRC (12304), as 
     counting on the Soldier's mobilization clock to reach 730 
     days, after which the Soldier may volunteer to remain on 
     mission in COTTAD (12301 (d)) status and earn AIP.
       I hope this information from Colonel Langley is helpful to 
     you. Please be assured we will continue to do everything we 
     can to provide Soldiers with the necessary information to 
     make informed decisions about remobilization and their 
     entitlements. It is always my pleasure to respond to the 
     concerns of our Congressional delegation regarding Soldiers 
     of the Minnesota National Guard.
           Sincerely,
                                                Larry W. Shellito,
                                     Major General, Minnesota Army
                             National Guard, The Adjutant General.

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. I had the honor to serve 4 years on active duty in the U.S. 
Army and over 30 years as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, and as 
somebody who has commanded troops who have deployed, there is nothing 
more demoralizing to get unequal pay for equal duty.
  To support a resolution that provides for equity for our Guard and 
Reserve is very important. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of this amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Gutknecht. 
This amendment fixes a pay disparity currently affecting almost 400 
Minnesota National Guard, men and women, serving in Iraq. These members 
of the 1st Platoon Bravo Company were previously on active duty in 
2003, some in Bosnia and some in Kosovo, and I was pleased to be able 
to visit them with Mr. Gutknecht.
  However, unlike the soldiers that served in Kosovo, the Bosnia 
contingent is not eligible for the extra $1,000 a month incentive pay 
based on the circumstances of their mobilization.
  This technicality will cost these soldiers and their families up to 
$7,000. That is simply unfair and must be corrected. That is why I 
support this amendment which directs the Army to fix this disparity so 
those who have equally sacrificed for their country receive equality of 
pay.
  Again, I thank Mr. Gutknecht for his leadership on this issue.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  I want to thank my colleagues from Minnesota for helping to resolve 
this inequity. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my 
colleagues from Arkansas.
  In the big picture, when we were talking about spending hundreds of 
billions of dollars, $7,000 for these families does not seem like a lot 
of money in the big picture. But to those families, $7,000 is extremely 
important. So I appreciate your support tonight to make certain that we 
have equity and create a solution for this problem that is fair to all 
of the folks who are proudly serving us in uniform wherever in the 
world, but particularly in Iraq.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
Gutknecht amendment along with my fellow MN Colleagues.
  In January these soldiers wrote to me and every member of the MN 
delegation asking for help. And I believe as their representatives we 
have an obligation to address their concerns.
  This amendment will correct a technicality that is affecting 400 
Minnesota National Guardsmen who are now serving in Iraq. And who knows 
how many other hundreds or even thousands of reservists all over the 
country have fallen victim to a similar technicality .
  Most of these soldiers had previously served on active duty in 2003, 
some in Bosnia and the others in Kosovo. The two groups were activated 
by different orders and now both of these groups are activated together 
under the same order in Iraq.
  The soldiers who served in Bosnia are not eligible for the extra 
$1,000 per month in incentive pay because their tours cannot be added 
together due to a mere technicality.
  This issue is about fairness. Unless something is done to change this 
Army policy, these soldiers and their families will lose out on $6,000 
to $7,000 in extra pay. They are making a huge sacrifice for our 
country and this is the least we can and should do for these men and 
women.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
important amendment, which seeks to end a pay disparity for our brave 
men and women who are serving in harm's way.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, Minnesota National Guard troops are serving in 
the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq, with more than 3,000

[[Page 7805]]

citizen soldiers recently called to service in support of Operation 
Iraqi Freedom.
  As my colleague has previously explained, at least 400 of these 3,000 
Minnesotans in Iraq will not be receiving the same pay as many others 
in their unit.
  These are troops who have now bravely served our country in two 
foreign theaters. These troops not only deserve our utmost respect and 
gratitude, they also deserve their full compensation for their service 
and sacrifice.
  Mr. Chairman, the Minnesota National Guard truly represents the very 
best of duty, honor and country. I join the people of the Third 
Congressional District in thanking our Guard members for their selfless 
service.
  And I'd like to thank my colleague from Minnesota for sponsoring this 
important amendment and thank all my colleagues from the Minnesota 
delegation for cosponsoring the amendment and working to end this pay 
disparity.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Duncan). All time for debate having expired, 
the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No further amendment being in order, under the 
rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Inglis of South Carolina) having assumed the chair, Mr. Duncan, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________