[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7888-7921]
[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 811 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}  1310


                     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. LaTourette (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Wednesday, May 10, 2006, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 109-
459 by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) had been disposed 
of and the request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 4 printed in 
that report by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had been 
postponed.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 811, no further amendment to the 
committee amendment shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 109-461 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of that 
resolution.
  Each amendment printed in the report shall be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, except as specified in section 4 of the 
resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent of the amendment, except that the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one 
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting 
of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments 
en bloc shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc 
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before 
disposition of the amendments en bloc.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the order 
printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes after the chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a 
request to that effect.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House 
     Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 1; amendment No. 
     2; amendment No. 4; and amendment No. 19.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Baca

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title III (page 67, after line 
     8), add the following new section:

     SEC. 316. REPORT REGARDING SCOPE OF PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION 
                   AT FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing the results of a study of the scope of 
     perchlorate contamination at Formerly Used Defense Sites. As 
     part of the report, the Secretary shall identify the military 
     installations or contractors that may have stored perchlorate 
     or products containing perchlorate.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Castle

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title VIII (page 295, after 
     line 20), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 815. AWARD AND INCENTIVE FEE CONTRACT STANDARDS.

       (a) Requirement to Develop and Issue Standards.--Not later 
     than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall develop and issue--
       (1) standards that link award and incentive fees to desired 
     program outcomes, such as meeting cost, schedule, and 
     capability goals;
       (2) standards that identify the appropriate approving 
     official level involved in awarding new contracts utilizing 
     award and incentive fees;
       (3) guidance on when the use of rollover is appropriate in 
     terms of new contracts utilizing award and incentive fees;
       (4) performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of 
     award and incentive fees as a tool for improving contractor 
     performance and achieving desired program outcomes; and
       (5) guidance for the development of a mechanism to capture 
     award and incentive fee data and to share proven award and 
     incentive fee strategies with appropriate contracting and 
     program officials at the Department of Defense.

[[Page 7889]]

       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``rollover'' 
     means the process of moving unearned available award and 
     incentive fees from one evaluation period to a subsequent 
     evaluation period, thereby providing the contractor with an 
     additional opportunity to earn that previously unearned award 
     or incentive fee.
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the status and effectiveness of 
     developing the standards required under subsection (a) for 
     award and incentive fee contracts.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     award and incentive fees should be used to motivate excellent 
     contractor performance and that such fees should not be 
     awarded for below-satisfactory performance.

          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title XXVIII (page 499, after 
     line 15), add the following new section:

     SEC. 2826. DEFENSE ACCESS ROAD PROGRAM.

       Section 2837 of the Military Construction Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-163; 119 
     Stat. 3522) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and transit systems'' 
     after ``that roads''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(2) to determine whether the existing surface 
     transportation infrastructure, including roads and transit at 
     each installation identified under paragraph (1) is adequate 
     to support the increased traffic associated with the increase 
     in the number of defense personnel described in that 
     paragraph; and
       ``(3) to determine whether the defense access road program 
     adequately considers the complete range of surface 
     transportation options, including roads and other means of 
     transit, necessary to support the national defense.''.

                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Schiff

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THREAT 
                   POSED BY IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report regarding the status of the 
     threat posed by improvised explosive devices (in the section 
     referred to as ``IEDs'') and describing efforts being 
     undertaken to defeat this threat. Supplemental reports shall 
     be submitted every 90 days thereafter to account for every 
     incident involving the detonation or discovery of an IED 
     since the previous report was submitted. Reports shall be 
     transmitted in an unclassified manner with a classified 
     annex, if necessary.
       (b) Joint IED Defeat Organization and Related Offices.--The 
     reports required by subsection (a) shall provide the 
     following information regarding the Joint IED Defeat 
     Organization and all other offices within the Department of 
     Defense and the military departments that are focused on 
     countering IEDs:
       (1) The number of people assigned to the Joint IED Defeat 
     Organization and the related offices.
       (2) The major locations to which personnel are assigned and 
     organizational structure.
       (3) The projected budget of the Joint IED Defeat 
     Organization and the related offices.
       (4) The level of funding required for administrative costs.
       (c) Existing Threat and Counter Measures.--The reports 
     required by subsection (a) shall include the following 
     information regarding the threat posed by IEDs and the 
     countermeasures employed to defeat those threats:
       (1) The number of IEDs being encountered by United States 
     and allied military personnel, including general trends in 
     tactics and technology used by the enemy.
       (2) Passive countermeasures employed and their success 
     rates.
       (3) Active countermeasures employed and their success 
     rates.
       (4) Any evidence of assistance by foreign countries or 
     other entities not directly involved in fighting United 
     States and allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (5) A list and summary of data collected and reports 
     generated by the Department of Defense and the Armed Forces 
     on counter-IED efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other 
     fronts in the Global War on Terrorism.
       (d) Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation of New 
     Countermeasures.--The reports required by subsection (a) 
     shall include the following information regarding research, 
     development, testing, and evaluation of new active and 
     passive countermeasures and impediments to those efforts:
       (1) The status of any and all efforts within the Department 
     of Defense and the Armed Forces to research, develop, test, 
     and evaluate passive countermeasures and active 
     countermeasures and to speed their introduction into units 
     currently deployed overseas.
       (2) Impediments to swift introduction of promising new 
     active countermeasures.
       (e) Interdiction Efforts.--To the extent not previously 
     covered in another section of the reports required by 
     subsection (a), the reports shall identify any and all other 
     offices within the Department of Defense or the Armed Forces 
     that are focused on interdicting IEDs, together with the 
     personnel and funding requirements specified in subsection 
     (b) and the success of such efforts. For purposes of this 
     subsection, interdiction includes the development of 
     intelligence regarding persons and locations involved in the 
     manufacture or deployment of IEDs and subsequent action 
     against those persons or locations, including efforts to 
     prevent IED emplacement.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baca's amendment requires the 
Department of Defense to study the scope of perchlorate contamination 
at formerly utilized defense sites.
  Mr. Castle's amendment implements GAO's recommendations to cut down 
and award an incentive fee spending waste by requiring the Department 
to develop a strategy for linking incentives to specific outcomes such 
as meeting costs, schedule and capability goals. It also establishes 
guidance for improving the effectiveness of award and incentive fees, 
and ensures that appropriate approving officials are overseeing these 
decisions. The Department would be required to report to Congress on 
the status and effectiveness of these new standards.

                              {time}  1315

  The amendment offered by Mr. Davis is the defense access road 
amendment; and this program, which is known as the DAR program, 
currently allows DOD to pay for road projects made necessary by DOD 
actions, and this amendment would allow DOD to consider transit 
projects as part of DAR as well.
  Mr. Schiff's amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
Congress a series of regular reports on the threat to American 
personnel posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, as well as 
action being taken to interdict IEDs and to develop more effective 
active and passive countermeasures. The first report would be due 30 
days after enactment, the subsequent reports every 90 days thereafter. 
Reports would be unclassified, with a classified annex if necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee supports these amendments, and let me 
just say with respect to the last amendment, that the committee works 
every day on the IED issue, and we communicate with DOD every day on 
operations and on the development of the countermeasure systems that we 
are currently undertaking to rush to the battlefield. So I very much 
appreciate the gentleman's concern. I think that IEDs, and I am sure he 
shares this concern, are an instrument of choice now by terrorists, and 
this is probably the most compelling challenge facing us in the 
warfighting theaters and in the global war against terror right now.
  We work this issue every single day. We have got a new package of 
equipment that we are moving out, and we have added $109 million to 
this countermeasure fund this year. We are going to try to move that 
up, even if we have to move money out of the various services, and we 
are going to work this problem every day. So I invite the gentleman to 
work with us and work with our staff, and I think these reports will be 
value added to the process. I thank the gentleman from California for 
his work.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc 
amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking

[[Page 7890]]

member for working with me on this amendment, and I in particular want 
to thank you for all of your diligence in making sure that we have the 
best equipment and that the Pentagon is doing everything else possible 
to interdict and to defend against these improvised explosive devices.
  We have all been to the funerals of our constituents that were lost 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them have been lost through improvised 
explosive devices. I think it is the number one cause of American 
deaths in Iraq, and I think three out of the four families that I have 
gotten to know that have lost loved ones in Iraq were killed by IEDs. 
They have been responsible for 38 percent of all U.S. deaths in Iraq, 
including those from non-hostile causes, for every month since May of 
2005. Through Sunday, IEDs caused 790 American deaths in Iraq, 
representing a third of all U.S. fatalities since the start of the war.
  Clearly, the Iraqi insurgents have learned to adapt to U.S. defensive 
measures by using bigger, more sophisticated and better concealed 
bombs. In the first few months of the insurgency, IEDs were often 
little more than crude pipe bombs that used old-fashioned wire 
detonators. Now they are sometimes made with multiple artillery shells, 
Iranian explosives, and rocket propellant. Gone are the days of wire 
detonators that were easy to spot. IEDs are now detonated by cell 
phones or a garage door opener and other devices. They range in size 
from massive explosives capable of destroying 5-ton vehicles to 
precision-shaped charges that tear through armored vehicles.
  IEDs have also become, unfortunately, a greater problem in 
Afghanistan where, according to analysts, Taliban and al Qaeda forces 
have been studying the lessons learned by the insurgents in Iraq. Over 
the past several months, American and NATO forces have been the victim 
of roadside bombs that previously we had just seen in Iraq.
  So, Mr. Chairman, to the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member, I very much look forward to working with you on this issue. I 
appreciate your willingness to work on this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and let me just lay out 
some of things that we are doing because I think this area is so 
important for us. Included in the base bill, the gentleman from 
Missouri and myself and our great members of the committee on both 
sides of the aisle worked out, we added $109.7 million for jammers. 
Jammers are very important in this IED business because these 
improvised explosive devices are largely detonated remotely.
  As the gentleman knows, few of them, some of them, are detonated by 
wires that are connected to detonators, and you may have an insurgent 
hiding 20, 30, 40, 50 yards from the roadside or from the dismounted 
U.S. military unit and he detonates it with a clacker or a detonation 
device in the style that has been utilized by militaries up to the last 
several years ago.
  The other detonation device, and one that is now the device of 
choice, is a remote detonation, and that detonation allows a person, 
the insurgent, to be many yards away, far away from the particular 
avenue that he is ambushing. In many cases, he does not even need to 
have a weapon. He may be lost in a crowd, and he waits for a convoy to 
line up on a particular lamp post or other object, and he blows this 
device, which may be a 152-millimeter artillery round by using this 
remote detonation capability. Without getting into the classified 
areas, there are a number of remote detonation capabilities, and what 
we are trying to do is to direct our countermeasures to be able to jam 
those detonations.
  So we have put a lot of extra money in. The administration has a lot 
of money in, but we have put in more. We have been working on equipment 
packages with them, and the key is to move this stuff through the 
training ranges here, the testing ranges, quickly into the field; and I 
can assure the gentleman we are really going to be working on this. So 
I thank him so much for his focus on this important area, and we will 
work together.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and, of course, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) too, as well, and I would like to also 
thank Congressman Dreier, Congressman Lewis, and Congressman Pombo in 
helping us work with this simple amendment that basically asks the 
Department of Defense to require a study of the perchlorate 
contamination at formerly utilized defense sites, otherwise known as 
FUDS.
  The amendment also requires an assessment of what military 
installations or contractors have stored perchlorate. This study will 
help us have a national understanding of this problem that has so far 
been seen in our region.
  Southern California, the Bay Area, Massachusetts, Michigan, New 
Hampshire, are only a few of the regions affected. Is this happening in 
your State?
  Cities and counties across the country are closing their groundwater 
wells due to perchlorate contamination. From most accounts, 90 percent 
of perchlorate in water comes from a Federal source, primarily from 
former military sites and other Department of Defense installations.
  This volatile organic compound is a rocket fuel additive that has 
been found to be harmful to thyroid function. 319 groundwater wells are 
impacted in California alone, with 78 of them in my district; and 186 
sources in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange Counties have been 
impacted.
  Several States throughout the county are now waking to a similar 
problem and are also seeing similar effects in their areas.
  Perchlorate does not just affect the drinking water supply, but our 
food supplies as well. So it does affect supplies. It has been reported 
in lettuce in the Imperial Valley which relies on the Colorado River 
for irrigation, and perchlorate has been found in milk.
  Hardworking families living in the United States with large military 
and aerospace facilities are not at fault and should not have to pay 
for a federally created problem.
  Many communities cannot afford costly toxic cleanups, and the 
alternative is no better. Cities are being forced to raise water rates 
to outrageous levels, forgo dust control on highways to meet clean air 
requirements, and to truck in water from other regions.
  For the 43rd Congressional District of California and many other 
districts throughout the country, the Federal Government needs to step 
up and take responsibility. That is basically what we are asking is 
just the Federal Government to take responsibility and do a study.
  We need to fully understand the scope of the problems so we can 
protect our children and protect the elderly from this dangerous health 
risk.
  The House of Representatives has already twice passed a bill I 
introduced, H.R. 18, the Southern California Ground Remediation Act, 
which authorized $50 million for groundwater remediation, including 
perchlorate. Meanwhile, the Senate has not allowed this bill to become 
law. It is clear my colleagues in the House support this measure.
  But our communities cannot wait any longer. That is why I have 
introduced this amendment to study the perchlorate contamination legacy 
from FUDS. This is required to advance the body of research already 
under way.
  Ultimately, we must remember that this is a federally created 
problem; and, hence, the solution must be Federal as well.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleague from 
California that he has brought an excellent amendment to the floor 
here, and this is certainly something that does require action, 
justifies action by the Federal Government, and we totally support his 
amendment on this side.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this 
amendment to help States

[[Page 7891]]

all across the Nation deal with the dynamic affects of BRAC can have on 
their local communities. In my district alone we will incur the single 
largest loss and gain in the most recent round of BRAC. We will have 
roughly 23,000 positions vacated out of DoD leased space in Arlington, 
Virginia and roughly the same number of jobs added to Fort Belvoir, 
Virginia.
  While we give warm welcome to the additional jobs coming to Fort 
Belvoir we must ensure that we are able to continue to observe our 
smart growth principles. The transportation infrastructure in the 
vicinity of Fort Belvoir/Southern Alexandria sector is already 
overburdened and inadequate. It is important that DoD has a wide array 
of tools at its disposal in order to work with our local community to 
help absorb the affects of such a massive growth.
  The Defense Access Road (DAR) program currently allows DoD to pay for 
road projects made necessary by DoD actions. My amendment would simply 
allow DoD to consider transit projects as part of the Defense Access 
Road program as well. It does not force DoD to enforce a blanket policy 
because I know each community has its own specific needs and a one size 
fits all is simply not appropriate. Some communities could use more 
roads and others could use buses.
  Mr. Chairman, I know my district was not the only one effected by 
BRAC. My amendment is important to every State across the Nation that 
was affected by BRAC or any other DoD action that will significantly 
impact their local communities. I have already received a call from the 
North Carolina's Governor's office supporting this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, 
Senator Warner, and Jim Moran for working with me to make this 
amendment a reality. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House 
     Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 3; amendment No. 
     5; amendment No. 17; and amendment No. 20.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI (page 229, after line 
     16), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 644. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN 
                   ADDITIONAL DEPENDENT CHILDREN FOR ANNUITIES 
                   UNDER MILITARY SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN.

       It is the sense of Congress that eligibility for a 
     surviving child annuity in lieu of a surviving spouse annuity 
     under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for a child of a 
     member of the Armed Forces dying while on active duty should 
     be extended so as to cover children of members dying after 
     October 7, 2001 (the beginning of Operation Enduring 
     Freedom), rather than only children of members dying after 
     November 23, 2003.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 504, after 
     line 7), add the following new section:

     SEC. 2844. MODIFICATIONS TO LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, 
                   ENGINEERING PROVING GROUND, FORT BELVOIR, 
                   VIRGINIA.

       (a) Construction of Security Barrier.--Section 2836 of the 
     Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 
     (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1314), as 
     amended by section 2846 of the Military Construction 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (division B of Public 
     Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3527), is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``$3,880,000'' and 
     inserting ``$4,880,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``Virginia,'' the 
     following: ``and the construction of a security barrier, as 
     applicable,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``Building 191'' 
     the following: ``and the construction of a security barrier, 
     as applicable''.
       (b) Authority to Enter Into Alternative Agreement for 
     Design and Construction of Fairfax County Parkway Portion.--
     Such section 2836 is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) except as provided in subsection (f), design and 
     construct, at its expense and for public benefit, the portion 
     of the Fairfax County Parkway through the Engineer Proving 
     Ground (in this section referred to as the `Parkway 
     portion');''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``C514'' the 
     following: ``, RW-214 (in this section referred to as 
     `Parkway project')'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g);
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Alternate Agreement for Construction of Road.--(1) 
     The Secretary of the Army may, in connection with the 
     conveyance authorized under subsection (a), enter into an 
     agreement with the Commonwealth providing for the design and 
     construction by the Department of the Army or the United 
     States Department of Transportation of the Parkway portion 
     and other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway off the 
     Engineer Proving Ground that are necessary to complete the 
     Parkway project (in this subsection referred to as the 
     `alternate agreement') if the Secretary determines that the 
     alternate agreement is in the best interests of the United 
     States to support the permanent relocation of additional 
     military and civilian personnel at Fort Belvoir pursuant to 
     decisions made as part of the 2005 round of defense base 
     closure and realignment under the Defense Base Closure and 
     Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 
     101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
       ``(2) If the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 
     Parkway portion is important to the national defense pursuant 
     to section 210 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary 
     of the Army may enter into an agreement with the Secretary of 
     Transportation to carry out the alternate agreement under the 
     Defense Access Road Program.
       ``(3) The Commonwealth shall pay to the Secretary of the 
     Army the costs of the design and construction of the Parkway 
     portion and any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway 
     off the Engineer Proving Ground designed and constructed 
     under the alternate agreement. The Secretary shall apply such 
     payment to the design and construction provided for in the 
     alternate agreement.
       ``(4) Using the authorities available to the Secretary 
     under chapter 160 of title 10, United States Code, and funds 
     deposited in the Environmental Restoration Account, Army, 
     established by section 2703(a) of such title and appropriated 
     for this purpose, the Secretary may carry out environmental 
     restoration activities on real property under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary in support of the construction 
     of the Parkway portion.
       ``(5) The alternate agreement shall be subject to the 
     following conditions:
       ``(A) The Commonwealth shall acquire and retain all 
     necessary right, title, and interest in any real property not 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary that is necessary for 
     construction of the Parkway portion or for construction of 
     any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway off the 
     Engineer Proving Ground that will be constructed under the 
     alternate agreement, and shall grant to the United States all 
     necessary access to and use of such property for such 
     construction.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall receive consideration from the 
     Commonwealth as required in subsections (b)(2), (b)(3), and 
     (b)(4) and shall carry out the acceptance and disposition of 
     funds in accordance with subsection (d).
       ``(6) The design of the Parkway portion under the alternate 
     agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary 
     and the Commonwealth in accordance with the Virginia 
     Department of Transportation Approved Plan, dated June 15, 
     2004, Project #R000-029-249, PE-108, C-514, RW-214. For each 
     phase of the design and construction of the Parkway portion 
     under the alternate agreement, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) accept funds from the Commonwealth; or
       ``(B) transfer funds received from the Commonwealth to the 
     United States Department of Transportation.
       ``(7) Upon completion of the construction of the Parkway 
     portion and any other portions of the Fairfax County Parkway 
     off the Engineer Proving Ground required under the alternate 
     agreement, the Secretary shall carry out the conveyance under 
     subsection (a). As a condition of such conveyance carried out 
     under the alternate agreement, the Secretary shall receive a 
     written commitment, in a form satisfactory to the Secretary, 
     that the Commonwealth agrees to accept all responsibility for 
     the costs of operation and maintenance of the Parkway portion 
     upon conveyance to the Commonwealth of such real property.''; 
     and
       (4) in subsection (g), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by 
     inserting ``or the alternate agreement authorized under 
     subsection (f)'' after ``conveyance under subsection (a)''.


              Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Ohio

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 50, after line 
     23), insert the following new section:

[[Page 7892]]



     SEC. 2_. HIGH ALTITUDE AIR SHIP PROGRAM.

       Within the amount provided in section 201 for Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force--
       (1) $5,000,000 is available for the High Altitude Air Ship 
     Program; and
       (2) the amount provided for the Space Based Space 
     Surveillance System is reduced by $5,000,000.


               Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V (page 193, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 5XX. INCLUSION IN ANNUAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT ON 
                   SEXUAL ASSAULTS OF INFORMATION ON RESULTS OF 
                   DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.

       Section 577(f)(2)(B) of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 
     108-375; 118 Stat. 1927) is amended by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``and the results of the 
     disciplinary action''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me offer the description of the amendments.
  Mr. Chabot's amendment expresses a sense of Congress that the spouses 
of armed services members who have died between October 7, 2001, and 
November 23, 2003, should be permitted to have the option of assigning 
their SBP payments, their survivor payments, to their children.
  Mr. Davis' amendment is another defense access road amendment. This 
amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects, as well, as 
part of the DAR, the Defense Access Road program.
  Mr. Ryan of Ohio's amendment authorizes $5 million for the High 
Altitude Airship program. The HAA is designed to be an uninhabited, 
long-endurance, platform for carrying forward-based sensors and a wide 
range of other BMD payloads that will enable continuous over-horizon 
communication. It would also provide wide-area surveillance and 
protection without interruption or the risk associated with manned 
aircraft. The offsets are $5 million from the Space Based Space 
Surveillance program, and this is another tool for sensor and 
surveillance capability.
  The amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter requires the Department of 
Defense to include the number of disciplinary actions as part of the 
annual report on sexual assault in the military.
  So those are brief definitions or descriptions of these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say I support this second en bloc series of amendments on 
behalf of my colleagues, in particular Mr. Ryan and Ms. Slaughter, who 
have amendments within this en bloc package.
  Mr. Ryan's amendment in this adds money for High Altitude Airship, 
and it moves it to the Air Force.
  Ms. Slaughter's amendment includes the number of disciplinary actions 
as part of the annual report on sexual assaults within the military.
  Those as well as the others, Mr. Chabot's and Mr. Davis' amendments, 
do meet with our support and approval and I intend to support them, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter for his hard work, 
not just this year but over the years working on behalf of our men and 
women in uniform who serve us so well all around the globe. He, of 
course, is a Vietnam veteran himself and has seen action and knows 
exactly what he is talking about. I commend him for his work in this 
area.
  In November of 2003, President Bush signed into law the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2004. This legislation allowed spouses of 
active duty personnel killed after November 23, 2003, the option of 
signing their military survivor benefit plan, the SBP payments, over to 
their child or children so they could receive the payment without being 
subject to SBP dependency indemnity compensation, or DIC, the offset.
  Unfortunately, this option is not currently available to spouses of 
soldiers killed from the time period beginning October 7, 2001, which 
was the start of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, until November 23, 
2003, when the legislation was actually passed. There are approximately 
400 families who are adversely affected by this glaring omission.
  One such family who lives in my district is Shauna Moore and her 3-
year-old daughter, Hannah. Their loving husband and father, Army 
Sergeant Benjamin Moore, was fatally shot during a rifle-training 
exercise at Fort Hood, Texas, in February, 2003, while preparing for 
deployment to Iraq. It is through these unfortunate circumstances that 
I have had the chance to meet and talk with Shauna Moore and hear her 
story.
  So today I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of 
Congress that the widows and widowers of these 400 brave American 
soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedoms do not remain 
the forgotten few.
  If accepted, I am hopeful that this amendment is the start of a 
process by which we may allow these 400 spouses and their families to 
obtain the option of assigning their SBP payments to their children, 
just as those whose spouses died after November 23, 2003, have been 
given the opportunity to do.
  I believe this is the least we can do for families and people like 
Shauna and Hannah Moore who have already had to deal with the tragedy 
of losing a loved one. They should not be penalized solely because 
their loved one made the ultimate sacrifice protecting our country 
after the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars but before November 
23, 2003, when that particular legislation passed. These are 400 
families that should not be forgotten. I believe my colleagues will 
support this.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing 
this to our attention. There are no more important citizens than those 
who defend our freedom and carry our flag; and right there with them 
are their family members.
  I think this is an excellent amendment, and the committee supports it 
fully.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this 
amendment in an attempt to resolve deadlocked negotiations between the 
State of Virginia and the Army. For years now, the completion of the 
Fairfax County Parkway, a major parkway in my district, has been held 
hostage to complications with building through the Engineering Proving 
Ground. The Engineering Proving Ground was a former military airfield 
which has environmental concerns that are inherent of its history.
  Empirical data has shown the Engineering Proving Ground is suitable 
for road construction. My amendment simply allows the State of Virginia 
and the Army the authority they need to negotiate a sensible and 
environmentally sound solution to complete the parkway. It allows the 
Army to enter into a special agreement with the State of Virginia. This 
agreement would authorize the State of Virginia to fund projects on the 
Engineering Proving Ground while allowing the Army to maintain control 
of the project.
  I was Chairman of the Fairfax County Board back when we completed the 
largest section of the Fairfax County Parkway and was proud to see the 
road come to near completion. However, a number of years have gone by 
since and it is truly frustrating to all northern Virginians not to 
have the small portion of the parkway through the Engineering Proving 
Ground completed at this time.
  In addition, due to the most recent round of BRAC, Northern Virginia 
will gain over 23,000 jobs in the Fort Belvoir area. This is equivalent 
to gaining four major bases--was the single largest BRAC addition in 
the country. Completing the Fairfax County Parkway is a critical step 
in setting the infrastructure we need to help assuage the welcome, but 
massive growth.
  In closing I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Senator Warner, and 
Jim Moran for

[[Page 7893]]

working with me to make this amendment a reality. I urge an aye vote.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a simple, but much needed 
amendment to the legislation before us today.
  In an effort to encourage defense contractors to perform at the 
highest level possible, the Department of Defense often gives its 
contractors the opportunity to collectively earn billions of dollars 
through monetary incentives known as award and incentive fees.
  Unfortunately, the Department's acquisition process has at times run 
into problems such as dramatic cost increases, late deliveries, and 
significant performance shortfalls--wasting billions of dollars in 
critical funding.
  Last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 
the Pentagon's current award and incentive fee practices do not hold 
contractors accountable for achieving desired outcomes and routinely 
undermine efforts to motivate contractor performance.
  In its study, GAO noted that the Department regularly gives defense 
contractors multiple opportunities to earn incentive fees for work that 
at times only meets minimum standards and has wasted billions of 
dollars as a result of this incredibly flawed process.
  The Pentagon has concurred with GAO's recommendations for improving 
this system, and while the Department's acknowledgment of the problem 
is an important step forward, the effectiveness of these changes will 
ultimately be determined by how well GAO's recommendations are 
implemented.
  My amendment would ensure Congress performs appropriate oversight and 
would require the Department to develop a strategy for linking 
incentives to specific outcomes. such as meeting cost, schedule, and 
capability goals. It would also makes certain that appropriate 
approving officials are overseeing these decisions.
  Cost increases and business management weaknesses damage our 
government's ability to provide our men and women in the military with 
the resources that keep us safe.
  While we obviously have a lot of work ahead of us to improve the 
efficiency of military spending, I believe this amendment is a simple 
way to make certain that award and incentive fees are being used to 
maximize our return on investment and provide American soldiers with 
vital capabilities at the best value for the taxpayer.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
offer this very important amendment requiring the Department of Defense 
(DoD) to provide the results of all disciplinary actions in their 
annual report on sexual assault.
  As part of the DoD Authorization bill in FY 2004, the DoD is required 
to submit annual reports on sexual assaults involving members of the 
Armed Forces.
  This past March, DoD issued its second annual report. The military 
criminal investigation organizations received nearly 2,400 reports of 
alleged cases of sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces--
a significant increase from 1,700 cases reported in 2004.
  Of the nearly 2,400 allegations, less than 1,400 cases were actually 
investigated--91 received non-judicial punishments, 18 were discharged 
in lieu of court-martial, 62 had administrative actions taken against 
them, and 79 offenders had been court-martialed.
  However, while this annual report has been helpful in presenting the 
full scope of this growing problem, it fails to provide a complete 
understanding of how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the 
military.
  It does not include the results of all disciplinary actions, 
including Article 15s and convictions. For example, of the 79 courts-
martial issued in 2006, we have no idea how many resulted in 
convictions.
  Mr. Chairman, DoD's response to sexual assault in the military 
deserves more scrutiny. And as Members of Congress, it is our 
responsibility to provide this oversight.
  In order for us to effectively address this serious problem, 
evaluations must be based on facts and statistics.
  By including the results of all disciplinary actions in the annual 
report, we will have a more complete, transparent understanding of how 
DoD is addressing the problem of sexual assault in military.
  We owe it to the men and women in uniform defending our freedom to 
ensure that justice is served when they find themselves victims of 
sexual assault.
  I want to thank the Chairman for working with me on this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will consider an 
amendment offered by Congressman Tim Ryan, who represents the city of 
Akron, Ohio with me.
  The Ryan amendment will restore $5 million in the 2007 Defense 
Authorization bill for the High Altitude Airship (HAA) Program. The HAA 
is being built at the Lockheed Martin Airdock in Akron.
  The HAA is an unmanned lightweight vehicle, which will operate above 
the jet stream to deliver continuous over-horizon communication. In 
position, an airship will survey a 600-mile diameter area without the 
risks associated with manned aircrafts.
  The HAA will be used for missile defense, but also to provide border 
surveillance and emergency communication tools to improve homeland 
security.
  This project is expected to create close to 100 jobs, protect more 
than 500 current jobs, and bring some $130 million in technology 
development investments to the Akron area.
  I am proud to support the HAA Program. It positions Summit County at 
the heart of the development of this national security technology and 
will strengthen Ohio's economic base.
  Though I wish the House Armed Services Committee had authorized full 
funding for the HAA, the Ryan amendment provides an opportunity to keep 
this critical initiative moving forward.
  I appreciate the Chairman's support in this effort and urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in voting for the Ryan amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the second set of amendments en bloc offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Dent

  Mr. DENT. 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. 6 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Dent:
       Page 427, line 14, insert ``, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after ``Secretary of 
     Defense''.
       Page 427, line 15, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Homeland Defense''.
       Page 427, line 21, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Homeland Defense''.
       Page 427, after line 24, insert the following new paragraph 
     (2) (and redesignate existing paragraphs accordingly):
       (2) the Department of Homeland Security;
       Page 428, line 7, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Defense''.
       Page 428, line 19, insert ``and the Department of Homeland 
     Security'' after ``Defense''.
       Page 429, line 1, insert ``and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security'' after ``Defense''.
       Page 429, line 13, insert ``and in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security'' after ``Defense''.
       Page 429, line 22, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Homeland Defense''.
       Page 430, line 10, insert ``or the Department of Homeland 
     Security'' after ``Defense''.
       Page 431, line 4, insert ``, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security,'' after ``Secretary of 
     Defense''.
       Page 431, line 11, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Homeland Defense''.
       Page 431, line 18, insert ``-Homeland Security'' after 
     ``Homeland Defense''

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811 the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I thank Chairman Hunter and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, 
for their leadership on this very important piece of legislation.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to title XIV to H.R. 5122 that 
would ensure that the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Homeland Security work together as part of a homeland defense-homeland 
security technology transfer consortium to facilitate the transfer of 
viable DOD technologies in order to enhance the homeland security 
capabilities of Federal, State, and local first responders.
  The Department of Defense has been a leading developer of technology 
for years, and some of the innovations it has pioneered may have 
outstanding homeland security applications. These types of technologies 
include: unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs; ground sensors which help 
authorities monitor

[[Page 7894]]

activities over vast expanses of terrain; biometric identification 
technologies which can assist in the creation of tamper-proof identity 
cards; radiological detectors which can monitor the transport of 
nuclear and other potentially dangerous materials; and sophisticated 
surveillance equipment, examples of which include night vision goggles 
and microwave and infrared imaging gear.
  While these technologies have been helpful to our warfighters 
overseas, the Federal, State and local agencies charged with protecting 
us here at home could also make good use of these kinds of products. 
Unfortunately, the process of transferring these technologies from the 
military to the civilian sector has been a bit slow.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I would like first 
responders and other appropriate authorities to have quicker access to 
and to make good use of these technologies.
  Accordingly, my amendment would provide for the creation of a 
homeland defense-homeland security technology transfer consortium that 
would facilitate this transfer. It specifically calls for the inclusion 
of the Department of Homeland Security, which is already in the process 
of developing and utilizing many of these technologies that I have just 
described.
  Within this consortium, it also brings State and local first 
responders into the deliberative process. The consortium will be 
involved in integrating new technologies into appropriate first 
responder exercises, in promoting interoperability, and, of course, in 
identifying and developing those defense technologies that have the 
most promising applications for homeland security.
  By facilitating these kinds of transfers, Federal, State, and local 
agencies can work better together and can function more efficiently and 
the homeland can be safer.
  I thank Chairman Hunter and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, for 
their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment as stated.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of 26\1/2\ years of working with the 
Border Patrol, I understand and appreciate the necessity of Mr. Dent's 
amendment that requires close cooperation between the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
  More than ever today, post-9/11 and with the many different 
challenges that we face with the potential of another strike against 
our country, it is critical, it is imperative that we continue to urge 
both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security 
to do as much as possible to cooperate, share information, and provide 
a unified front and protection for our country.
  This is a way of ensuring that we codify that cooperation by 
expressly putting it into the legislation that this cooperation take 
place. It is critical. It is vital; and based on my experience where 
there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation traditionally between 
the Department of Defense and agencies such as the Border Patrol, for 
Border Patrol operations on the border itself, I believe that this is a 
good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, it is especially appropriate to be able to 
follow the gentleman from El Paso, Mr. Reyes, who was in my estimation 
the greatest Border Patrol chief in the history of our country. He did 
a tremendous job under very challenging odds.
  I remember working with him long before he became a Representative in 
the most southern areas of Texas and then ultimately up in the El Paso 
area. One thing that challenged him and challenged us in San Diego in 
more recent times was tunneling. Of course, detection of tunnels is 
something that the military engages in every now and then, and that is 
a good example of candidate technologies for sharing of technology 
between DOD and the Department of Homeland Security.
  Likewise, surveillance sensors, it has always been a pleasure to go 
down with the gentleman from El Paso, go down to his district with 
Joint Task Force 6 and look at that interaction. And I really 
appreciate Mr. Dent coming up with this amendment that will move to 
mesh these technologies and make sure that when the American taxpayers 
pay for the development of something that will accrue to the benefit of 
our security, that it gets shared and gets moved across what is 
sometimes kind of a bright line between the military and the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  You have done a great job and thank you for bringing this amendment 
to our attention. We support it fully.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank everybody involved for their support for this amendment. Its 
interdisciplinary approach is most appropriate. This transfer 
technology consortium is long overdue. As has been stated several times 
already, there is so much technology coming out of the Department of 
Defense that needs to be shared with the homeland security. Of course, 
this will also make its way down to our first responders, State and 
local first responders.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Building on the comments of my good friend and my chairman, I can 
attest to all of the cooperation, having spent 26\1/2\ years in the 
Border Patrol, to all of the cooperation since the creation of Joint 
Task Force 6, which was headquartered in my district, now Joint Task 
Force North. The number of projects and programs that the Department of 
Defense provides support to both State, local, and Federal agencies, 
and in specific consortium projects such as building roads, building 
infrastructure support such as strategic fencing in certain parts of 
the border area, that greatly acts as a barrier and as a force 
multiplier for our Border Patrol agents.
  So there are many, many things that the Department of Defense is 
doing and has done that provide that kind of support to the Department 
of Homeland Security, formerly Border Patrol and INS.
  I know in the next amendment we are going to be debating the issue of 
giving the Secretary the flexibility to send troops on the border, and 
I just want to state here in anticipation of leading the debate on that 
issue, as a Member that represents a border district, we do not need 
troops on the border. Sufficient support is already coming from the 
Department of Defense. The reality of this is there are other things 
that I will address at that time that we could be doing and that we 
should have done as a result of the law that we passed in 1986.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to support Mr. Dent in his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. 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 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Goode

  Mr. GOODE. 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 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Goode:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page __, after line 
     __), add the following new section:

[[Page 7895]]



     SEC. 1026. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES TO 
                   ASSIST BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 
                   AND UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request 
     consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 
     to assist the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the 
     United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the 
     Department of Homeland Security--
       ``(1) in preventing the entry of terrorists, drug 
     traffickers, and illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) in the inspection of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at 
     points of entry into the United States to prevent the entry 
     of weapons of mass destruction, components of weapons of mass 
     destruction, prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other 
     terrorist or drug trafficking items.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members 
     under subsection (a) may occur only if--
       ``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security; and
       ``(2) the request is accompanied by a certification by the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat 
     to national security posed by the entry into the United 
     States of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.
       ``(c) Training Program Required.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a 
     training program to ensure that members receive general 
     instruction regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the 
     border areas in which the members may perform duties under an 
     assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed 
     at a border location pursuant to an assignment under 
     subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed 
     the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions of Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is 
     assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Bureau of Customs 
     and Border Protection or the United States Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement is performing duties pursuant to the 
     assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the 
     agency concerned shall accompany the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Establishment of Ongoing Joint Task Forces.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Homeland Security may establish ongoing joint 
     task forces if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines 
     that the joint task force, and the assignment of members to 
     the joint task force, is necessary to respond to a threat to 
     national security posed by the entry into the United States 
     of terrorists, drug traffickers, or illegal aliens.
       ``(2) If established, the joint task force shall fully 
     comply with the standards as set forth in this section.
       ``(f) Notification Requirements.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall provide to the Governor of the State in which 
     members are to be deployed pursuant to an assignment under 
     subsection (a) and to local governments in the deployment 
     area notification of the deployment of the members to assist 
     the Department of Homeland Security under this section and 
     the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
       ``(g) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection 
     (a).''.
       (b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program 
     required by subsection (c) of section 374a of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall be established as soon as 
     practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goode) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. GOODE. This is an amendment that we have addressed in the past. 
This amendment would authorize but not mandate the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security, working with the Secretary of the 
Department of Defense, to utilize troops, if necessary, to protect our 
borders in peace time in a nonemergency situation.
  The gentleman from Texas, who had a long and distinguished career 
with the Border Patrol, indicates that we don't need troops on the 
border now. I would certainly say that the massive invasion from Mexico 
into this country on a daily basis that reaches thousands upon 
thousands in numbers day after day and month after month and year after 
year, we need something. And just having this authority, in my opinion, 
would enhance our border security so that it could be utilized in peace 
time in a nonemergency situation to supplement the Border Patrol and 
other efforts to secure our borders.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Goode amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I rise in opposition to that 
I was talking about in the previous conversation. Every year we debate 
this issue, irrespective of the cooperation that is ongoing, has been 
ongoing for many, many years from the Department of Defense, that 
provides technical expertise, that provides construction support, that 
provides technical support, that provides, even on a limited basis, 
operational specialized support on that border.
  The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It 
provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists 
with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or 
an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained, 
experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too 
dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for 
combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that 
capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States 
has that authority.
  So I would hope that we would stop bringing these kinds of 
amendments, because they really are not useful and are 
counterproductive to our enforcement presence on the border.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difference of opinion in 
the people's House. I listened with great interest to my friend from 
Texas. Indeed, when this question was before the House on prior 
occasions, at least a couple of times in my time in this Congress, I 
sided with my friend from Texas.
  And yet, we have been overtaken by current events and a literal 
admonition from the Constitution of the United States, article IV, 
section 4: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this 
Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them 
against invasion.''
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, regrettably, in my home State of 
Arizona, especially along the width and breadth of our southern border, 
our Nation is being invaded. And not only is it those coming to our 
country illegally seeking work, the sad fact is, according to the 
Department of Homeland Security, in the year 2004, 650 people from 
nations of a ``national security interest'' to the United States, in 
other words, enemies of this Nation, at least 650, crossed the border 
illegally.
  It has been documented in my State that nightly between 6,000 and 
6,500 attempt to gain illegal access to the United States of America. 
Some within that group are people who intend our Nation harm.
  People say we are in a nonemergency situation. Mr. Chairman, my 
colleagues, I say quite the opposite is true. I say, and I believe 
Members of this House and the American Nation as a whole understand, 
that in many areas, our borders, sectors of our borders, have 
essentially devolved into de facto war zones.
  ``Yes'' to this amendment. ``Yes'' to dealing with this emergency. 
``Yes'' to our military on the border. ``Yes'' to stopping this 
invasion.

[[Page 7896]]


  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and former 
sheriff, who represents a border district, Congressman Ortiz.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, this is very simple. The Department of 
Defense says, Goode amendment, we don't need it.
  Under present law, the Homeland Security Secretary can call the 
Secretary of Defense and state that, you know, he needs troops. It is 
very, very simple because under existing law, it says he can request of 
the Secretary of Defense assistance from the Armed Forces.
  In fact, in 2002, the Secretary of Defense authorized such support on 
a reimbursable basis to organizations formerly components of the 
Department of Justice and Department of the Treasury and currently 
components of the Department of Homeland Security. So why do we want 
something else that we don't need?
  Not only that, do you know that they will have to spend more money 
that the Department of Defense doesn't have to train?
  Oppose this amendment, and when we come to the wall I would just hate 
for one day for the President of Mexico to come down and say, Mr. 
President, tear down this wall.
  Our servicemen/women are spread too thin.
  This is never a good idea, but certainly not in a time of war . . . 
to put soldiers in a new, civilian role . . . which has previously 
resulted in accidental deaths.
  This damages our readiness.
  I have been a law enforcement officer, and served in the Army. We are 
talking about two vastly different things--protecting the borders--and 
using the military in law enforcement.
  This new war includes a host of fronts, including law enforcement for 
domestic interests related to terrorists who try to cross our borders.
  I've led efforts for more border security: our investment should be 
in Border Patrol officers and detention beds to hold the OTMs--Other 
Than Mexicans--we now routinely release into the general population.
  Even if we caught every single illegal immigrant crossing our border, 
we would still have no place to hold them, and we would be forced to 
release them--as we are doing now.
  We should be focused on the need for professional law enforcement 
officers/intelligence associated with knowing who is coming across our 
borders . . . and providing funds to hold them.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In response to what the gentleman from Texas was saying, we are 
talking about the authorization for troops to be on the border in 
nonemergency situations. If you allow troops on the border in 
nonemergency situations, you will see lawsuits, litigations and 
potential for liability for anything that happens along the border 
involving those troops.
  We need to secure America and authorize troops in peace time in 
nonemergency situations along the border.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
my colleague from Laredo, Congressman Cuellar, also representing a 
border district.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Goode. I 
understand why he wants to protect the border, but being from the 
border, I understand that the military already provides technical 
support, construction of roads, clearing of brush; but they do have a 
very different mission from the Border Patrol.
  What we need to do is keep in mind that the Border Patrol's mission 
is to enforce immigration law. What we need is a smart, tough, border 
security policy, not the military, and certainly not a wall, but more 
technology and more Border Patrol agents.
  Being from the border, I understand what we need to work on, and I 
would ask the House to please consider the Members from the border that 
do live there and live there on a daily basis.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time.
  There can be no question that in this country, at this time, we have 
a huge problem along the southern border. As the Congressman from 
Arizona indicated, we are being massively invaded every day by hundreds 
and thousands of persons. Drug smugglers are among this number. Persons 
from terrorist countries are among this number. We need to use every 
tool we possibly can to address this situation. We need to authorize 
troops on the border in peace time, and we need some rough and tough 
people down there to get this situation straight because it is 
certainly not straight today.
  Stand up for preserving the integrity of the United States of America 
and vote ``yes'' for troops on the border.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, every year we come to the 
floor and we talk tough about putting troops on the border. It is 
expensive. The Department of Defense already has that authority. The 
President can direct it at any time based on whatever situation he is 
made aware of.
  One of the things that I would like to tell my colleagues is that we 
are often here talking about issues and about problems and providing 
solutions. One of the things, an observation that I will make about us 
is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the things that we 
say versus the things that we do in the people's House.
  In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in 
the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress 
failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that 
would have addressed the pull factor.
  For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been 
debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West 
Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California, 
if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly 
interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let's fund 
employer sanctions. And short of that, let's fund H.R. 98, which gives 
us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers 
would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn't 
need to have this useless debate on troops on the border.
  Vote ``no'' on the Goode amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. 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. 15 printed in House Report No. 109-461 
     offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
       At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. __. DETERMINATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTRATHEATER 
                   AND INTERTHEATER AIRLIFT AND SEALIFT MOBILITY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Determination of Requirements.--The Secretary of 
     Defense, as part of the 2006 Mobility Capabilities Study, 
     shall determine Department of Defense mobility requirements 
     as follows:
       (1) The Secretary shall determine intratheater and 
     intertheater airlift mobility requirements and intratheater 
     and intertheater sealift mobility requirements (all stated in 
     terms of million ton miles per day) for executing each 
     scenario that was modeled in the 2005 Mobility Capabilities 
     Study and each scenario that is modeled in the 2006 Mobility 
     Capabilities Study.
       (2) The Secretary shall determine intratheater and 
     intertheater airlift mobility requirements and intratheater 
     and intertheater sealift mobility requirements (all stated in 
     terms of million ton miles per day) for executing the 
     National Military Strategy with a low acceptable level of 
     risk, with a medium acceptable level of risk, and with a high 
     acceptable level of risk, for each of the following:
       (A) Major combat operations.
       (B) The Global War on Terrorism.
       (C) Baseline security posture operations.
       (D) Homeland defense and civil support operations.
       (E) Special operations missions.
       (F) Global strike missions.
       (G) Strategic nuclear missions.
       (b) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2007, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a

[[Page 7897]]

     report providing the mobility requirements determined 
     pursuant to subsection (a). The report shall set forth each 
     mobility requirement specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     that subsection.
       (c) Mobility Capabilities Studies.--For purposes of this 
     section:
       (1) The term ``2006 Mobility Capabilities Study'' means the 
     studies conducted by the Secretary of Defense and the Joint 
     Staff during 2006 as a follow-on to the 2005 Mobility 
     Capabilities Study.
       (2) The term ``2005 Mobility Capabilities Study'' means the 
     comprehensive Mobility Capabilities Study completed in 
     December 2005 and conducted through the Office of Program 
     Analysis and Evaluation of the Department of Defense to 
     assess mobility needs for all aspects of the National Defense 
     Strategy.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask support of 
my colleagues for this amendment that I am offering which calls for the 
Secretary of Defense to include as part of the 2006 update of the 
Mobility Capability study, a comprehensive analysis of future air lift 
and sea lift mobility requirements.
  This study would examine both the strategic and intratheater mobility 
requirements with full consideration of all aspects of the national 
security strategy, and will analyze low, medium, and high risk 
alternatives.
  The new analysis will be delivered to Congress by February 4, 2007.
  One would ask why this study is important. There has not been a study 
that examines our Nation's air lift requirements since prior to 9/11.

                              {time}  1400

  Contrary to past mobility studies, the most recent study analyzed 
only the capabilities of the current programmed airlift fleet, but it 
did not analyze the Nation's airlift requirements. There is a big 
difference between studying capabilities and studying requirements when 
prescribing future airlift force level recommendations.
  DOD's definition of a military requirement is an established need 
justifying the timely allocations of resources to achieve a capability 
to accomplish approved military objectives, missions or tasks, all 
called operational requirements. Now translated into layman's terms, 
this means one cannot effectively allocate resources to achieve a given 
capability, in this case airlift resources, without first knowing what 
the requirement is.
  In 2001, our airlift fleet requirements were at 54.5 million ton-
miles per day. The question that this study asks and seeks to have 
answered is, what is the quantitative yardstick that describes the 
required airlift needs. Is 54.5 million ton-miles per day enough 
airlift? Do we need more? The mobility capability study alone does not 
give us this needed information.
  As we are all aware, there have been significantly more requirements 
pressed upon our airlift fleet over the past 5 years. The world we live 
in has changed a great deal. For example, we know our Nation has been 
attacked by terrorists. We are engaged in an ongoing global war on 
terrorism. Hurricane Katrina had ravaged the gulf coast region, and we 
have repeatedly been summoned to help with global humanitarian efforts, 
particularly natural disasters such as the tsunami and earthquakes. All 
of these occurrences have called upon our Nation's airlift resources.
  Furthermore, what concerns me the most is that there does not appear 
to be a comprehensive approach to addressing our Nation's future 
airlift demands.
  Last February, the Pentagon released the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
QDR, the 20-year blueprint of our Defense Department needs and 
projections. Specifically, the QDR recommended the ability to swiftly 
defeat two adversaries in overlapping military campaigns with the 
option of overthrowing a hostile government in one.
  However, in the 2001 strategy, the U.S. military was to be capable of 
conducting operations in four regions abroad, Europe, the Middle East, 
the Asian littoral and Northeast Asia. But the new plan states that the 
past 4 years demonstrated the need for U.S. forces to operate around 
the globe and not only in these four regions.
  Whatever that scenario is, Mr. Chairman, clearly we need more air 
cargo planes, and we know this by experience too. Take the C-17, an air 
cargo plane, for example. This air cargo plane is being flown over 167 
percent over the normal hours scheduled to deliver supplies to the war 
theaters where most planes cannot land, as well as the many 
humanitarian missions in which our country is engaged.
  Since 9/11/01, the C-17 has flown 59 percent or about 358,000 
additional miles more than was originally scheduled. The C-17 has been 
on the front line of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eighty percent of 
our airlift missions in these battlefronts are done by the C-17.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, after only 15 years in commission, the C-17 
fleet just recently reached its 1 millionth flying hour. The C-17, 
though, is just one example, but it is an excellent one and an 
excellent example of how much our Nation is relying on our airlift 
fleet.
  This study will provide a basis for determining the future of our 
Nation's airlift fleet. This is about providing our military with the 
tools to succeed, and it is about fiscal responsibility, and most 
importantly, it is about national security.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, even though I am not in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). Without objection, the gentleman 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
of the gentlewoman from California, and I commend her for her 
thoughtfulness for bringing this matter to the House in the form of an 
amendment.
  This amendment will allow proper congressional oversight for the 
mobility system to ensure that our Nation's future force structure and 
capabilities will be able to meet the well-defined requirements that 
certainly exist, existed prior to September 11, 2001, and certainly 
exist to an even greater extent today.
  Over the past few month, there have been significant changes in the 
Department of the Air Force's position on the necessity of purchasing 
additional C-17 aircraft beyond the currently contracted 180. Senior 
leaders of the Department of Defense have stated requirements ranging 
from 187 to more than 222 C-17 aircraft in the fleet.
  However, the last comprehensive analysis of mobility requirements was 
released 5 years ago, prior to 9/11, when the global war on terror had 
commenced.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 5122, includes provisions to authorize 
funding for an additional three C-17 aircraft, allow for the retirement 
of the 1960s vintage C-5A fleet, that has rarely lived up to its 
operational expectations, and set a minimum floor of 299 for strategic 
airlift aircraft, which is a necessity and a necessary first step in 
meeting our Nation's growing airlift requirements.
  This amendment, directing the mobility requirements study, will 
enhance our ability to identify the correct future actions needed to 
support our Nation's airlift missions capability.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to do the same.
  I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I certainly want to support the gentlewoman's amendment also. 
Representative Millender-McDonald's amendment is certainly one on which 
we should all agree. This is something that needs to be clearly defined 
and stated, that airlift and sealift requirements to ensure our 
Nation's future mobility force structure capabilities are able to meet 
future needs.
  In this war, 70 percent of the cargo missions have been flown by C-
17s.

[[Page 7898]]

That is a 60 percent increase over the military's own prewar 
anticipated usage of the plane. In addition to military uses, C-17s 
have been used in humanitarian efforts to bring food and supplies to 
victims of Hurricane Katrina and to the Far East disasters there last 
year.
  Senior leaders at the DOD can't seem to find clearly the exact number 
of C-17s required. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force states 187 
TRANSCOM and Air Mobility Commander stated 200 C-17s are required. The 
former TRANSCOM commander, General Handy, whom I respect immensely, 
stated that 225 C-17s are required.
  In addition to senior leaders of DOD, the Defense Science Board, in a 
report dated September 2005, raised concerns about the adequacy of the 
Pentagon's organic and strategic sealift and aerial tankers.
  Therefore, I support this amendment so we can get on to fulfill our 
congressional oversight responsibility and ensure that our mobility 
system adequately supports current and future force structure 
requirements.
  Mr. SAXTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this 
comprehensive analysis is critically needed for our military might, for 
our strength in doing those things that are asked of us with the 
airlift cargo; and it is not only fiscally responsible, but it is 
national security.
  I ask support for the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  Mr. GOHMERT. 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. 7 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Gohmert:
       At the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII (page 504, after 
     line 7), add the following new section:

     SEC. 2844. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LAND CONVEYANCE 
                   INVOLVING ARMY RESERVE CENTER, MARSHALL, TEXAS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army 
     should consider the feasibility of conveying the Army Reserve 
     Center at 1209 Pinecrest Drive East in Marshall, Texas, to 
     the Marshall-Harrison County Veterans Association for the 
     purpose of assisting the efforts of the Association in 
     erecting a veterans memorial, creating a park, and 
     establishing a museum recognizing and honoring the sacrifices 
     and accomplishments of veterans of the Armed Forces.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that expresses 
simply a sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Army should 
consider conveying the U.S. Army Reserve Center in Marshall, Texas, to 
the Marshall-Harrison County Veterans Association for the purpose of 
erecting a veterans memorial, creating a park, and converting the 
present building to a veterans museum to recognize and honor the 
accomplishments of our Armed Forces.
  I have received letters, phone calls and personal visits about such a 
project. Harrison County, back in the 1990s, had closed a huge Army 
facility. There were thousands of people that lost jobs, and now BRAC 
has recommended closing a reserve center there.
  This is not trying to undo the BRAC process whatsoever. BRAC is 
already closing the reserve center. What this will do is allow them to 
transfer this.
  We have a letter from the Army indicating this should be surplus, 
less than 3 acres. This will allow them to have a veterans museum, a 
veterans center, a place veterans can go, many of whom will never have 
the opportunity to come here to Washington, D.C., to see the museums 
and see the memorials. And it will give them a chance there in East 
Texas where there have already been so many jobs lost because of BRAC.
  This is a bipartisan issue in the county. There are Democrats and 
Republicans both that are urging and pushing for this, and I was proud 
to go ahead and bring this amendment as a sense of Congress to urge 
that this is something that could be done. It will help the community 
in an area there in east Texas.
  Recruiting is up, recruiting is going well, but it further emphasizes 
and will give an opportunity to emphasize the importance of valor, 
duty, honor, country.
  I would like to thank Chairman Hunter and his committee for their 
hard work on this bill that will undoubtedly benefit our Armed Forces. 
I would ask that this amendment also be added to the bill to assist 
those folks there in Harrison County.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment; however, I do not intend to vote against the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ORTIZ. I think this is a good amendment and we accept the 
amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Mrs. Musgrave). I would yield to the gentlewoman for purposes of the 
colloquy.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I have recently become aware that the 
Army is considering expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Area in 
Colorado. I have two concerns about this expansion plan.
  First, the Army hasn't been responsive to my questions about their 
plans. Second, I am troubled that the Army may use eminent domain or 
unfriendly condemnation to acquire property in that area.
  You are probably aware that I offered an amendment for today's debate 
that would help the farmers and ranchers in my area get information 
about this and would limit the powers of eminent domain, but the Rules 
Committee did not make that amendment in order and we can't debate it.
  But I would appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your assistance in getting 
information on this proposal by the Army.

                              {time}  1415

  I am very disappointed in the lack of response, and I hope the 
chairman can use the power of your committee to assist me and the rest 
of the Colorado delegation in this matter. Remarkably, when my office 
called the Army on this, they said it was ``an academic discussion.'' 
Thus, they refused to provide any details at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. 
First, I strongly believe that DOD should make every effort to acquire 
property through fair-market value purchases from willing sellers. The 
use of eminent domain or unfriendly condemnation should only be used as 
a measure of last resort in cases of compelling national security 
requirements.
  So I would be very pleased to work with the gentlewoman as a 
representative of the farmers and ranchers surrounding Pinon Canyon to 
ensure that the Army does not use eminent domain before exhausting all 
other options.
  Secondly, I would note that the defense bill before us today contains 
a provision that makes sure that Congress has oversight of DOD plans to 
use eminent domain, as its application is a matter of great concern to 
all of us.
  Finally, I would be happy to work with the Colorado delegation to 
talk to

[[Page 7899]]

the Army and ensure that they are very forthcoming in discussing plans 
for the expansion of Pinon Canyon. Having a good relationship with our 
communities is an important obligation of the armed services, and they 
should certainly sit down with their elected representatives and 
discuss their plans and any issues that will concern the community.
  I will be happy to help the gentlewoman on this issue.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for your 
commitment to work on this issue, and I look forward to working with 
you.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley

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

       Amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Ms. Hooley:
       At the end of subtitle C of title III (page 70, after line 
     16), add the following new section:

     SEC. 324. ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT AND 
                   MANAGE CH-47 HELICOPTER RESET.

       The Army and the National Guard Bureau are authorized to 
     contract with a United States contractor to perform the RESET 
     of the CH-47 helicopters assigned to the Nevada and Oregon 
     National Guard in order to reduce the non-operational rate of 
     their CH-47 fleet. Costs, completion time, and maintenance 
     capabilities shall be the major considerations in the process 
     used by the Army and National Guard Bureau in selecting the 
     contractor to perform the RESET activity.


          Amendment No. 9, As Modified, Offered by Ms. Hooley

  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, 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:

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title III (page 70, after line 
     16), add the following new section:

     SEC. 324. REPORT ON CH-47 HELICOPTER RESET.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report that outlines the 
     plan of the Army to reset all CH-47 aircraft in the active 
     and reserve components. The Secretary shall include in the 
     report a description of the plan, the timeline, and the costs 
     for the reset of those aircraft.

  Ms. HOOLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is accepted, 
and, without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment, 
which has the support of all of my colleagues in the Oregon delegation. 
Our amendment, as agreed to by the chairman and the ranking member, 
would require the Secretary of the Army to supply Congress with a 
report no later than 60 days from the enactment of this act that 
outlines the Army's plan regarding the receipt of all CH-47 aircraft in 
the active and Reserve components.
  I would like the record to reflect that it is my intent that this 
report should include a description of the Army's plan, timeline and 
the cost for the reset of those aircraft. I also believe that the 
Secretary should include the status of the current backlog and the 
options that currently exist to accelerate the reset program.
  I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for 
working with us on this important issue to address our concerns. I look 
forward to working with them in the future to address the problems and 
obstacles that I anticipate will be identified in the Secretary's 
report regarding the reset program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumen-
auer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague permitting me 
to speak on this. As she indicated, this is a bipartisan amendment 
sponsored by the entire Oregon House delegation.
  Our interest is making sure that the men and women in our armed 
services have access to the best possible equipment. Currently, the 
efforts that have been under way overseas and at home have put a great 
deal of stress and strain. We have had people in the Northwest explain 
to us opportunities that they think are available to both save money 
and to improve opportunities to make sure that the equipment is 
recycled, brought up to par as quickly and as efficiently as possible. 
I think having a report from the Secretary of the Army in this fashion 
will help spotlight this opportunity.
  We are confident that we will see real opportunities to save money 
while we improve the equipment that our men and women are dealing with. 
I appreciate the cooperation both from the Oregon delegation and from 
the staff on the minority and the majority in helping move forward so 
we have got some good information. I express my appreciation to the 
Chair and to the ranking member.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and the 
gentlewoman for their contribution here, and just assure them we are 
very interested in making sure that this equipment, some of which has 
been wearing out pretty quickly in the desert sand in the warfighting 
theaters, is maintained in excellent condition, both with our great in-
house resources and our depots and with the private sector, so we use 
all of our resources in the U.S. to make sure we have got good, sound 
platforms.
  The committee has no objection to the amendment. We thank you for 
adding it to the base bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, 
to the extent any time is available, I appreciate the chairman's words 
and for emphasizing that we want to be able to take advantage of the 
resources where they are. Whether they are the folks we have right now 
in the armed services or the private sector, the goal is to do the best 
job possible with the resources. We appreciate your cooperation and 
your words of support.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few words about a 
compromise amendment that my colleagues and I in the Oregon delegation 
negotiated with the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Our amendment requires the Army to send a report to Congress within 
60 days of enactment of this bill regarding the Chinook helicopter 
Reset program. The Reset program repairs and restores helicopters to 
their pre-combat deployment condition. The report requires the Army to 
explain its plan to reset all active duty and reserve component 
helicopters, including the timeline and cost for doing so.
  The reason my colleagues and I offered our original amendment is 
because of a dangerous situation facing the Oregon National Guard. The 
Oregon National Guard is authorized to have six Chinook helicopters. 
One was destroyed on a mission. One is too old and will be turned in to 
the Pentagon. The other four need to go through reset after being 
deployed to combat zones.
  Timely repairs and rehabilitation are essential to ensuring the 
Oregon National Guard has the equipment necessary for responding to 
public safety threats, including forest fires, as well as other state 
emergencies, homeland defense, and proficiency training.
  Unfortunately, timely repairs are not happening today. Due to the 
influx of aircraft returning from overseas and in need of repair, the 
Army depots that generally perform this work are overstretched. As I 
understand it, the average time to get a helicopter repaired and 
returned to a unit is six months or longer.
  I haven't seen the speech yet, but I've been told that Major General 
Pillsbury of the Army Materiel Command recently gave a speech at a 
conference lamenting how far behind the Army is on the Chinook RESET 
program.
  According to a letter from the Army in March 2006, the Oregon 
National Guard will not get its helicopters back until November 2006. 
During the interim period, the Oregon National Guard will have to do 
without, which puts Oregon residents at-risk. That is not acceptable.
  Congress, the Army and the National Guard Bureau must find a solution 
to this problem. One logical solution is for the Army to allow the 
Oregon National Guard to contract with a

[[Page 7900]]

local private sector helicopter maintenance provider in order to help 
alleviate the backlog that would otherwise keep its Chinooks grounded 
for the next several months. One company in Oregon, Columbia 
Helicopters, believes it could get two Chinooks through the reset 
process by July, several months sooner than the Army. Such private 
sector involvement in the reset program is not unprecedented. Last 
year, the Army awarded Boeing a $40 million-plus contract to refurbish 
Apache helicopters under the reset program. And, Columbia Helicopters 
has already done this type of work for the Nevada National Guard, which 
had some discretionary money it spent on getting its helicopters 
repaired.
  Letters in support of this public-private concept have been sent to 
the Army since February from myself, the Oregon National Guard, the 
Nevada National Guard, Governor Kulongoski of Oregon, Governor Kenny 
Guinn of Nevada, Senators Smith, Wyden, Ensign and Reid, and Reps. 
Hooley, Wu and Walden. Yet, the Army has not taken any action to 
expedite the reset of the Oregon helicopters.
  Our amendment today puts the Army on notice that Congress is 
interested in this issue and is concerned about growing repair burden 
and backlog. Congress needs to ensure accountability by the Army for 
timely repairs. This amendment is a first step. I will continue to work 
with my colleagues in Oregon and on the committee to try to get the 
Army to step up and ensure the National Guard is adequately equipped 
and able to carry out its missions year-round.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hooley-DeFazio-Wu-
Blumenauer-Walden amendment to H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization Act 
for FY2007. Our National Guard has been stretched to its limit these 
past few years, and without the timely return of equipment and aircraft 
to their home units, the Guard's mission is in jeopardy of being 
severely compromised. The Oregon Guard has performed outstandingly in 
the Middle East and I commend them for their courage and fortitude.
  Equipment, especially aircraft, needs thorough and vigorous 
refurbishment when they arrive back from combat. Unfortunately, limited 
options and a sprawling procurement bureaucracy have created a backlog 
for equipment resets. By keeping the options limited, we are doing a 
disservice to the Guard by not returning their core assets in a timely 
manner.
  I support this amendment because this issue cannot wait any longer 
and needs to be addressed now. Every day that the Guard has to wait for 
an aircraft is another day where they cannot perform their mission. The 
Guard is ready to do their duty, now we must be willing to fight for 
their needs. I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Oregon 
delegation in sponsoring this important measure.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate or discussion on this 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. McDermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. 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. 13 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. McDermott:
       At the end of subtitle B of title VII (page 268, after line 
     9), add the following new section:

     SEC. 716. STUDY OF HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO DEPLETED 
                   URANIUM.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 
     the Secretary for Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, shall conduct a comprehensive 
     study of the health effects of exposure to depleted uranium 
     munitions on uranium-exposed soldiers and on children of 
     uranium-exposed soldiers who were born after the exposure of 
     the uranium-exposed soldiers to depleted uranium.
       (b) Uranium-Exposed Soldiers.--In this section, the term 
     ``uranium-exposed soldiers'' means a member or former member 
     of the Armed Forces who handled, came in contact with, or had 
     the likelihood of contact with depleted uranium munitions 
     while on active duty, including members and former members 
     who--
       (1) were exposed to smoke from fires resulting from the 
     burning of vehicles containing depleted uranium munitions or 
     fires at depots at which depleted uranium munitions were 
     stored;
       (2) worked within environments containing depleted uranium 
     dust or residues from depleted uranium munitions;
       (3) were within a structure or vehicle while it was struck 
     by a depleted uranium munition;
       (4) climbed on or entered equipment or structures struck by 
     a depleted uranium munition; or
       (5) were medical personnel who provided initial treatment 
     to members of the Armed Forces described in paragraph (1), 
     (2), (3), or (4).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protect and defend the U.S. 
soldiers who protect and defend us. I urge the House to pass my 
amendment calling for a comprehensive study on possible health effects 
on soldiers from exposure to depleted uranium.
  I am a medical doctor. Like every doctor, I took an oath to use all 
my knowledge and skill to heal the sick. I was trained to listen to the 
patient and to use science, not conjecture, to make a diagnosis. I have 
been listening to soldiers, and I am greatly troubled.
  We need to do a study on the effects of depleted uranium. My 
amendment includes a comprehensive study of the effects on our soldiers 
from exposure to DU, and also includes the children of our soldiers 
born after exposure.
  I recognize there have been a number of studies done on this 
exposure, but they do not answer all the questions. There has been no 
comprehensive study of cancer rates in relationship to DU exposure in 
gulf war veterans.
  The VA has a volunteer medical DU follow-up program that has been 
tracking about 60 veterans who signed themselves up for the study. 
These veterans were all friendly fire victims who have DU imbedded in 
their body, and I am heartened that the VA has been keeping track of 
them. But 60 veterans is not enough to catch cancers that have a rate 
of one in 1,000. This sample is not large enough to be statistically 
reliable.
  There are about 900 gulf war veterans who have had level one or level 
two exposure to DU. We should be studying all of them and keeping track 
of all their health. There has been no comprehensive study of the Gulf 
War Syndrome in relation to exposure to DU. No definitive cause has 
been established for Gulf War Syndrome.
  Presently, between 150,000 and 200,000 soldiers who served in Gulf 
War I could have Gulf War Syndrome. We need to study the possible 
relationship between depleted uranium and Gulf War Syndrome. Any link 
between these two or other negative health effects has not been 
conclusively established or refuted.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to stand with me and protect and 
defend the soldiers whom we send out to protect and defend us.
  For me, this is a personal, not a political, quest. My professional 
life turned from medicine to politics after my service in the United 
States Navy during the 1960s when I treated combat soldiers returning 
from Vietnam. Back then, the Pentagon denied that Agent Orange posed 
any threat to soldiers who were exposed. Decades later, the truth began 
to emerge. Agent Orange harmed our soldiers; it made thousands sick and 
some died.
  During all those years of denial, we stood by and did nothing while 
our soldiers suffered, and for me there can be no more Agent Orange. We 
have to think of that in terms of this DU. If DU poses no danger, we 
need to prove it statistically and with independent, scientific 
studies. If DU harms our soldiers, we all need to know it and act 
quickly, as any doctor would, to use all of our power to heal the sick. 
We owe our soldiers a full measure of the truth, wherever that leads 
us.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member rising in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, we do not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of this 
amendment, which I believe is very reasonable and will help ensure

[[Page 7901]]

our government is taking proper steps to protect the health of our 
troops.
  Like many heavy metals such as lead, depleted uranium is harmful when 
the resulting particles from a burned round are inhaled or ingested.
  The use of these munitions, however, also provides a significant 
advantage to our soldiers because they have the speed, mass, and 
physical properties to penetrate exceptionally well against highly 
armored targets.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. 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. 22 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Tierney:
       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 50, after line 
     23), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 223. RESTRUCTURING OF MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Deployment Limitations.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     not deploy--
       (1) any Ground-Based Midcourse Defense systems beyond the 
     authorized systems at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg 
     Air Force Base, California; or
       (2) any space-based interceptors.
       (b) Boost-Phase Defenses.--No funds available to the 
     Department of Defense may be obligated for deployment of any 
     boost-phase defense system.
       (c) Funding Reduction and Program Terminations.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation for the Defense Agencies is reduced by 
     $4,747,000,000, to be derived from amounts for the Missile 
     Defense Agency as follows:
       (1) $595,000,000 from termination of the Airborne Laser 
     program.
       (2) $500,000,000 from termination of additional AEGIS 
     Ballistic Missile Defense activities.
       (3) $286,000,000 from termination of the Kinetic Energy 
     Interceptor program.
       (4) $360,000,000 from termination of the Space Surveillance 
     and Tracking System.
       (5) $56,000,000 from termination of the European Site.
       (6) $2,500,000,000 from termination of Additional Ground-
     Based Midcourse Deployment.
       (7) $450,000,000 from reduction of programs designated as 
     Other MDA RDT&E Activities.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would adopt the recommendation 
of the Congressional Budget Office to restructure our missile defense 
programs, specifically, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The 
amendment would instruct the Secretary of Defense not to deploy any 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense System beyond the authorized systems 
that are now at Fort Greeley, Alaska and, the Vandenberg Air Force Base 
in California or any space-based interceptors of intercontinental 
ballistic missiles.
  It would reduce funding for the research, development, test and 
evaluation for the defense agencies by $4,747,000,000.
  Under the Congressional Budget Office's ``evolutionary alternative,'' 
the Department of Defense would fund the capabilities planned for the 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense System through 2007.

                              {time}  1430

  Money would continue to be provided to pursue upgrades to the 
elements of the ground-based missile defense initial defense 
capability, would continue testing its components and would explore 
other missile defense concepts.
  But the savings on the midcourse missile defense under the 
Congressional Budget Office alternative would total $29 billion on a 
Department of Defense-wide basis through 2007.
  I commend to my colleagues no less than seven reports released in the 
last 2 months critical of various aspects of the ballistic missile 
system, and I will introduce copies for the Record. Two of them are 
from the General Accountability Office, two from the Department of 
Defense's own Inspector General's Office, one from the Congressional 
Research Office, one from the Congressional Budget Office and one from 
the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
  All of them raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. 
And as a group they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense 
system that supposedly, but not actually offers the United States an 
initial defense capability.
  The Center for Defense Information states in its analysis, changes 
are imperative. If the Missile Defense Agency continues in the same 
vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled with a 
missile defense system that costs tens of billions, possibly hundreds 
of billions of dollars, yet provides no actual defense.
  What is more, by diverting that money to an unfeasible system, the 
United States will miss out on the protection it could be getting from 
weapons systems that actually work.
  Mr. Chairman, the moneys are important, of course, but having a false 
sense of security is dangerous. And not investing these moneys in 
needed security systems, systems to protect our space and domestic 
assets and for homeland security risk is criminally negligent.
  The General Accountability reports note that if the Pentagon does not 
move away from its spiral development or acquisition policy where a 
system's progress is never held to any sort of accountability, has no 
defined parameters, the Department of Defense will continue to start 
more programs for more money and create the next set of case studies 
for future defense reform reviews.
  Fielding systems that still are in early developmental cycles, 
rushing them into the field where they have very serious problems with 
every component, that is a recipe for disaster. Immature technologies 
are not perfected, integration of the systems is not happening, testing 
in real-life scenarios is lacking, information assurance controls that 
were built to the network are sadly out of date.
  This report shows poor quality control, unreasonable, in fact 
outrageous, cost growth, and schedule slips and inferior performance.

   An ``F'' for Missile Defense: How Seven Government Reports in Two 
   Months Illustrate the Need for Missile Defense To Change Its Ways

               (By Victoria Samson, CDI Research Analyst)

       A certain amount of optimism is required to successfully 
     guide a weapon system through its development to completion. 
     However, at a certain point, reality needs to poke through so 
     that program and service officials can make relatively 
     objective assessments. Is it working? Is it going to work? Is 
     it staying on budget and schedule? If not, can it get back on 
     track? And finally, the most difficult question to ask of a 
     program: Should it continue?
       The multi-faceted missile defense program, currently the 
     Pentagon's golden child, has effectively avoided any and all 
     tough questions. Over $92 billion has been spent on missile 
     defense systems since the Ronald Reagan administration, to 
     little avail. While the architecture still has not been 
     finalized, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) envisions a 
     system of systems, where there are ground-, sea-, and air-
     based interceptors supported by a yet-to-be-built satellite 
     system, new X-band radars that are still being put in place, 
     and a command and control system that is not secure to 
     outside interference.
       President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 that, 
     within two years, the United States would have deployed an 
     initial missile defense system that could defend the United 
     States against a limited ICBM attack. With that pressure from 
     above, MDA focused its efforts on the fielding interceptors 
     in Alaska and California the Ground-based Midcourse Defense 
     (GMD) system. As of writing, 13 interceptors have been 
     emplaced in missile silos. As well, MDA is working on a sea-
     based interceptor that is carried on the Aegis ship, a sea-
     based X-band radar that is slowly floating to its home port 
     in Alaska, a giant command and control module based out of 
     Colorado, a satellite network that could track enemy missiles 
     as they approach the U.S. homeland, and systems that are 
     geared toward providing defense against shorter-range 
     ballistic missiles (Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
     system, or THAAD, and the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-3 
     system). In the long run, MDA is building a modified Boeing 
     747 airplane

[[Page 7902]]

     that would carry lasers in its nose and kinetic kill vehicles 
     which theoretically could obliterate multiple targets.
       MDA has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility. 
     It has not lived up to its tasks. In the past two months, no 
     less than seven reports have been released that were critical 
     of various aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System 
     (BMDS). For clarity's sake, this analysis will focus largely 
     on MDA's flagship program, the GMD system, whose existence is 
     used to falsely claim that the United States has an initial 
     defensive capability against ICBMs. And to head off 
     allegations of bias, it must be noted that these reports were 
     written by non-partisan government agencies. Two reports by 
     the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two from the 
     Defense Department (DOD)'s own Inspector General's office, 
     and reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), 
     Congressional Budgetary Office ``(CBO), and the Pentagon's 
     Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) all raise 
     doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. As a group, 
     they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system 
     that supposedly offers the United States an initial defensive 
     capability.


     overshooting cost goals, falling short of planned achievements

       Missile defense programs have featured prominently in two 
     recent reports by the GAO. The first, ``Assessment of 
     Selected Major Weapons Programs,'' examines the cost growth 
     of many Pentagon weapon systems. It notes, ``DOD often 
     exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40 
     percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed 
     deadlines, and performance shortfalls.'' The GAO points out, 
     ``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost 
     and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in 
     launching product development, and fail to solidify design 
     and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in 
     development.'' The missile defense system prides itself on 
     its ``spiral development'' or acquisition policy that is 
     constantly evolving, under which a system's progress is never 
     held to strictly defined parameters.
       ``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost 
     and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in 
     launching product development, and fail to solidify design 
     and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in 
     development.''
       The GAO takes this type of acquisition policy to task. In 
     fact, David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States, 
     warns that if the Pentagon doesn't move away from it, DOD 
     ``will continue to start more programs than it can finish, 
     produce less capability for more money, and create the next 
     set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.''
       The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has argued that the 
     missile defense program needs the flexibility of spiral 
     development to allow it to mold itself to future threats and 
     to incorporate lessons learned while testing. Why other 
     Pentagon programs somehow manage to hold themselves 
     accountable and still meet evolving threats is never 
     discussed by MDA officials. Instead, MDA promotes the idea 
     that all possible missile defense candidate technologies will 
     be put through their paces, and eventually testing will prove 
     the winners and losers. Again, MDA has never stated at which 
     point it will definitively decide to drop a flagging program. 
     The closest it has come is in giving one of its programs 
     (Airborne Laser) what it calls ``knowledge parameters,'' in 
     an attempt to prove to critics that, despite outward 
     appearances, there is indeed progress toward development.
       Another key part of spiral development is that weapon 
     systems will be fielded when they are still early in their 
     development cycles. The intent is that they can continue to 
     grow and presumably advance while providing some sort of 
     military utility. What ends up happening is that systems--the 
     Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system most noticeably--
     are rushed out into the field even when there are very 
     serious problems with their components... or indeed, are 
     crucial elements to their architecture still lacking. For 
     example, the GMD interceptor suffered a flight test failure 
     in February 2005 due to poor quality control by its 
     contractor for the arm that holds the missile up in its silo. 
     In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 
     4, 2006, Obering acknowledged this problem and stated that 
     this component would be replaced on the interceptors that 
     have already been fielded. Nonetheless, the $40 million 
     missile as originally designed continues to be built at a 
     rate of one every two months or so.
       The GAO notes that weapon systems development programs 
     progress much better and keep costs lower if technology is 
     allowed to mature before being brought into a developmental 
     or initial operating system. GAO observes that program 
     acquisition unit costs for programs with mature technologies 
     increase by less than one percent over original cost 
     estimates, while the program acquisition unit costs for 
     programs with immature technologies increase by 27 percent 
     over the first full estimate.
       The report goes on to review various weapon systems to 
     assess their level of technological maturity and cost growth.
       The GMD system's ``concurrent testing and fielding efforts 
     may lead to additional design changes,'' warns the GAO, and 
     the program's ``prime contract could overrun its target cost 
     by as much as $1.5 billion. Boeing, GMD's prime contractor, 
     has already overrun its budget by $600 million as a result of 
     quality control issues. As what seems to be the standard for 
     missile defense, program officials differ from outsiders 
     about the program: while program officials rate GMD's needed 
     10 technologies as mature, the GAO differs, stating that 
     ``four have not been demonstrated in an operational 
     environment and we believe that they cannot be considered 
     fully mature.'' And since the GAO's last assessment of GMD, 
     the program's planned budget through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09) 
     has risen by $2.9 billion, or 11.2 percent.
       GMD's cost growth is bad enough, but as it turns out, the 
     United States is paying more and getting less than 
     anticipated. In another GAO report, the title says it all: 
     ``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls 
     Short of Original Goals.'' MDA's accelerated development of 
     the GMD program in order to reach an initial capability by 
     the end of 2004 caused the agency to run over that portion of 
     its budget by $1 billion. For FY 05, GMD contractors had 
     exceeded anticipated costs by 25 percent. The GAO also took 
     to task the forced reliance by MDA upon spiral development 
     ``[I]t allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature 
     technology, complete design activities, and produce and field 
     assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the 
     expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.''
       In addition, for the initial defensive capability stated as 
     the goal of the rapid fielding of the overall missile defense 
     network, MDA fell quite short of what it had hoped to have 
     accomplished. ``Compared to its original goals set in 2003, 
     MDA fielded 10 fewer GMD interceptors than planned, two fewer 
     radars, 11 fewer Aegis BMD missiles, and six fewer Aegis 
     ships,'' lists the GAO report. The United States has 
     officially fielded elements of the ballistic missile defense 
     system architecture, but these are really token efforts. Even 
     if the systems had proved themselves during testing and 
     development--which they have not--and even if they had all 
     their needed components at the ready--which they do not--this 
     system would be a feeble shadow of what planners had hoped 
     for.
       Spiral development ``allowed the GMD program to 
     concurrently mature technology, complete design activities, 
     and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the 
     system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance 
     goals.''
       Another result of rushing the missile defense elements out 
     into the field is that workmanship has been shoddy, at best. 
     Poor quality control has been listed time and again as an 
     explanation for cost growth, schedule slips, and inferior 
     performance. The GAO report explains, ``According to MDA's 
     own audits, the interceptor's design requirements were 
     unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly 
     controlled, and the interceptor's design resulted in 
     uncertain reliability and service life.'' The GMD interceptor 
     was not tested to ensure its parts could withstand the harsh 
     environment in space--which could result in catastrophic 
     failures after launch as the interceptors are supposed to 
     impact their targets outside the Earth's atmosphere. Further, 
     the failures of two recent flight tests--1FT-10 and 1FT-14--
     were due to poor quality control procedures. The development 
     of some parts for the GMD interceptor has been so careless 
     that, according to the GAO, the parts in question would have 
     to be replaced and thus ``the interceptors will be removed 
     from their silos.'' Neither GAO nor MDA, has yet to explain 
     at what cost such repairs will have to be made.
       Unfortunately, cost growth, schedule slips, and faulty 
     parts are not specific to missile defense programs. One can 
     see that easily in every branch of the Pentagon. Where the 
     missile defense program differs is in the extent of autonomy 
     and decision-making freedom given to MDA officials managing 
     the various pieces of the program. Given the pressure they 
     were under from President George W. Bush's December 2002 
     announcement that an initial capability would be in place by 
     the end of 2004, managers decided that the development and 
     fielding process required a speedier schedule to meet that 
     deadline. As a result, the GAO recounts, ``MDA officials told 
     us that because the agency was directed to field a capability 
     earlier than planned, it accepted additional risks.''
       The agency was able to accelerate fielding because MDA 
     officials have been given unprecedented liberties with 
     acquisition planning and scheduling. They are further allowed 
     to shift around funding from one program element to another 
     as they see fit, under special rules set up by DOD. According 
     to the GAO, ``Compared with other DOD programs, MDA has 
     greater latitude to make changes to the BMDS [Ballistic 
     Missile Defense Program] program without seeking the approval 
     of high-level acquisition executives outside the program.'' 
     Because of this flexibility, while MDA does inform Congress 
     and DOD of funding rearrangements, accountability is 
     practically nil; instead, its version of it has ``thus become 
     broadly applied as to mean delivering some capability within 
     funding allocations.''
       MDA is also free of requirements that all other major DOD 
     acquisition programs must

[[Page 7903]]

     undertake in regards to establishing baseline estimates of 
     cost, performance and schedule. If other programs slip in 
     meeting those predetermined requirements, Pentagon and/or 
     service managers must alert Congress. If any program sees 
     cost growth up to a certain amount in one quarter, it is 
     considered to have suffered a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, 
     which means DOD must alert Congress of the problem. If the 
     cost growth is over 25 percent in a single quarter, DOD then 
     must overhaul and justify the offending program. The 
     Ballistic Missile Defense System, however, is exempt from 
     these requirements. MDA officials have much more flexible 
     baselines for their programs. MDA can avoid having to report 
     programs' quarterly cost growth simply by changing cost goals 
     and estimates. Also, MDA has the responsibility of deciding 
     when it will alert Congress to schedule slips or cost 
     growths, since ``there are no criteria to identify which 
     variations are significant enough to report. Instead, MDA's 
     Director, by statute, has the discretion to determine which 
     variations will be reported.''
       MDA officials do not have to hold themselves accountable to 
     any particular standard or report if certain achievements 
     have not been met. And Congress has, up to now, refrained 
     from complaining about its lack of oversight over the $10 
     billion dollar a year MDA budget.
       Up to now, the only ``achievements'' reported by MDA have 
     been the flight test failures. The MDA has even stopped 
     announcing when it has emplaced new interceptors at missile 
     silos in Alaska and California. Ostensibly, this is because 
     of operational security needs, but in actuality, it is more 
     likely a move designed to avoid bad press as testing and 
     deployment goes forward.


NETWORK SECURITY AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING: FIGMENTS OF MDA'S IMAGINATION

       The Pentagon Inspector General's (IG) office came out with 
     two reports this winter that illustrate how every aspect of 
     the Ballistic Missile Defense System has seen sloppy work 
     indicative of low standards of oversight.
       The first report reveals that the communications network 
     linking the various radars, infrastructure, and elements of 
     the GMD system, is extremely limited. The IG's office noted 
     that the security documents in place for the system ``did not 
     properly reflect current operations;'' furthermore, MDA 
     officials ``had not fully implemented information assurance 
     controls required to protect the integrity, availability, and 
     confidentiality of the information in the [GMD] 
     communications network.''
       Because of this, ``MDA officials may not be able to reduce 
     the risk and extent of harm resulting from misuse or 
     unauthorized access to or modification of information of the 
     GCN [GMD Communications Network] and ensure the continuity of 
     the system in the event of a disruption.'' That is to say, 
     network security is lacking. So now, in addition to worrying 
     about whether the rudimentary system now deployed would 
     launch and target threatening missiles effectively in the 
     event of an emergency, planners have to head off the 
     possibility that some bored teenager could hack into the 
     system and disrupt it at a key moment.
       A draft version of this report recommended, ``MDA and 
     contractor officials should immediately cease operation of 
     the system.''
       The security procedures for the GMD Communications Network 
     were completely bungled, as the IG report indicates. For one, 
     ``[C]ontingency plans and system rules of behavior had not 
     been prepared to assist users.'' Group passwords were used to 
     access the unencrypted communications system, even though 
     individual passwords were required. Documentation for the 
     unencrypted system had the encrypted system's security 
     concept (defined in the document as ``a description of the 
     GCN security requirements and the resources needed to meet 
     those requirements''), while the encrypted system's 
     documentation didn't contain any security concepts. Explains 
     the IG's office, ``This oversight occurred because the 
     encrypted equipment and the unencrypted equipment were 
     developed by two separate contractors [respectively, Boeing 
     and Northrop Grumman], who were not following a common set of 
     procedures for preparing documentation.''
       The few information assurance controls that were built for 
     the network were sadly out of date. The network was created 
     by program officials to conform to ``Department of Defense 
     Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria,'' a document 
     that is dated Dec. 26, 1985. This old set of criteria was 
     used instead of a more recent set of required criteria, found 
     in: ``Missile Assurance Categories (MAC) Levels for Missile 
     Defense Agency (MDA) Systems and Networks,'' dated Aug. 20, 
     2004.
       It would appear that network security was a low priority 
     for MDA, as the Communication Network's first information 
     assurance officer wasn't brought on board until June 2005, 
     long after the system had been in development--indeed, after 
     GMD had been declared to have reached an initial defensive 
     capability. No one was in charge of making sure the 
     contractors working on system had appropriate levels of 
     security clearance or were fully aware of their 
     responsibilities regarding network security.
       The IG's office was so alarmed at the absence of network 
     security practices that a draft version of its report 
     recommended that until fixes were in place, ``MDA and 
     contractor officials should immediately cease operation of 
     the system.'' While this recommendation did not make it into 
     the final draft, it signifies the gravity of MDA's lack of 
     planning.
       An interesting coda to this report was how the Pentagon 
     reacted once news of it hit the press. Federal Computer 
     Weekly ran a story on it March 16, 2006. By the following 
     Monday, the IG's office had taken the relevant report off of 
     its website, with only this as explanation: ``The Missile 
     Defense Agency requested that we remove this report from our 
     web site pending a security review.'' The report is now 
     marked ``For Official Use Only.''
       Another report by the Pentagon's IG office raised concerns 
     about another aspect of how the overall BMDS system's various 
     components would function together. According to it, ``The 
     Missile Defense Agency had not completed a systems 
     engineering plan or planned fully for system sustainment. 
     Therefore, the Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not 
     successfully developing an integrated ballistic missile 
     defense system.'' Systems engineering, the process of making 
     sure a developing weapon system meets the capabilities 
     required of it and ensuring it becomes operational, is a key 
     in making certain that ideas on the drawing board end up in 
     the final product. In a complicated architecture such as 
     missile defense that has interceptors and control stations on 
     the ground, in the air, and on the sea, involves numerous 
     radar and satellite networks, and dips in and out of various 
     Pentagon services and commands, systems engineering would be 
     imperative to guarantee that the various elements would 
     smoothly work together as planned.
       Its failure to provide a systems engineering plan is 
     partially due to the fact that MDA didn't follow 
     instructions. But, as seems to be often the case, the problem 
     also can be traced to the order speeding up initial 
     deployment. According to the IG office's report, ``Another 
     cause was that MDA was tasked with designing a single 
     integrated system from a group of preexisting acquisition 
     programs and fielding a missile defense capability quickly. 
     As a result, the BMDS ability to develop and integrate the 
     elements into a system that meets U.S. requirements is at 
     risk.'' Furthermore, ``because MDA was rushing to field an 
     initial BMDS capability, it had not fully planned for system 
     sustainment.'' System sustainment is described in the 
     document as ``a support program that meets operational 
     support performance requirements and sustains the system in 
     the most cost-effective manner.'' This conclusion is not 
     surprising, as ``cost-effective'' and ``missile defense'' are 
     rarely used in the same sentence.
       ``Missile Defense Agency is at risk of not successfully 
     developing an integrated ballistic missile defense system.''
       MDA also ducked creating a comprehensive Logistics Support 
     Plan, as it should have and was legally obligated to do. 
     According to the IG office's report, instead, ``each element 
     is responsible for planning the following eight logistics-
     support-related areas: supply; equipment; packing, handling, 
     storing, and transportation; facilities; computer resources; 
     technical data; maintenance planning; and manpower and 
     personnel. Sounds like a recipe for overlaps, gaps, and 
     confusion.


                          FLAT LEARNING CURVE

       While missile defense's spiral development is a phenomenon 
     of the Bush administration, the United States has been 
     working for decades on the capabilities being sought. A 
     recent CRS report pointed out that the kinetic energy kill 
     vehicle for the GMD system has predecessors dating back to 
     the administration of Ronald Reagan. While CRS typically 
     strives not to come down on one side or another of the issue, 
     the report does make some revealing statements. It sums, 
     ``The data on the U.S. flight test effort to develop a 
     national missile defense (NMD) system is mixed and ambiguous. 
     There is no recognizable pattern to explain this record nor 
     is there conclusive evidence of a learning curve over more 
     than two decades of developmental testing.''
       With four long-range kinetic energy intercept efforts 
     attempted since Reagan's 1983 ``Star Wars'' speech--Homing 
     Overlay Experiment (HOE), Exoatmospheric Reentry Interceptor 
     Subsystem (ERIS), NMD, and GMD--there should be some sort of 
     body of knowledge being built about how these systems work 
     that could be drawn upon as needed. The CRS report 
     acknowledges that the systems under development at various 
     times were different, but it reasons, ``[T]hey were built on 
     the limited successes of their predecessors.''
       ``The data on the U.S. flight test effort to develop a 
     national missile defense (NMD) system is mixed and ambiguous. 
     There is no recognizable pattern to explain this record nor 
     is there conclusive evidence of a learning curve over more 
     than two decades of developmental testing.''
       Examining flight test intercept attempts since the 1980s 
     for these long-range systems, the CRS dryly notes ``the 
     mostly unsuccessfully history of the effort.'' Additionally, 
     it

[[Page 7904]]

     highlights the absence of ``conclusive evidence of a learning 
     curve, such as increased success over time relative to the 
     first tests of the concept 20 years ago.'' Given that in the 
     near past, flight testing has slowed down and suffered from a 
     rash of quality control problems, it would seem that MDA 
     definitely has not learned which processes would help aid the 
     development of the GMD system. This is not to say that 
     progress has not been made. However, with this 
     administration's insistence on reinventing the wheel when it 
     comes to major weapons acquisition strategies, there seems to 
     be quite a lot of institutional knowledge regarding 
     development that is being ignored.
       CRS is unable to answer the two major questions about GMD. 
     It terms the possibility of eventually developing a workable 
     version of anything with that sort of capability as 
     ``ambiguous at this juncture.'' And it stoutly refuses to 
     speculate as to whether GMD would work in an emergency, 
     equivocating, ``Currently, there is insufficient empirical 
     data to support a clear answer.''


                       another guarded assessment

       Another report which is subtly skeptical about the reported 
     initial defensive capability of the GMD system is the January 
     2006 DOT&E report. This most recent version of the annual 
     assessment of the previous fiscal year's activities and 
     achievements for various Pentagon weapon systems came out 
     studiously cautious about the program.
       Highlighting GMD's flight test failures, when the 
     interceptor rocket failed to leave the launch pad in both 
     cases, the DOT&E report still inexplicably claims, 
     ``Developmental testing to date indicates that the GMD system 
     may have some inherent defensive capability against a limited 
     missile attack.'' But this is a downgrade from the previous 
     year's assessment of GMD, which had said it ``should have 
     some limited capability.''
       ``Flight tests still lack operational realism. This will 
     remain the case over the next year.''
       At any rate, the DOT&E report does support other critiques 
     of GMD. It explains the flight test failures as a result of 
     ``Quality, workmanship, and inadequate ground testing.'' 
     Across the board, GMD quality control has been appalling, a 
     turn of events that is surprising given the political 
     spotlight shining on the system. Whether this deficiency in 
     quality control is primarily the result of the insufficient 
     oversight or a natural by-product of fast-forwarded fielding 
     is hard to determine. Either way, it is an area that should 
     require the immediate attention of MDA leadership and program 
     managers.
       The DOT&E report echoes claims made by many critics in 
     warning, ``Flight tests still lack operational realism. This 
     will remain the case over the next year.'' Moreover, ``Robust 
     testing is limited by the immaturity of some components.'' 
     This can all be interpreted as dubiousness about GMD's flight 
     test program and assertions that the interceptors' 
     effectiveness in defending the United States against missile 
     attack can be extrapolated from the meager successes it has 
     achieved to date. As the DOT&E report comments, ``The lack of 
     flight test validation data for the simulations that support 
     the ground testing limits confidence in assessments of 
     defensive capabilities.'' Modeling and simulation can only do 
     so much; after a certain point, actual flight tests must be 
     held to determine the reliability of the GMD system. Such 
     tests also must include scenarios that mimic the real-world 
     situations in which the GMD system could conceivably be used. 
     Otherwise, it will continue to be impossible to judge the 
     potential effectiveness of GMD as it is now being developed.
       The consistent delays of scheduled tests (or cancellation 
     of them, as was the case when MDA was rushing to meet the 
     2004 initial deployment deadline) means that chances to learn 
     about the GMD system are being missed. Each $100 million 
     flight test truly is a valuable learning experience for all 
     involved. The DOT&E report observes, ``[O]ptimistic estimates 
     for the development and integration of a GMD capability 
     result in frequent `fact-of-life' changes to the test 
     schedules.'' Wishing for a capability cannot create one. 
     Missile defense has long been distanced from reality and this 
     would be a prime example of the result.


                        doubling in seven years

       Looking to the future, expenditure on missile defense will 
     double in seven years if the current rate is maintained. A 
     recent CBO report examined spending on major weapon systems 
     and offered transformational and evolutionary alternatives. 
     The former would be options that ``place more emphasis on 
     acquiring the advanced weapons and capabilities that DOD 
     associates with military transformation,'' while the latter 
     would be a chance to ``forgo those advanced systems and 
     instead pursue upgrades to current capabilities.''
       ``[I]f, however, costs grow as they have historically, 
     pursuing the programs included in CBO's missile defense 
     projection will cost an additional $3 billion a year, on 
     average, peaking at about $19 billion in 2013.''
       Missile defense, given the tremendous size of its budget 
     (over $11 billion for missile defense-related programs in the 
     FY 07 budget request), was one of the programs chosen for 
     further scrutiny. The CBO had to guess as to the makeup of 
     missile defense's eventual architecture, as missile defense 
     has been excused from the normal Pentagon routine of having 
     to establish clearly defined cost, growth, and performance 
     parameters.
       Even with this limitation, CBO prognosticates that missile 
     defense expenditure will reach its crest of $15 billion by 
     2013, after which it would slowly decline once the programs 
     enter their operational stages. Yet the CBO admits it could 
     be higher: ``[I]f, however, costs grow as they have 
     historically, pursuing the programs included in CBO's missile 
     defense projection will cost an additional $3 billion a year, 
     on average, peaking at about $19 billion in 2013.''
       This is not the only possibility for missile defense 
     spending. The CBO's evolutionary alternative consists of, 
     ``DOD would deploy no additional ground-, sea-, air-, or 
     space-based missile defenses beyond those already in place. 
     Continuing efforts would be confined solely to research and 
     testing of missile defense concepts.''
       With all that objective government agencies have written 
     about missile defense's frailties and weaknesses, redirecting 
     the MDA's emphasis toward working with the technology that it 
     has and ensuring that it works properly makes a dangerous 
     amount of sense. But with the politicization of the program 
     and the prominence given to showing some sort of capability 
     in the field, it seems unlikely that this administration 
     would take this sensible tack. However, it remains as a 
     potent option that the next administration should keep in 
     mind.


                  taking off the rose-colored glasses

       Throughout these reports, several common themes emerge. 
     Unrealistic assumptions were made about the pace of missile 
     defense development. In fact, the overarching policy of using 
     spiral development seems to have backfired on MDA, as it 
     slowed progress instead of quickening the pace of 
     development.
       The decision by the president to rush the GMD program's 
     fielding created ripple effects that are still being 
     discovered. It inculcated a rushed attitude, where 
     contractors felt that quality control could be ignored just 
     as long as the 2004 deadline was met. Accordingly, GMD has 
     suffered a rush to failure that has put what would be a 
     laughable system in the field . . . if there weren't policy-
     makers who falsely believe that it can be depended upon to 
     provide defense of the United States.
       Another consequence of the heavy White House pressure is 
     that MDA has been exempted of most reporting obligations. In 
     theory, this was done to give MDA the freedom to explore 
     every technological approach possible in the hopes that it 
     would soon be able to whittle down choices to a manageable 
     few. It has done the opposite. Programs fail to produce 
     results, run over budget, and delay interminably--but are not 
     killed. Yet because there was no baseline that MDA had to 
     create for the programs, there is a great deal of difficulty 
     in trying to measure what could be termed progress.
       MDA's flexibility in accounting requirements has spilled 
     over into how it holds itself accountable. Last year's flight 
     test failures should have been a wake-up call to the agency. 
     After the second test failure in a row, MDA halted GMD's 
     flight test program while it held investigations. An 
     independent review team was created to determine the cause of 
     the failures and what practices would allow for a successful 
     launch. It had five key recommendations for the GMD flight 
     test program. According to the presentation given to Obering 
     in March 2005, MDA should: ``Establish a More Rigorous Flight 
     Readiness Certification Process [with the subcategory of Make 
     `Test as you fly, fly as you test' the standard]; Strengthen 
     Systems Engineering; ``Perform additional ground-based 
     qualification testing as a requirement for flight testing; 
     ``Hold contractor functional organizations accountable for 
     supporting prime contract management; Assure that the GMD 
     program is executable.'' While these are solid 
     recommendations, the primary cause of the flight test 
     failures--the rush to deploy--is played down.
       A Mission Readiness Task Force was also created to review 
     the preparation leading up to the GMD flight tests, and a 
     Director of Mission Readiness was established. The first 
     director was Adm. Kathleen Paige, who had been program 
     director of the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. She 
     retired in November 2005 and it is unclear as to whether she 
     was replaced.
       At any rate, MDA's operating mode, despite having created 
     these task forces, has not in any real way changed.
       What becomes apparent from reading these seven reports is 
     that changes are imperative. If MDA continues in the same 
     vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled 
     with a missile defense system that costs tens of billions, 
     possibly hundreds of billions, of dollars, yet provides no 
     actual defense. What's more, by diverting that money to an 
     unfeasible system, the United States will miss out on the 
     protection it could be getting from weapon systems that 
     actually work. An honest assessment of the overall 
     architecture is required before more time and funding is 
     lost.

  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I

[[Page 7905]]

yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because it would 
have a great negative impact on national security by severely 
curtailing or terminating programs that protect our country against 
rogue nations.
  Simply put, now is not the time to gut our missile defense programs 
by slashing the Missile Defense Agency's budget in half, given the 
threats posed by such countries as North Korea and Iran.
  This amendment would freeze in place both ground-based and the Aegis 
midcourse defense capabilities prior to finishing what we started with 
the Fort Greeley, Alaska, GMD installation. We have had tremendous 
success with the Aegis program. Six of the seven last intercept tests 
have been hits. Why in the world would you stop this now?
  In addition, this amendment would kill the Airborne Laser and Kinetic 
Energy Interceptor boost phase defense programs, just when both 
promises are approaching significant milestones in 2008.
  General Cartwright, Commander of STRATCOM, has repeatedly told me how 
important it is to stay the course with the Airborne Laser Programs, 
whose directed energy capability is of a critical importance to the 
Department of Defense. This amendment would kill the ABL program after 
more than $3 billion has been invested. It would be a tremendous waste 
of taxpayers' money not to go ahead and follow through with the ABL 
program to see how well it works.
  The amendment cites the Congressional Budget Office report on long-
term implications of current defense plans and alternatives. Let me 
repeat, ``and alternatives.'' The evolutionary alternative in this CBO 
report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement by CBO of cutting 
MDA programs. This report simply looked at the impact of future defense 
budgets, of alternative options to meet hypothetical, hypothetical 
spending targets. The CBO, and this was confirmed this today by my 
staff, does not endorse or support this proposal. It was merely another 
option as part of funding a ``what if'' drill, an academic situation, 
if you will.
  This amendment could drastically cut the budget of our missile 
defense. While we all understand the missile defense architecture is 
complicated and costly, long term, it is crucial in today's world if we 
will continue our primary national defense into the future.
  There will never be a time to cut investments in our Nation's 
protection. That is what this does. I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the Missile Defense Agency has before it 
really an impossible task. Our current missile system programs have not 
worked, and wishing will not help it to overcome the physics. The tests 
have failed repeatedly. It has been confused by decoys, faced numerous 
testing troubles, and despite spending over $100 billion over the 
years, we have failed to develop a working system.
  Mr. Tierney referred to the seven separate reports that are critical 
of various aspects of this program. Our amendment is not just pulled 
out of a hat, it focuses this program down to allow the Missile Defense 
Agency to work in those areas where it can make progress. The programs 
have gotten so far out in front of the basic facts that it is time to 
focus this down.
  You know, our colleagues say they do not want to shortchange our 
national defense, but I can assure you that cutting wasteful programs 
does not shortchange our national defense. Seven separate reports by 
independent agencies here say that aspects of this program are 
wasteful. They simply are not working. It is time to focus it down.
  You know, one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard is that we 
should deploy this missile defense system as a way to test it. I cannot 
think of any aspect of your life, any aspect of military preparedness, 
any aspect of business or industry where you work that way. It should 
be thoroughly tested before it is deployed. And to deploy something 
like this is worse than a waste.
  To deploy a flawed system, well, simple strategic analysis tells us 
that a provocative yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens 
the security of all Americans.
  The idea that we have sunk lots of cost is the argument that keeps 
coming back. That is one of the worst fallacies in human reasoning. We 
need to stop throwing good money after bad and focus this program down.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friends on the other 
side, let me say that the gentleman is probably not aware of a missile 
which was deployed before it was finally finished, which the Israelis 
used.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) who is on the Intel Committee and also on the Strategic Forces 
Committee that handles missile defense.
  Mr. REYES. I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in support of 
the committee's efforts to obtain effective and fully tested missile 
defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.
  Today is not a time to be cutting funds from this critical program. I 
am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would 
impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems, because just 
this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a 
simulated target.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to slow down this important theater 
defense program. I urge my colleagues to support this committee's 
bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of 
the Committee's efforts to obtain effective, fully-tested missile 
defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.
  H.R. 5122 redirects missile defense funding from longer range 
programs--such as the multiple kill vehicle--to near term needs, such 
as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can 
protect our service members and allies today. It also places 
restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse 
defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally 
realistic warheads, and it prevents any development of space-based 
interceptors.
  While we might disagree about whether further adjustments or 
reductions are possible, I commend the subcommittee chairman for this 
good-faith effort to develop a bipartisan approach to missile defense.
  The amendment before us today goes too far in radically restructuring 
missile defense programs. It would essentially freeze our missile 
defense capabilities at their current level and it would terminate 
numerous programs before we obtain useful information about whether 
they can improve our defenses against missiles launched by a rogue 
nation.
  I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment 
would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems. Just this 
morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a 
simulated target. We cannot afford to slow down this important theatre 
defense program.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Committee's bipartisan approach 
and to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, let me now yield any time remaining to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) who is also very knowledgable about 
missile defense and also on the Intel Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank my colleague from Alabama and also my colleague 
from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tierney-Holt 
Amendment. I do so reluctantly, because I respect the two gentlemen, 
and we serve on the House Intelligence Committee together as well.
  This amendment would reduce the Missile Defense Agency's $9.38 
billion roughly by half. And now is not the time to do that, to say the 
least. We have been involved in sensitive briefings lately on the 
Appropriations Committee and the House Intelligence Committee that talk 
about the threats that we have got to invest our technology in.

[[Page 7906]]

  In 2005, there were 60 launches that involved short-range ballistic 
missiles, 10 involved medium- and intermediate-range missiles, and 
about 10 involved long-range ballistic missiles. We have already 
invested heavily in several key programs to defend against this threat, 
and the programs are just now providing the kind of technology that has 
got to be refined in order to defend us.
  We have got sensitive intelligence issues, sensitive defense issues 
against this country. The negative impacts that this amendment now 
would have on the budget cuts would be drastic.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. 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. 10 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of subtitle C of title V (page 126, after line 
     12), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. SPECIAL OPERATIONS FELLOWSHIPS.

       (a) Fellowships.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe 
     regulations under which the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
     for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict may award a 
     fellowship to an eligible person, as described in subsection 
     (b), in a discipline determined by the Assistant Secretary. 
     The authority to award any amount of funds to any person as a 
     fellowship under this section is subject to the availability 
     of funds for that purpose.
       (b) Eligible Person.--A person eligible for a fellowship 
     under this section is a citizen or national of the United 
     States who is enrolled in or is eligible to enroll in a 
     program of education leading toward the completion of a 
     masters degree or a doctoral degree.
       (c) Fellowship Requirements.--
       (1) Doctoral degree students.--The recipient of a 
     fellowship who is a student enrolled in a program of 
     education leading toward the completion of a doctoral degree 
     shall agree to prepare a doctoral dissertation in a subject 
     area with military relevance that is approved by the 
     Assistant Secretary.
       (2) Masters degree students.--The recipient of a fellowship 
     who is a student enrolled in a program of education leading 
     toward the completion of a masters degree shall agree to 
     concentrate the masters degree on a subject area with 
     military relevance that is approved by the Assistant 
     Secretary.
       (d) Regulations.--The regulations required to be prescribed 
     under this section shall include each of the following:
       (1) The criteria for the award of fellowships under this 
     section.
       (2) The procedure for selecting recipients of such 
     fellowships.
       (3) The basis for determining the amount a fellowship 
     recipient will receive.
       (4) The total amount that may be used to award fellowships 
     during an academic year.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Before the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana, the Chair would ask anyone with a cell phone in the Chamber to 
turn it off.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, Special Operations Forces have played 
an increasingly important role in our wars against nonstate actors. 
Therefore, I believe we need to encourage our Nation's best and 
brightest military scholars to focus on the scholarly research needs of 
our special operators.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this new fellowship program will nurture and 
cultivate the kind of academic scholarship that will help our special 
operators gain an even greater upper hand against our Nation's 
adversaries. We supply them with the best weapons in the world. We 
must, as well, see to it that they benefit from the research of some of 
our Nation's best scholars.
  If enacted into law, my amendment would authorize the Secretary of 
Defense to prescribe regulations under which the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict will award a 
fellowship to an eligible person, as described in the legislation, in a 
discipline determined by the Assistant Secretary.
  The authority to award any amount of funds to any person as a 
fellowship under this section is subject to the availability of funds 
for this purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that we give our men and 
women in uniform all of the tools necessary to fight and win our 
Nation's wars overwhelmingly. And one way to do that is to give them 
access to the best scholarship available in their respective fields.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, 
although I will not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. In fact, I rise to support the amendment. The asymmetric 
threats that are based by our country today require a complex set of 
skills to successfully address those threats. Certainly the men and 
women of our Special Forces possess many of those skills. They do a 
fabulous job.
  And it is our job to try to assist them and facilitate them in their 
work. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment, I think, gives these 
American heroes one more tool, one more opportunity to excel.
  Asymmetric warfare certainly involves the use of force and the use of 
strategy on the battlefield. But it also solves intimate knowledge of 
sociology, language, history, physics, and perhaps other disciplines 
that go well beyond that.

                              {time}  1445

  Our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Skelton, has been a 
leading voice for military education throughout his time here. We think 
this amendment is consistent with Mr. Skelton's devotion to that 
principle.
  We want our Special Forces men and women not simply to be physically 
prepared, technologically armed and equipped but to have the 
intellectual tools necessary to do their job and defend the country. We 
believe this amendment serves those values well. We are pleased to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Hunter

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.

       Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Hunter printed in House 
     Report 109-461 consisting of amendment No. 18; amendment No. 
     11; amendment No. 12; and amendment No. 14.


               Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle B of title VIII (page 295, after 
     line 20), add the following new section:

     SEC. 815. OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CONTRACTOR 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) Report and Requirements Relating to Contracts To Be 
     Performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.--
       (1) Inspector general report.--Not later than March 1, 
     2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report on overcharges discovered 
     by the Inspector General under contracts entered into by the 
     Department for work to be performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (2) Assignment of sufficient contracting officers.--The 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
     Technology shall ensure that sufficient contracting officers 
     are assigned to oversee and monitor contracts entered into by 
     the Department of Defense for work to be performed in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan.
       (b) Requirements Relating to Employees of Defense 
     Contractors Operating Outside the United States.--
       (1) Background checks.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background 
     checks

[[Page 7907]]

     on foreign nationals hired by contractors (and subcontractors 
     at any tier) of the Department of Defense operating outside 
     the United States. The type of background check included in 
     such policy shall be suitable for employment screening and 
     shall, at a minimum, include a determination of whether the 
     potential employee is on a terrorist watch list or has a 
     criminal record. The policy shall provide for completing such 
     background checks as quickly as possible.
       (2) Prohibition on hiring certain employees.--A contractor 
     (or subcontractor at any tier) of the Department of Defense 
     operating outside the United States may not hire any person--
       (A) who has been convicted of a violent felony; or
       (B) who is determined by the Secretary of Defense to have 
     committed acts inconsistent with the policy of the Department 
     of Defense on human rights.
       (c) Report and Applicability of Defense Instruction 
     Relating to Contractor Personnel Authorized To Accompany the 
     Armed Forces.--
       (1) Report on implementation of instruction.--The Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     Department of Defense instruction described in paragraph (3). 
     The report shall include information on the status of the 
     implementation of the instruction, how the instruction is 
     being enforced, and the effectiveness of the instruction.
       (2) Requirement to apply to contracts.--The Department of 
     Defense instruction described in paragraph (3) shall apply 
     to--
       (A) contracts entered into by the Department of Defense 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act;
       (B) task orders issued after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act under contracts in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (C) contracts in existence on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act with respect to which an option to extend the 
     contract is exercised after such date.
       (3) Instruction described.--The instruction referred to in 
     this subsection is Department of Defense Instruction Number 
     3020.14, titled ``Contractor Personnel Authorized to 
     Accompany the United States Armed Forces''.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Jindal

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 1041. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OPERATIONAL PLANS FOR ARMED 
                   FORCES SUPPORT FOR CIVIL AUTHORITIES.

       The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments, shall 
     develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of the 
     Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities, 
     known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities missions. These 
     plans shall specifically address response options to 
     hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, pandemic, and other 
     natural disasters.


           Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI (page 237, after line 8), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 664. PHASED RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENTS OF PAY MADE TO 
                   MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

       (a) Phase Recovery Required; Maximum Monthly Installment.--
     Subsection (c) of section 1007 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) If the indebtedness of a member of the uniformed 
     services to the United States is due to the overpayment of 
     pay or allowances to the member through no fault of the 
     member, the amount of the overpayment shall be recovered in 
     monthly installments. The amount deducted from the pay of the 
     member for a month to recover the overpayment amount may not 
     exceed 20 percent of the member's pay for that month.''.
       (b) Recovery Delay for Injured Members.--Such subsection is 
     further amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by 
     subsection (a), the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) If a member of the uniformed services is injured or 
     wounded under the circumstances described in section 
     310(a)(2)(C) of this title or, while in the line of duty, 
     incurs a wound, injury, or illness in a combat operation or 
     combat zone designated by the Secretary of Defense, any 
     overpayment of pay or allowances made to the member while the 
     member recovers from the wound, injury, or illness may not be 
     deducted from the member's pay until after the end of the 90-
     day period beginning on the date on which the member is 
     notified of the overpayment.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Such subsection is further 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Under regulations'';
       (2) by striking ``his pay'' both places it appears and 
     inserting ``the member's pay'';
       (3) by striking ``However, after'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) After''; and
       (4) by inserting ``by a member of the uniformed services'' 
     after ``actually received''.


                  Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Mica

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI (page 237, after line 8), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 6__. SENSE OF CONGRESS CALLING FOR PAYMENT TO WORLD WAR 
                   II VETERANS WHO SURVIVED BATAAN DEATH MARCH.

       (a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) there should be paid to each living Battan Death March 
     survivor an amount that is $4 for each day of captivity 
     during World War II, compounded annually at a 3 percent 
     annual rate of interest; and
       (2) in the case of a Battan Death March survivor who is 
     deceased and who has an unremarried surviving spouse, such a 
     payment should be made to that surviving spouse.
       (b) Bataan Death March Survivor.--In this section, the term 
     ``Bataan Death March survivor'' means an individual who as a 
     member of the Armed Forces during World War II was captured 
     on the peninsula of Bataan or island of Corregidor in the 
     territory of the Philippines by Japanese forces and 
     participated in and survived the Bataan Death March.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the Schakowsky amendment, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois provides for additional oversight and accountability of 
Department of Defense contractors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It 
would make retroactive DOD regulations for contractors issued in 
October 2005 on previously issued contracts upon any extension brought 
about by an option.
  It would implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background 
checks on foreign nationals hired by contractors operating outside of 
the U.S. and would also require a DOD Inspector General report on 
contractor overcharges and require that there are sufficient 
contracting officers assigned to oversee and monitor contracts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Jindal would require the Secretary of 
Defense in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and 
State governments to develop detailed operational plans regarding the 
use of the Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities 
known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities Missions.
  The amendment that is offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky would provide 
that no more than 20 percent of a uniformed servicemember's paycheck 
can be garnished in a single pay period to recover overpayments that 
have occurred through no fault of the servicemember. That was always my 
contention.
  It would also provide a 90-day grace period before overpayment 
recovery can begin from servicemembers who are wounded or injured or 
who incur an illness in a combat operation or combat zone.
  Finally, the Mica amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should 
provide compensation to American veterans who are captured while in 
service to the United States Armed Forces on the peninsula of Bataan or 
the island of Corregidor, survived the Bataan Death March during World 
War II and have not received previous compensation provided to other 
prisoners of war.
  I might just say about that amendment, Mr. Chairman, these great 
Americans came back and met with many of us over the last several 
years, these great survivors of the Bataan Death March. And many of 
them, according to their testimony, were taken by ship after the death 
march in which many of them were killed, bayoneted, decapitated, 
otherwise killed; they were taken to Japan and in many cases were 
turned over to Japanese industry, including companies that are 
corporate giants today like Matsui and Mitsubishi. And these Japanese 
corporations took the Americans as slaves from the Japanese Government. 
They

[[Page 7908]]

turned them over to them as POWs. And they put them in slave labor 
operations, in many cases involving mines, for example, that were 
considered to be unsafe for Japanese workers. They would push the 
Americans into those mines.
  I can recall some of the Americans testifying when they came back and 
met with us on the Hill about the brutality that took place. The time 
one of our great survivors of the Bataan Death March from California 
had a rock fall on him in a cave-in in this unsafe mine that they were 
working in as slaves to these corporations, and his leg was crushed by 
a rock. And an American doctor who was also a POW operated on that 
Bataan Death March survivor with a single rusty razor blade and the 
anesthetic was to have the biggest guy in the POW camp knock him out 
before they did the operation, and then they used maggots to clean the 
wound. And that great American was back here testifying a couple of 
years ago to the U.S. Congress.
  Those POWs sought redress from the corporations which had used them 
as slaves in their operations saying we want to be paid for this work 
that we performed as slave labor. The corporations resisted this 
mightily in a series of lawsuits. And I thought it was sad that the 
U.S. Government intervened on the opposite side, on the other side from 
the American POWs, claiming that the treaty that was signed after the 
war essentially eliminated any rights on behalf of the POWs other than 
the one dollar a day that they received as compensation for their POW 
status.
  So those great Americans did not win. They ultimately faced summary 
judgments in American courts and received no compensation from these 
massive corporations. In fact, some of the biggest corporations in the 
world which when they enslaved these Americans were not nationalized by 
the Japanese Government, but in fact remain private corporations and 
developed a lot of their operations or carried on a lot of their 
operations using American slave labor.
  So the lawsuits were quashed and these Americans, those that still 
survive, never got any redress. So I would just say that Mr. Mica's 
amendment particularly struck a cord with this member of the Armed 
Services Committee, and I would recommend that all these amendments be 
supported.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member 
Skelton and their Armed Service Committee staffs for working with me to 
bring this amendment dealing with private military contractors to the 
floor. I really appreciate your help and that of your staff.
  My amendment would provide for additional oversight and 
accountability of the Defense Department contractors deployed in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Contractors compose the second largest force in Iraq 
after the U.S. military. This amendment does not attempt to make any 
statement on the decision to use contractors or about the wars in Iraq 
or Afghanistan.
  Now that we are more than 3 years into the war in Iraq, this 
amendment is intended to give Members of Congress new tools so that we 
can exercise our oversight responsibilities on what has become a major 
component of our military and to clarify the role of contractors. We 
can all acknowledge that military contractors should require the same 
stringent accountability and oversight standards as the U.S. military. 
After all, private contractors often served side by side with our brave 
troops, and these same United States troops are often tasked to protect 
our contractors who are paid with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  This amendment would help to provide increased accountability and 
oversight for our Defense Department contractors by, first, 
implementing a policy for conducting comprehensive background checks on 
foreign nationals hired by our contractors. We want to know who these 
individuals are and what their backgrounds are and if they are suitable 
for that role. It also prohibits the hiring of any person that has been 
convicted of a violent crime or a human rights violation.
  Second, this amendment makes retroactive new Department of Defense 
rules for contractors on contracts that are already in existence or on 
any contract extension. For example, it makes perfectly clear that 
combatant commanders are in charge. It outlines carefully that 
relationship between combatant commanders and contractors so that there 
is a structure of command or part of the chain of command. The 
combatant commander decides whether or not they carry a gun, what 
uniform they would wear and that they have to respond to the combatant 
commander.
  It also would say that anyone that is a contractor or an employee of 
a contractor must obey the laws of the host country, of international 
law and U.S. law.
  Third, it requires a Department of Defense Inspector General report 
on contractor overcharges, requires that there are sufficient 
contracting officers assigned to monitor contracts in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I hope that in the future I can continue to work with Chairman Hunter 
and Ranking Member Skelton to address additional oversight issues 
regarding the use of military contractors. I also hope we will continue 
to consider the impact that utilizing contractors has on our military. 
And I would also like to consider additional means to make it easier 
for Members of Congress to see Defense Department contracts so we can 
better monitor them for signs of waste, fraud and abuse.
  Again, I thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton. I 
appreciate your support and attention to this important issue.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hunter 
for his leadership in bringing this legislation before us today.
  I am proud to support the bill which reflects the superior commitment 
to all of those defending the freedom of our Nation. I am certainly 
appreciative of being able to offer this amendment.
  It is a little known fact in the civilian world that when a soldier 
is accidentally overpaid as a result of a military pay system error, 
the sum can be recouped in the form of a zero sum paycheck also known 
as ``no pay due.''
  This is a problem long acknowledged by America's military community 
and service organizations and has been documented by numerous news 
organizations including ABC News, Army Times, and service organization 
publications.
  Overpayments occur when the military's pay and personnel systems 
which are currently neither automated nor integrated with one another, 
do not accurately reflect a soldier's current status and are 
distressingly common when pay grade assignment or geographical changes 
are involved. Furthermore, while overcompensation can occur in small 
amounts over time, the full amount can be recouped by garnishing large 
portions of entire paychecks when over payment is detected.
  The immediate and often unexpected financial burden this places on 
military families is in many cases overwhelming. Perhaps most 
disturbing is the common occurrence of ``no pay due'' for wounded 
soldiers. System failure to recognize cessation of combat pay or other 
allowances often results in continued compensation which then results 
in garnishment when the system catches up, all at a time when a wounded 
soldier's family is most vulnerable.
  My amendment simply requires that no more than 20 percent of a 
soldier's paycheck can be garnished in one pay period to recover 
overpayment resulting from system error. It would also institute a 90-
day grace period before recovery of overpayments can begin for wounded 
soldiers. This will ensure that families are not blind-sided by 
recovery of debt incurred as no fault of their own and often with no 
knowledge.

[[Page 7909]]

  I ask for my colleagues to support this amendment which carries no 
cost and which does not seek to absolve debt, but merely to ease its 
recovery for our military families already serving so selflessly in 
defense of this Nation. I hope you will join me in lifting the burden 
of no pay due. Thank you. Our soldiers and their families deserve 
better.

                              {time}  1500


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is 
it in order to ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes beyond 
what has been allotted?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). The Chair may entertain such 
request on terms congruent with the order of the House; that is, with 
the time divided equally between the sides.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
enlarge the debate for both sides by 4 minutes.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank Chairman Hunter, the 
staff and members of the committee for their very good work on this 
bill.
  I rise to offer an amendment. The National Guard and active duty 
military troops and assets deployed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
constituted one of the Nation's largest domestic deployments of 
military assets since the Civil War. The National Guard and active duty 
military response saved lives, provided urgent food, water, shelter and 
medical care to many hurricane victims.
  The deployment of National Guard forces before active duty troops is 
consistent with current U.S. Department of Defense strategy for 
homeland defense and civil support, which relies on the National Guard 
in the first instance for civil support.
  However, in the wake of these particular hurricanes, Federal and 
State officials lacked coordination and consideration of requests for 
National Guard and active duty troop deployments. Local, State and 
Federal offices had differing perceptions of the number of Federal 
troops that would be arriving and the appropriate command structure for 
all troops, causing confusion and diverting attention from response 
activities.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
with the Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments, to 
develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of Armed Forces to 
support activities of civil authorities in response to a catastrophic 
disaster.
  The amendment works to significantly strengthen the response options 
to hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, pandemic, and other natural 
disasters.
  My amendment is consistent with the findings and recommendations from 
both the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for 
Response to Hurricane Katrina and the report from the Senate Committee 
on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and it builds upon 
provisions in the base bill, which require DOD to maintain real-time 
capability assessments of responsibilities under the National Response 
Plan.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman.
  The defense authorization bill is one of the most important measures 
we take before the Congress because it sets the policy for the 
Department of Defense.
  The purpose of the amendment that I have offered and has graciously 
been included in this en bloc amendment is to recognize the service and 
sacrifice and make that part of our policy to again realize what took 
place with the victims of the Bataan Death March during World War II. 
This amendment also expresses the sense of Congress that the Department 
of Defense should seek to provide compensation to the remaining 
survivors.
  Those captured in the Bataan Death March spent an average of 3.5 
years in captivity in Japanese prison camps and forced labor factories. 
Chairman Hunter described some of the torture and forced labor.
  In order to compensate for the torture, malnutrition and forced labor 
they endured, the survivors should be provided at least what was then 
set forth, which is $4 a day for the time spent in captivity, and the 
bill provides for some compounded annual interest. Even private 
contractors who were captured and imprisoned received $60 per day. They 
were, indeed, victims of torture and injustice and unfairness.
  This amendment is important for Congress to recognize the 
unbelievable sacrifices of our soldiers who defended our Nation and 
fought in the Philippines.
  Very few survivors of the Bataan Death March are still alive today. 
In fact, one reason I got involved in this is because of a local 
veteran by the name of Sam Moody, and Sam passed away since I undertook 
his request. There are only about 900 survivors and widows. So it is 
not really the money. It is also the policy that we set here today.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


         Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. 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. 23 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania:
  At the end of title XII (page 419, after line 7), insert the 
following new section:

     SEC. 12_. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING COOPERATION WITH 
                   RUSSIA ON ISSUES PERTAINING TO MISSILE DEFENSE.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) cooperation between the United States and Russia with 
     regard to missile defense is in the interest of the United 
     States;
       (2) there does not exist strong enough engagement between 
     the United States and Russia with respect to missile defense 
     cooperating;
       (3) the United States should explore innovative and 
     nontraditional means of cooperation with Russia on issues 
     pertaining to missile defense; and
       (4) as part of such an effort, the Secretary of Defense 
     should consider the possibilities for United States-Russian 
     cooperation with respect to missile defense through--
       (A) the testing of specific elements of the detection and 
     tracking equipment of the Missile Defense Agency of the 
     United States Department of Defense through the use of 
     Russian target missiles; and
       (B) the provision of early warning radar to the Missile 
     Defense Agency by the use of Russian radar data.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment out of a sense of frustration. I 
was the prime author of the missile defense legislation in 1998, with 
our friend John Spratt, that passed the House with a veto-proof margin 
calling for a moving forward on missile defense. At the time of that 
debate and leading the debate, I said to our colleagues, as I committed 
to the Russians, that we would do joint missile defense in cooperation 
so as not to create any feeling that we were trying to achieve a 
strategic advantage over them.
  In fact, the weekend before the vote, I took Don Rumsfeld, Jim 
Woolsey and Bill Schneider to Moscow, along with several of my 
colleagues from the

[[Page 7910]]

other side of the aisle, to reassure the Russians that this was not 
about scoring a strategic advantage.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, this administration 
cancelled the only remaining program with the Russians on missile 
defense. That program, entitled RAMOS, had been attempted to be 
cancelled back in the 1990s, and Senator Levin joined with us in 
blocking that cancellation. By canceling the RAMOS program, we have 
sent a terrible signal to the Russian military and to their government 
at a time when we need to reinforce strategic cooperation with Russia.
  I would argue that there is no country that could assist us in 
dealing with both North Korea and Iran more than Russia at this point 
in time, but continuing to send mixed signals like the cancellation of 
our cooperation on missile defense is entirely taking us in the wrong 
direction.
  Now, General Obering, who is in charge of our Missile Defense Agency, 
agrees with me. In fact, he had negotiated a contract over a year ago 
with the Russian General Balyuevsky to gain joint cooperation on 
missile defense. It was the policy office of the Secretary of Defense 
that cancelled that contract that had been negotiated by General 
Obering. To me, that was absolutely outrageous and wrong, but yet, it 
has still not been corrected.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply designed to lay down a marker 
to this administration that we do have a need to work together with our 
Russian counterparts. They have assets that we can use. They have 
large, phased radar systems that can assist us in areas of the world 
that we cannot cover. They have the ability to provide targeting 
opportunities for us. They also have very sophisticated theater 
systems, including the S-400, the S-500 and the S-600, that we can work 
on jointly with them to learn the technologies and the techniques that 
the Russians have employed with their missile defense systems.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as a signal from the 
Congress, hopefully with bipartisan support, to the Pentagon and to the 
White House to get back on track, to do what the Congress mandated when 
we passed the Missile Defense Act back in 1998, and to begin and renew 
our cooperation, as General Obering has called for, with the Russians 
on missile defense cooperation, both at the theater level and at the 
strategic level.
  I would ask that our colleagues on the other side would see fit to 
join with us in having this amendment be included as a part of our 
defense authorization bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time on this and I would add that 
I support it. I compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I 
certainly think it is an excellent amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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. 21 printed in House Report 109-461 offered by 
     Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       At the end of title X (page 393, after line 23), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 10__. REQUIREMENT THAT ALL MILITARY WHEELED VEHICLES 
                   USED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN OUTSIDE OF 
                   MILITARY COMPOUNDS BE EQUIPPED WITH EFFECTIVE 
                   IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (IED) JAMMERS.

       (a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall take such 
     steps as necessary to ensure that by the end of fiscal year 
     2007 all United States military wheeled vehicles used in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan outside of military compounds are equipped 
     with effective Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jammers.
       (b) Funding.--The Secretary shall carry out subsection (a) 
     using funds provided pursuant to authorizations of 
     appropriations in title XV.
       (c) Report.--Not later than December 15, 2006, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees a report on the cost and timeline to 
     complete compliance with the requirement in subsection (a) 
     that by the end of fiscal year 2007 each vehicle described in 
     that subsection be equipped with an effective Improvised 
     Explosive Device jammer.


 Modification to Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 
     109-461 offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       Strike section 1 (page 2, lines 1 through 3) and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``G. V. `Sonny' Montgomery 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed 
to.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 811, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the modification, that the 
majority was so kind to agree to, would name this year's defense bill 
after one of the finest gentlemen to ever serve in this body, a former 
soldier, a statesman from the State of Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, 
and the author of the Montgomery GI bill.
  The bill does a lot of things this year that I think Sonny would be 
very proud of, particularly extending the TRICARE privileges to 
guardsmen and reservists, and since we are told that former Congressman 
Montgomery is under the weather, we hope that he is aware of what we 
are doing today because, again, I cannot think of anyone in our Nation 
who has done more to advance the Guard and Reserve than Sonny 
Montgomery.
  He caught a heck of a lot of heat from people when he used his 
friendship with then-President Bush to have the Guard and Reserve 
called up for the first Gulf War. The decision he made then, the 
decision President Bush made then, was absolutely the right decision, 
and it has led to the one-force policy that our Nation enjoys today.
  So, again, I want to thank the majority for working with me on that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly applaud your addition to your 
amendment. Sonny Montgomery was such a good friend when I first came to 
the House of Representatives. He, of course, was a senior member of the 
Armed Services Committee, gave guidance and advice; and I had the 
opportunity to be on the Personnel Subcommittee when his bill, later 
known as the Sonny Montgomery GI bill, came through, and I had the 
opportunity to work on an amendment at the subcommittee level, as a 
matter of fact.
  He was a true gentleman's gentleman, a real inspiration to those of 
us that worked with him, a credit to the House, a credit to the 
military, a credit to the National Guard, most of all a credit to our 
Nation. So it is certainly fitting and proper that you should name this 
measure after G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
will be brief.
  But I just want to say about Sonny Montgomery, I miss Sonny 
Montgomery. I can still see him in the House Chamber, and I can see him 
in the Armed Services Committee where he sat with us, and I can see him 
walking into the prayer breakfast.
  I am not a regular, but I happened to be there that morning, and he 
walked in when Floyd Spence was having a double lung operation. Sonny 
would

[[Page 7911]]

read the casualty roll, just like a soldier, and he said I have got 
news about Floyd and a hush fell over the breakfast. There were about 
30 Members there, Democrat and Republicans, and we thought he would 
tell us that Floyd Spence had passed away.
  Sonny did kind of a double-take at his notes, and he said Floyd just 
got married. Apparently, he had gotten married coming out of this 
double lung transplant operation a few minutes afterwards, and lived 
many happy years after that.
  But Sonny Montgomery was a spark of life in this Chamber. He was a 
great representative for the tradition of the military, Mr. National 
Guard. There is no question in the world you could posit to Sonny 
Montgomery and no statement you could make as a witness before the 
Armed Services Committee that it would not evoke from Sonny Montgomery, 
what would this mean for the National Guard? I do not care what the 
issue was, he managed to turn it into a Guard question.
  What a great, great American. He served in World War II and had that 
great feeling for our military, and he is in tough shape right now.
  But I have seen the gentleman's amendment to make this the Sonny 
Montgomery bill. How fitting and appropriate that we do that. Sonny is 
still alive, and I know that we usually do this for Members that have 
passed on; but Sonny is still alive and I say, good, and let us do 
this. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing this up.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I want to thank our colleagues and particularly Mr. 
Taylor and the chairman and ranking member for this tribute to our good 
friend, Sonny Montgomery.
  When I first came to Congress as a junior Member, it was Sonny 
Montgomery who kind of took the freshman Members under his wing from 
both parties and kind of taught us the ropes of how to work on the 
committee in a bipartisan manner.
  Sonny Montgomery is, in fact, a statesman. He was the kind of leader 
on defense and security issues that everyone followed and rallied 
around.
  Time and again, we had bills where leadership, under both Democrat 
administrations and Republican administrations, would want clean bills 
with no significant amendments. It was always Sonny Montgomery with his 
Guard and Reserve package that would ensure at least one amendment, and 
usually it was strong bipartisan votes because of his commitment, as 
Chairman Hunter has outlined, to our Guard and Reserve.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) has expired.

                              {time}  1515

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton) seek 5 minutes in opposition?
  Mr. SKELTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, Sonny Montgomery also was 
the individual who authored the Montgomery GI bill and is responsible 
for the education of our young people.
  So many have used that bill to go on to school, and it has had such a 
positive impact on the men and women that have served this country that 
Sonny's name is known by people far and wide in this Nation, not just 
because of his commitment to the Guard and Reserve, but to the 
continuing educational needs of our young people.
  I had the pleasure of accompanying Sonny on my first codel to North 
Korea. He led the delegation into South Korea. We drove up to the DMZ. 
Sonny led the official delegation to bring back the first remains of 
Americans from the Korean War. He handled that responsibility with a 
great deal of pride and responsibility, as Sonny Montgomery did on a 
continuing and frequent basis in representing this Nation and our 
President, in receiving the first remains of American prisoners that 
had been found by the North Korean Government.
  I would just add my name to the list of all our colleagues who have 
such high regard for Sonny Montgomery. He is a statesman, and the 
gentleman has done a great job in making sure that this bill is a 
lasting legacy to Sonny Montgomery's leadership.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
colleagues for their kind words about Sonny Montgomery. I would also 
like to remind my colleagues that the underlying amendment calls for 
telling the Department of Defense that by the end of fiscal year 2007, 
the Secretary of Defense will develop a plan to equip every wheeled 
vehicle that leaves a compound in Iraq or Afghanistan with an IED 
jammer.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted for the use of force in Iraq and therefore I 
share in the responsibility for the death of every young person and 
every not-so-young person who has been maimed over there. It is a very 
unfortunate tactic by our enemies to use improvised explosive devices 
that are remote detonated, which have resulted in over half of the 
casualties and injuries of Americans over there.
  Technology exists to jam the signal that triggers that charge. Many 
of our vehicles in Iraq have these jammers, but not all. Just as we 
would never dream of sending a helicopter out that does not have 
protection from missiles, or dream of sending a C-130 to land at 
Baghdad or Balad that did not have an antimissile defense, we as a 
nation should not dream of sending one Humvee or one truck outside of a 
compound that does not have the technology to jam that signal and 
protect the troops on board.
  I have been to most of the funerals of the south Mississippians who 
have died in this war, and I have visited most of the soldiers at 
Walter Reed who have been injured. In every instance they were either 
killed or injured by an IED, and I regret to say, in every instance the 
vehicle they were traveling in did not have a jammer.
  We are the world's greatest nation. We are going to spend $10 billion 
this year on national missile defense and we have not been attacked by 
a missile, and yet every day we are having young Americans killed by 
IEDs. I think it is time we tell the Department of Defense that we as a 
Congress want to see that every single vehicle in Iraq is protected, 
every single soldier, airman, Marine, every single Navy personnel who 
is traveling in these vehicles is being protected.
  I welcome the comments of the chairman of the committee, and I very 
much welcome his support of this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi on two 
counts, first for his offering the amendment on behalf of Sonny 
Montgomery, and secondly, for this IED amendment.
  I just want to tell the gentleman that we have just tested today a 
new equipment package that has great potential, that we should be able 
to move into theater that hopefully will be able to be used in 
dismounted form and mounted form and that could be used on virtually 
every vehicle that moves out of base camp or out of forward bases.
  I think this is absolutely the number one causation of casualties in 
the theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the IED has become the 
weapon of choice for insurgents, it is going to be used in other 
battlefields around the world. So our ability, our agility to move new 
technology through the process quickly and get it fielded is paramount, 
and this amendment helps to do that.
  I want to thank the gentleman for the value he has added to the bill 
by offering this amendment.

[[Page 7912]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Goode of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Goode

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252, 
noes 171, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--252

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

                               NOES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cardoza
     Evans
     Ford
     Garrett (NJ)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Owens
     Reichert
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1546

  Ms. BEAN, Mr. WYNN and Mr. FLAKE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. KIND, RUPPERSBERGER, CONAWAY, and RAHALL changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 141 I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 301, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--124

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler

[[Page 7913]]


     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--301

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cardoza
     Cubin
     Evans
     Ford
     Garrett (NJ)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1557

  Messrs. TAYLOR of North Carolina, CAPUANO and PASCRELL changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, this series of votes that we are in will 
be the last votes of the day and the week. As many of you know, there 
was some chance that the budget would come to the floor tonight. We 
made a lot of progress today, I am very optimistic that we will get 
there, but we are not there today. I just wanted all the Members to 
know what the plans were.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
continue.
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 109-459 offered by 
     Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 117, after line 6, add the following new subparagraph 
     (B) (and redesignate existing subparagraphs (B) and (C) 
     accordingly):
       ``(B) the frequency of assignments during service 
     career;''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 9, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary

[[Page 7914]]


     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--9

     Bonilla
     Buyer
     Cannon
     DeLay
     Hoekstra
     Johnson, Sam
     Linder
     Oxley
     Pearce

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cardoza
     Evans
     Ford
     Garrett (NJ)
     Green, Al
     Kennedy (RI)
     Owens
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1608

  Mr. PENCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that amendment No. 16 will 
not be offered.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this Defense 
Authorization Bill, H.R. 5122. Only a few months after ruthlessly 
slashing $40 billion in health care, education and job training 
benefits for working Americans, the Republicans have shamelessly 
brought forth a Defense Authorization bill that wastefully spends 
taxpayer dollars and does nothing to make this country any safer.
  This bill clearly demonstrates that this Republican Congress has a 
habitual problem of fiscal mismanagement. This legislation spends 
billions on the development of ineffective or duplicative weapons 
systems that pad the pockets of big defense contractors. In turn, these 
defense contractors thank their Republican sugar daddies by filling 
their campaign coffers.
  H.R. 5122 wastefully authorizes $9.3 billion on pie-in-the-sky Star 
Wars missile defense, a $184 million increase over President Bush's 
request and $2 billion more than the current level of spending. Rather 
than allocate billions for a Cold War weapon system that will never 
work, Republicans in Congress should address the real security threat 
posed by weapons that can easily be delivered or smuggled into America 
in a suitcase or container.
  The bill provides additional funding to build ships that the Navy has 
not requested and does not need. The Republican legislation also 
allocates nearly $46 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptors, $1.4 billion more 
than President Bush requested and $2.9 billion more than is currently 
spent. Yet these planes were initially justified as necessary to 
compete with a new generation of Soviet fighters that no longer exists.
  Since the collapse of the Russian air force, there is no nation that 
has, or is planning to have, fighter jets as dominant as those the U.S. 
Air Force currently employs in combat. In Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, 
the Air Force has demonstrated the superiority of existing U.S. planes. 
In addition, the GAO recently reported that the costs of the F/A-22 
Raptors have ballooned to $1.3 billion more than was budgeted for by 
the Air Force. Where does accountability begin?
  H.R. 5122 does not require the President to provide an exit strategy 
out of Iraq. Even after spending $315 billion on a misguided Iraq War, 
the Bush Administration has no clue on how to resolve the situation or 
an idea of how to get American soldiers out of the conflict.
  It is time to stop giving the President a blank check to fight an 
aimless war. The only thing that the $50 billion outlay in this bill 
guarantees is that the U.S. will be in Iraq longer than is necessary 
and that more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die without 
just cause.
  I am also very concerned that certain members of Congress have 
decided to support chaplains who want to push their own religious 
agenda rather than the military's commitment to religious tolerance. 
When chaplains join the military, they accept a duty to serve the 
military's mission in addition to their mission to God. In providing 
spiritual guidance to our soldiers, chaplains should never carry out 
their duty in a manner that divides or alienates soldiers of different 
faiths. Chaplains who press ahead with their own agenda ahead of the 
military's mission threaten the cohesiveness of military units and the 
effectiveness of our soldiers in carrying out their duties.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this wasteful and irresponsible 
bill. It is time we had a defense budget that lives within its means, 
stops wasting hard earned tax dollars on useless weapon systems, and 
accounts for what is truly required in Iraq.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5122. I 
would first like to thank the Chairman for including an important 
provision helping to provide access to health care for our Guard and 
Reserve members. This provision will, for the first time, allow all 
drilling Guard and Reserve members to purchase health coverage through 
TRICARE, the military's health care system. The provision will treat 
all of our citizen-soldiers equally, regardless of whether or not they 
were previously deployed.
  This is an issue dear to my heart. Over a year ago, I introduced 
legislation in the House that provided the basis for the provision we 
find in the bill today. During my visits to Iraq, I had the opportunity 
to visit with U.S. soldiers serving there, including many Iowans. When 
I asked what I could do to help them, the overwhelming response I 
received was, `Don't worry about us, but please do something to help 
our families at home, who are dealing with the fact that we are 
separated from them every day.' In my conversations with these soldiers 
and my constituents in Iowa, it became clear that our Guard and Reserve 
soldiers wanted--and needed--access to better health care for them and 
their families.
  We know that today, 40 percent of our enlisted Guard and Reserve 
soldiers and their families are uninsured. For soldiers who are 
deployed, family members receive temporary coverage under TRICARE. This 
coverage ends some time after they return, depending on the length of 
the deployment. Families that had health coverage prior to a deployment 
may be subject to waiting periods or exclusions for preexisting 
conditions when they try to return to civilian coverage. They are 
burdened with switching between TRICARE and private insurance, along 
with different hospital and physician networks.
  This is an unacceptable situation for our Guard and Reserve soldiers, 
who are almost certain to be sent to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, if 
they have not done so already. Guard and Reserve soldiers currently 
make up almost half of our forces serving in those locations. Yet they 
cannot purchase the same health coverage that full time soldiers access 
for free. The Federal Employees Benefit Program (FEHBP) covers part 
time civilian Federal employees if they agree to pay increased 
premiums. At a minimum we owe our citizen-soldiers the same access to 
health care with a cost sharing arrangement.
  Clearly the role of our Guard and Reserve forces has been transformed 
to play a central part in providing for the national defense. The 
greater requirements for sacrifice and service placed on the Guard and 
Reserve must be matched with greater commitment to them on our part.
  We owe it to our citizen-soldiers to provide them with access to 
affordable health care. Providing TRICARE access during all phases of 
service will provide an important tool to bolster recruitment, 
retention, family morale and overall readiness for the Guard and 
Reserve.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5122, a 
bill 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. This 
important legislation was made possible thanks to the leadership of 
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter of California and 
Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland. 
These leaders have taken a long and hard look at

[[Page 7915]]

how best to fulfill our national security needs, and they have led the 
committee into action. This is nowhere more evident and important than 
in the House's shipbuilding budget.
  This defense bill is nothing short of historic; it marks a turning 
point in Congress' view of the United States Submarine Force and our 
undersea fleet's role in the Global War on Terror and beyond. The House 
has validated what many of us have long known: that our submarine fleet 
is the backbone of our Navy's efforts in the Global War on Terror, and 
that it is critical to deterring aggression by potential adversaries.
  H.R. 5122 accelerates production of Virginia Class submarines to help 
the Navy meet its stated requirement of 48 ships. Without adding 
funding for two submarines per year starting in 2009, the U.S. 
submarine fleet will eventually drop to 40 or less, presenting our 
fighting forces with an unacceptable level of risk. It would be 
irresponsible to set a force level requirement and then miss that goal 
by some 20 percent. That is why this bill also requires the Department 
of Defense to maintain a submarine fleet of 48 ships, consistent with 
the Navy's stated needs. Shame on Congress should it ever turn its back 
on our Nation's naval requirements, especially in a time of war.
  Article one, section eight of the United States Constitution states 
that ``Congress shall provide and maintain a Navy.'' Our republic's 
charter document does not vest this authority with any other body--not 
the President, not the Department of Defense, and not special 
interests. Congress must ultimately take responsibility for a hollow 
Navy, and it is Congress that must answer to the American people if our 
sailors fail for lack of material support. Today, I am proud to say 
that this body has acted honorably and ably to execute this charge.
  Mr. Chairman, history tells us that we cannot wait for danger to find 
us. There is a growing threat across the Pacific that we simply cannot 
ignore. 70 years ago, with the leadership of another House chairman, 
Congressman Carl Vinson, Congress funded our shipbuilding accounts at a 
level that prepared us for the turmoil of World War II. Had this body 
not taken action years before the conflict, the Untied States Navy 
would not have had the capability to stand up to fascism overseas. In 
fact, in the first 18 months after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. had barely 
enough carriers to hold the line, let alone project power in the 
Pacific. At one point in November 1942, only two carriers were 
operational in that vast ocean. We can only imagine the outcome had 
Chairman Vinson chose inaction instead of resolve.
  Today, we must look forward with the lessons of our past. We must 
imagine our future if we let our Navy's submarine force atrophy at a 
time when its missions are only growing. We must try to envision what 
will come to pass if the U.S. Navy cannot check a near peer in the 
Pacific Ocean because it is overstretched and under-equipped. As we 
consider the current and future threats to our Nation, I am thankful 
that we have Members of the Armed Services Committee willing to act in 
the spirit of Chairman Vinson.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 5122 knowing that 
this bill represents a giant step toward facing the threats of today 
and tomorrow. We have won the first battle to supply this great Nation 
with the Navy it requires.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the 
Congressional Record.
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hunter: On May 5, 2006, the Committee on 
     Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 5122, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As ordered 
     reported by the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation 
     contains a number of provisions that fall within the, 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. These 
     provisions include the following:
       Sec. 312. Munitions Disposal in Ocean Waters
       Sec. 313. Reimbursement for Moses Lake
       Sec. 314. Funding of Cooperative Agreements
       Sec. 2917. [Now Sec 2822]--Restrictive Easements
       Sec. 3111. Plan for transformation of National Nuclear 
     Security Administration nuclear weapons complex
       Sec. 3112. Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure 
     Recapitalization Program
       Sec. 3115. Two-year extension of authority for appointment 
     of certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel
       Sec. 3117. Consolidation of counterintelligence programs of 
     Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 
     Administration
       Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation 
     before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the 
     bill. By the being not to seek a sequential referral, the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its 
     jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of 
     the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In addition, 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its right to 
     seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction 
     which are considered in the House-Senate conference, and asks 
     for your support in being accorded such conferees.
       I request that you include this letter and your response as 
     part of the report on H.R. 5122 and as part of the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
     House.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Barton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on International 
           Relations,
                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the bill 
     H.R. 5122, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2007. There are certain provisions in the legislation 
     which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     International Relations.
       In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, 
     I am willing to waive this Committee's right to sequential 
     referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving 
     consideration of the bill the Committee on International 
     Relations does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over 
     the subject matters contained in the bill which fall within 
     its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker 
     to name Members of this Committee to any conference committee 
     which is named to consider any such provisions.
       Please place this letter into the Committee report on H.R. 
     5122 and into the Congressional Record during consideration 
     of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the 
     cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this 
     matter and others between our respective committees.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters 
     being considered in H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.'' I appreciate you 
     working with me in your development of H.R. 5122, 
     particularly with respect to Section 911, Designation of 
     Successor Organizations for the Disestablished Interagency 
     Global Positioning Executive Board.
       The Science Committee acknowledges the importance of H.R. 
     5122 and the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     Section 911 and other provisions of the bill, I agree not to 
     request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Science Committee, and that a copy of this letter and of your 
     response will be included in the Committee report and in the 
     Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House 
     Floor.
       The Science Committee also expects that you will support 
     our request to be conferees on any provisions over which we 
     have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman. I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 
     5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2007.
       Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 5122 and 
     the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. 
     Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over 
     the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. 
     This, of course, is conditional on

[[Page 7916]]

     our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or 
     my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces 
     or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation 
     and Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter 
     and of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional 
     interest will be included in the Committee Report and as part 
     of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 
     by the House.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also 
     asks that you support our request to be conferees on the 
     provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
     Senate conference.
       Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hunter: H.R. 5122, the ``National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' contains provisions 
     that implicate the rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Judiciary. However, in recognition of the desire to expedite 
     consideration of this legislation, the Committee hereby 
     waives consideration of the bill.
       The Committee on Judiciary takes this action with the 
     understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5122, 
     the Committee does not waive any jurisdiction over subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation. The 
     Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any 
     House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your 
     support if such a request is made. Finally, I would 
     appreciate your inclusion of this letter in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the House floor. 
     Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on 
           Intelligence,
                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual 
     understanding regarding H.R. 5122, the Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2007. This legislation contains subject 
     matter within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence. However, in order to expedite 
     floor consideration of this important legislation, the 
     Committee waives consideration of the bill.
       The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence takes this 
     action with the understanding that the Committee's 
     jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation 
     are in no way diminished or altered. I also wish to confirm 
     our mutual agreement that the transfer of the Office of 
     Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration in no way impairs or affects the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's jurisdiction 
     over intelligence activities of National Intelligence Program 
     components of the Department of Energy, including those 
     carried out by this Office.
       The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment 
     to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and 
     requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I 
     would appreciate your including this letter in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5122 on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Peter Hoekstra,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Government Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2006.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Duncan On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed 
     Services ordered reported H.R. 5122, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Thank you for working 
     closely with the Committee on Government Reform on those 
     matters within the Committee's jurisdiction. I am writing to 
     confirm our mutual understanding with respect to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5122.
       In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of 
     H.R. 5122, the Committee on Government Reform did not request 
     a sequential referral of the bill. However, the Committee did 
     so only with the understanding that this procedural route 
     would not prejudice the Committee's jurisdictional interest 
     and prerogatives in this bill or similar legislation.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform 
     should H.R. 5122 or a similar Senate bill be considered in 
     conference with the Senate. Finally, I request that you 
     include our exchange of letters on this matter in the Armed 
     Services Committee Report on H.R. 5122 and in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this bill on the 
     House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom Davis,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. 
As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am 
grateful to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working with 
me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to 
Colorado.
  The bill includes language that highlights the importance of the High 
Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO and its need for 
enough aircraft to fulfill its mission. HAATS is the primary site for 
training military aviators on operations in hostile, high altitude, and 
power-limited environments under all seasonal weather conditions, such 
as Afghanistan.
  As a result of language I had included in the Defense Authorization 
bill last year, the Army National Guard pledged to provide two 
Blackhawks to HAATS, but I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order 
to sustain training requirements. The language included in this bill 
asks for the number and type of helicopters that are needed to provide 
the training necessary to sustain our war strategies and asks for an 
evaluation of the accident rates for deployed Army helicopter pilots 
who received high altitude training and those who did not receive such 
training. I think this information will further underscore HAATS' 
critical mission and the reason it needs more aircraft.
  Second, I worked with committee chairman Representative Duncan Hunter 
(R-CA) to include language in the bill to name a housing facility at 
Fort Carson in honor of my friend Representative Joel Hefley, who is 
retiring at the end of the year. In his 20 years representing 
Colorado's 5th Congressional district, Joel has served with integrity 
and honor and has been a fair and effective lawmaker. I have learned a 
great deal from Joel in my years in Congress, and I will miss his good 
company and collegiality.
  I also supported an amendment offered by Representative Hefley that 
requires the Defense Department to report to Congress that it has made 
every effort to acquire property from willing sellers before using 
eminent domain to expand Fort Carson's maneuvering site in Pinyon 
Canyon. Along with other members of the Colorado delegation, I will be 
watching these developments carefully.
  Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $3.1 million for the Air 
Sovereignty Alert Crew Quarters facility at Buckley Air Force Base. 
Currently, the crews are housed in modular trailers on the edge of the 
alert aircraft-parking apron, which do not comply with prescribed 
procedures identified by safety and Air Force Fire Protection 
instructions. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to 
build a facility to help aircrew perform their mission--supporting 
Homeland Defense capabilities throughout the United States--which was 
established in response to post 9/11 national strategy requirements.
  I am also pleased with many other provisions in the bill. H.R. 5122 
includes a provision I advocated to permanently authorize and fund the 
Freedom Salute Campaign and Welcome Home Warriors Program, an awards 
and appreciation program for troops returning from duty in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This program is a small but significant way for us to show 
our appreciation for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in 
uniform and their families, and is also helpful for retaining these 
dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces.
  There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our 
troops. An important one extends Tricare coverage to all Reservists, 
something Democrats on the Committee fought for last year with limited 
success. So I'm very pleased that the bill expands this benefit and 
underscores the importance of providing the same set of services to all 
our servicemen and women. The bill also blocks the proposed plan to 
raise certain Tricare fees. It raises the end-strength of the Army and 
Marine Corps by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease 
the strain on our troops, and fully funds end-strength of the Army 
National Guard. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to 
increase recruiting and retention incentives, provides a 2.7% pay raise 
for members of the armed forces, and increases funding for up-armed 
Humvees and IED jammers.
  Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the 
bill's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, 
particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have 
relied on immature technology. The bill requires the Army to fully fund 
its maintenance, modular conversion and pre-

[[Page 7917]]

positioned war stocks or face a cap of $2.85 billion on FCS. Funding in 
excess of the cap would be transferred to reset equipment costs and 
modularity. H.R. 5122 also redirects missile defense funding from 
longer range programs to near-term needs, such as buying upgrades for 
the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our service members 
and allies today. It also places restrictions on developing 
improvements to the ground-based midcourse defense system until after 
it successfully intercepts two operationally realistic warheads.
  On a less positive note, Rules Committee Republicans denied Members 
of the House the opportunity to debate a number of key amendments which 
would have improved this bill. Among them was one offered by Ranking 
Member Skelton, which would lower the increased retail pharmacy co-
payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by Mr. Andrews 
and others to increase funding for nonproliferation programs; and an 
amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate 
``sensitivity, respect, and tolerance'' toward servicemembers of all 
faiths.
  Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and 
Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park 
Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement 
that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on 
Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There 
have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is 
opposed to it, and the Defense Department has not requested it. The 
Republican leadership should have allowed debate on this amendment, and 
I will work with my colleagues to see that conferees on the bill strike 
this language.
  The Rules Committee Republicans also refused to allow debate on an 
amendment on energy security that I offered and a similar one that I 
offered with my colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon. Even as Americans 
struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, Republicans rejected 
these amendments to increase funding for alternative fuels programs at 
the Department of Defense. America's addiction to oil from any source 
means that our security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we 
have the vision to look beyond the gas pump. I'm very disappointed that 
the Republican leadership doesn't see this as a priority.
  I'm also disappointed that the leadership and the Rules Committee did 
not provide for any debate on the prosecution of the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  On the whole, however, the bill we are considering today does a good 
job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities 
with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. 
It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of 
today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be 
the best trained and equipped force in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which 
it was debated on the floor was not all that it should have been. But 
overall, this is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, 
and I urge its support.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express regret 
for my absence during roll call vote 141. I was on the floor, but was 
unable to record a vote on an amendment offered by my colleague Virgil 
Goode during consideration of H.R. 5122, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. However I want to make it clear 
that I intended to vote `aye' for I am a strong supporter of this 
amendment.
  Representative Goode's amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense 
to assign members of the armed forces to assist the Department of 
Homeland Security in the performance of border protection functions. 
Securing our borders against terrorists, drug traffickers and illegal 
aliens is of great importance to our national security. I would like to 
point out that I voted for this exact same amendment last year when 
Representative Goode offered it during consideration of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  I am a strong supporter of H.R. 5122, the National Defense 
Authorization Ad for Fiscal Year 2007 and I voted for its final 
passage. Again, I apologize for being unable to cast my vote on the 
Goode amendment and I am pleased this important amendment made it into 
the final bill which I supported.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, like many proud parents this 
spring, I will be attending with my family the joyous occasion of 
watching my oldest daughter graduate high school. Unfortunately, due to 
this, I regret to inform you that I will be unable to participate in 
afternoon votes on Thursday, May 11, 2006.
  I wish to submit the following statement as to my position on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that I am proud 
to support and would have given a strong yeah vote had personal matters 
not called my away from our nation's capital.
  I commend this body, including the Chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee, for their work on crafting this authorization for 
our Department of Defense that will protect our troops as they ensure 
for the safety and security of Americans and our allies at home and 
abroad.
  The men and women serving and who have served in our armed forces are 
true American heroes. We must do what we can to give them the tools to 
win the War on Terrorism and win it safely.
  My heart and prayers go out to all who risk so much defending our 
liberties and freedoms. I wish all a safe and speedy return home to 
their friends and families.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As 
my colleagues have stated, this bill includes so many provisions 
important to our national security and to the fighting men and women 
who serve our great nation in uniform. Many of them are deployed in 
combat zones around the world today. I have visited servicemembers in 
Iraq seven times now and my commitment, like the commitment of this 
Congress, remains to do everything necessary to provide the heroes 
sacrificing for our country with the resources they need to fight, to 
win, and to survive. We continue our important commitment to their 
quality of life including to their families with this bill.
  I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member 
Skelton for the work that they and their staff members have done to 
include within this bill provisions important to the people of Guam and 
to servicemembers who serve on Guam.
  For many years leaders on Guam have worked to grow the capability and 
capacity of the Guam Shipyard, an asset recognized to be of ``vital 
strategic importance'' to the Pacific Fleet. We learned over the past 
year that twice as many vessels in support of our Navy are repaired in 
foreign shipyards in the Pacific, particularly in Singapore, than are 
repaired in Guam. We also learned that Apra Harbor in Guam is treated 
as a foreign harbor although Guam and its shipyard are properly treated 
as a U.S. location. This bill includes important language to remedy 
these conflicts. I am deeply grateful to members of the committee staff 
who traveled to Guam and Hawaii in January of this year to review this 
issue. I am also grateful to the many members of this committee who 
have visited Guam, including our colleague from Maryland, Roscoe 
Bartlett, and our colleague from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. Both Members 
visited the Guam Shipyard in March of this year and learned first-hand 
of the value the facility offers to the U.S. Navy.
  In rewriting Section 7310 of Title 10, the Committee on Armed 
Services has made clear that Guam, including Apra Harbor, is fully and 
properly a U.S. location, and has further made clear that foreign ship 
repair for reasons of cost alone is unacceptable, particularly when 
shipyards like the Guam Shipyard are underutilized. Our first 
commitment must be to sustaining and growing the ship repair industry 
in America even if such endeavor costs slightly more money. We cannot 
depend on foreign yards or harbors in time of war for safety, security, 
reliability and availability. We must therefore remain committed to 
America's ship repair industry by ensuring stable work, and by 
extension, the stability of skilled workforce that is the backbone of 
the ship repair industry. On Guam this is especially true given that 
the Guam Shipyard represents a particularly important asset because of 
its strategic forward location. This bill makes a commitment to the 
Guam Shipyard and its skilled workers whom the people of Guam are so 
proud. This is a reflection of the great value these workers offer to 
the Pacific Fleet and to our national security. It is also a reflection 
of this Congress' unwillingness to outsource our national security. 
Finally, the language in this bill regarding ship repair is a 
reflection of the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review which 
indicates the growing strategic importance of the Pacific with 
increased Naval activity in the Pacific and therefore the likelihood of 
increased demands on facilities like the Guam Shipyard.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note that this bill requires a 
comprehensive study on the future of the Guam Shipyard. It is important 
that the Navy fully evaluate, during this time of change, how best to 
utilize, manage and grow the asset that is the Guam Shipyard. The 
report required by this bill is a responsible measure that ensures that 
the future of the Guam Shipyard is coordinated with the future of our 
Navy's national security needs in the Pacific.
  Also included within this bill is an important provision that makes a 
commitment to our active duty servicemembers and their families. I

[[Page 7918]]

worked closely with the committee and with military advocacy groups to 
secure inclusion of a measure to authorize servicemembers assigned to 
non-foreign areas outside the continental United States, areas that 
include Guam and Alaska, to ship a second personally owned vehicle to 
and from these locations upon assignment. This measure has long been 
sought by our active duty service-
members. In an era when we say that we retain the family not just the 
service-
member, we have now passed a provision focused on the family. With 
military spouses pursuing their own careers and families venturing off 
bases for community activities, school commitments, and so much more, 
one car families are simply impractical--they are a thing of the past. 
Servicemembers assigned to non-foreign overseas areas, unlike their 
CONUS counterparts, are permitted to bring only one vehicle with them 
to their new duty station at DOD expense. This created a situation in 
which many servicemembers had to hastily sell a car prior to 
reassignment, usually at a loss, only to buy a new car on arrival at 
their new duty location, again at a loss. This activity as repeated 
upon assignment back to a CONUS location. This practice placed an 
unacceptable burden on military families. I am pleased that this 
Congress has made a commitment to end this inequity. I know this 
provision is broadly supported by active duty servicemembers and 
further has the support of The Military Coalition. I hope that this 
provision will be accepted in conference and remain in the final bill.
  Mr. Chairman, a third provision in this bill is important to Guam and 
to a recently reached agreement between the United States and Japan. 
This bill repeals a measure added in law some years ago to prohibit the 
hiring of foreign labor to work on military construction projects on 
Guam. Next year $209 million in military construction projects are 
authorized by this bill to take place on Guam. Over the next ten years 
$10.3 billion in military construction will be undertaken on Guam. The 
concern is now whether Guam can deliver the workforce necessary to 
accomplish these goals on this short timeline, not whether Guam's 
workforce is being supplanted or bypassed by foreign labor. Therefore, 
this authorization bill offers the opportunity to repeal this 
restrictive provision. Its inclusion will ensure contractors on Guam 
will be able to access the labor market needed for them to compete for 
and complete government contracts for military construction in the 
future. Additionally, without the ability to meet the upcoming 
workforce demands, there is some concern that agreements recently made 
with the Government of Japan for relocating Marines from Okinawa to 
Guam on a set timeline would not be able to be realized according to 
the envisioned, desired, and agreed upon schedule. Ensuring the 
availability of a workforce necessary to accomplish the construction 
required for Marines to move to Guam from Okinawa is an important part 
of meeting both the workforce demand on Guam and United States 
international commitments.
  I have also worked to provide relief to military retirees residing on 
Guam whom have been disadvantaged by a Department of Defense 
interpretation of standing law. Retirees on Guam are only able to 
participate in TRICARE Standard due to the unavailability of TRICARE 
Prime on Guam. Retirees on Guam were previously reimbursed for travel 
they were required to make to Hawaii or elsewhere for specialty medical 
care otherwise available on Guam. Now, in light of a change in policy 
some 16 months ago and unfavorable DOD interpretation of TRICARE laws, 
when a retiree is referred by their TRICARE health provider off-island 
to receive specialty care that is unavailable on Guam a retiree must 
pay ``out of pocket'' for their travel expenses. Travel from Guam to 
Hawaii is costly and this creates a large and unfair burden on Guam's 
retirees. Additionally, this situation results in inequitable treatment 
for the veteran communities on Guam. A retiree, having served at least 
20 years in the military, cannot receive reimbursement for travel 
necessary to receive medical care available only off of Guam. However, 
a veteran receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
referred for off-island care is reimbursed for his or her travel 
expenses.
  I have raised this issue with the Department of Defense several times 
and continue to work with DOD for an equitable solution. Retirees on 
Guam deserve some relief. While this bill contains provisions important 
to the TRICARE system for members of the military community, it does 
not specifically address the outstanding issue for retirees on Guam. I 
will continue to work to resolve this issue. I filed an amendment to 
this bill with the Committee on Rules that would have provided some 
relief to retirees. This amendment was unfortunately not made in order 
and cannot be considered on the floor today. This amendment sought to 
provide an interim solution. It proposed to give retirees the ability 
to travel on military aircraft on a space available basis to and from 
the location of their referred healthcare at an increased priority 
level. Retirees are currently in the lowest priority category for space 
available travel. I will continue to work with the Department of 
Defense on this issue.
  Finally, the island of Guam has a robust military recruiting program 
and many Chamorros and Guam residents join the Armed Services. In fact, 
Guam has a higher per capita service rate in the Guard and Reserve than 
any other U.S. location. However, for quite some time, these men and 
women have had to travel to Hawaii to process their enlistments at a 
Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). Included in this bill is 
language requiring the USMEPCOM to study the feasibility of 
establishing a MEPS station on Guam. The burden of processing each 
recruit through Hawaii significantly extends the time period for 
processing a recruit and adds additional cost for travel expenses. It 
is my hope that this review will lead to the re-establishment of a MEPS 
station on Guam responsive to Guam's Guard and Reserve and to U.S. 
active duty recruiters. I believe this would also reduce costs of 
processing a recruit and expedite enlistment.
  I was pleased to work with the committee leadership to amend a 
current requirement in this legislation in such a way to require the 
Department of Defense to more closely evaluate the transformation it is 
undertaking of the National Guard and Reserve. It is important that the 
Department of Defense study closely how it will execute and fund Guard 
and Reserve transformation, including evaluating budgeting of the costs 
for equipment repair, transfer and procurement as well as an evaluation 
of the timeline the transformation will prove achievable. I have long 
advocated for full parity between active duty and Guard and Reserve 
forces. Transformation is an aggressive plan to achieve this parity 
although with significant reorganization of brigades and units within 
the reserve elements. The task, the cost and the risks must be fully 
evaluated to ensure transformation is achieved and that it is done in a 
way that makes our Guard and Reserve forces, who have shouldered so 
much of the burden in the war on terror, a better force. This 
transformation promise cannot be yet another in a long line of 
unfulfilled promises by the active duty components to their reserve 
counterparts.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge adoption of H.R. 5122.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this enormous defense 
authorization bill. At $512.9 billion, this defense authorization is 
$2.7 billion more than the president's request.
  What concerns me most about this authorization, however, is that it 
seems to focus more on defending other nations than on defending the 
United States. U.S. troops are based in more than 100 countries 
overseas, in many cases guarding foreign borders and ports while our 
own borders and ports remain almost completely unguarded.
  The hundreds of billions of dollars spent overseas by this bill will 
do very little to defend the United States against attack. In fact, our 
interventionist foreign policy that is funded to a good degree by this 
bill actually makes the United States less popular overseas and may 
even unintentionally make the United States more of a terrorist target. 
At any rate, it definitely makes us less secure.
  This bill sends overseas hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign 
aid. For example, this bill will send almost $400 million as aid to 
Russia. Additionally, the bill will send $200 million to help build 
additional NATO bases overseas, even though the Cold War has been over 
for more than 15 years.
  This legislation will send almost two billion American taxpayer 
dollars to Central and South America in the hopes that the production 
of drugs overseas will be curtailed. We do know that much of the money 
spent on Plan Colombia and similar programs over the past few years has 
not made much of a dent on drug cultivation, but that much of it is 
likely being skimmed off by corrupt leaders overseas. There must be a 
better--and less expensive--way to deal with this problem than sending 
this much money overseas.
  The bill also opens the door for more military interventionism 
overseas, directing the Pentagon to report to Congress on any current 
or planned U.S. military activities in support of peacekeeping missions 
of U.N. or NATO forces in Sudan.
  Mr. Chairman, as a Vietnam-era U.S. Air Force veteran, I am in favor 
of a strong defense of the United States. I believe we need to focus on 
our own homeland security rather than spending half a trillion dollars 
on policies and programs that will not make Americans

[[Page 7919]]

more safe, but may well have the opposite effect. We need to re-focus 
our defense priorities on the United States, on our own borders and our 
ports.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Chairman 
Duncan Hunter and the Ranking Member, Mr. Skelton worked together in a 
bipartisan manner to produce a bill that places the highest importance 
on our war fighters. The brave men and women who wear the uniform of 
our armed services deserve nothing less than our support, and I am 
proud that this bill demonstrates our commitment to them.
  This bipartisan bill provides our military with improved capabilities 
and resources to carry out the important missions that we have asked of 
them. By increasing the pay for all members of the armed forces, this 
important bill recognizes the sacrifice and dedication of the men and 
women who serve our country.
  This bill also adds funds to better equip our soldiers both in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. By providing 
increased amounts for up-armored Humvees, improvised explosive device 
(lED) jammers and state-of-the-art body armor, the House bill 
recognizes the changing nature of current conflicts, and places a high 
value on the protection of our soldiers.
  I am also pleased that bill includes language which works toward 
ensuring that there is no capability gap in aerial intelligence 
gathering or strike force as the Air Force moves toward more modern and 
unmanned air vehicles. It is important that we do not lose valuable 
military assets currently provided by the U-2 or F-117 before there is 
an operational alternative.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 811, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Salazar

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

       Mr. Salazar moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5122 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House promptly with an amendment to the bill 
     that inserts the text of H.R. 808, to repeal the offset from 
     surviving spouse annuities under the military Survivor 
     Benefit Plan for amounts paid by the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs as dependency and indemnity compensation, as 
     introduced in the House on February 15, 2005.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I stand here before you today in support of 
our troops and their families. This motion to recommit would send H.R. 
5122 back to the Armed Services Committee with instructions to bring 
the bill back to the whole House with the addition of H.R. 808.
  I commend my friend Mr. Brown from South Carolina for introducing 
H.R. 808, a bill which now has 202 cosponsors, including myself. This 
bill would end the practice of penalizing surviving spouses of those 
who have died as a result of service-connected injuries.
  Mr. Speaker, the Military Families Tax affects over 50,000 families 
in the country. It is an unjust burden on those whose spouses served 
the Nation in defense of our freedom. I commend those families and call 
upon this House to vote an end to the unfair tax on survivor 
compensation.
  Right now, if a soldier dies, their spouse will have the amount of 
the Survivor Benefit Plan reduced by the amount they received from the 
VA as dependency and indemnity compensation. For the loss of a loved 
one, we penalize spouses with a $993 month reduction in their 
compensation. Our soldiers families do not deserve to be treated this 
way, and all of us should continue to fight until we can right this 
wrong.
  I offered an amendment last year to the defense authorization bill 
that would have eliminated this unjust provision, but we denied a 
debate. The other body chose to include SBP relief, but the defense 
conferees failed to adopt it, and we were again denied the opportunity 
to fix this problem.
  In November, my good friend, Mr. Edwards from Texas, started a 
discharge petition to bring H.R. 808 to the floor. That petition now 
has 168 signatories. Today, I ask my colleagues as fellow Americans to 
stand up for military widows.
  Let us make a statement here today that the Military Families Tax is 
unjust, unfair and un-American.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Speaker, we should send this bill back to the committee and 
demand that they ease the burden on our military families. America can 
do better to provide for the families of our Nation's military heroes. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House passed a tax bill that 
will give Lee Raymond, the just-retired CEO of ExxonMobil, a $2 million 
dividend tax break, a $2 million tax break for someone who was just 
given a $398 million retirement benefit package.
  That tax bill will cost $70 billion. $22 billion of that money will 
go to benefit those, such as Mr. Raymond, who are making over $1 
million a year. Surely if we could give Mr. Raymond a $2 million tax 
break yesterday, then today, right now with one vote, we can afford to 
give military widows a chance to keep their $933 a month in survivor 
benefits from the Veterans Administration
  The question is, whose side are we on? Mr. Raymond, a retired, 
overpaid executive from ExxonMobil, or some of the 50,000 surviving 
beneficiaries and family members, widows, of those who spent a lifetime 
serving our country?
  Mr. Raymond made more income in 1 week than most military families 
make in an entire lifetime of service to our country. Surely 
compassionate conservatism does not mean saying ``yes'' to Mr. 
Raymond's tax break yesterday, but ``no'' to treating our military 
widows decently today.
  I urge the 80 Republican colleagues of mine who cosponsored this 
legislation to back up your cosponsorship with your vote on this motion 
to recommit.
  Let us stand up for the military families of this country.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman, and I want 
to talk to the Members here to sadly inform them that our friend, Sonny

[[Page 7920]]

Montgomery is struggling in the last moments of his life. And I want to 
thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton from Missouri, 
for very appropriately and very fittingly naming this the G.V. 
``Sonny'' Montgomery Defense Authorization Bill.
  As you all know, Sonny Montgomery served in Congress for 30 years. 
For 14 years he was chairman of the Veterans Committee. His name and 
his legacy and his service are very rich and very deep, as he passed 
the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery GI bill.
  If you go back home to Mississippi, you see the G.V. ``Sonny'' 
Montgomery VA Hospital and National Guard complex. He was Mr. Veteran 
and he was Mr. National Guard, and he contributed greatly to the force 
that we have today and to the men and women who serve; and most 
importantly, he was an example to all of us of the best of this 
institution of civility, of common ground, of bipartisanship, of 
supporting the men and women that serve in our Nation's military.
  He has been my friend, and he has been my example. And so, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to thank you for naming this the G.V. ``Sonny'' 
Montgomery Defense Authorization Bill.
  Mr. Speaker, he was also the spiritual leader of the House, always 
calling us to prayer and to remember those in need, those that were 
sick, and those that were facing challenges. Mr. Speaker, I ask this 
body to pray for Sonny Montgomery. May God have mercy on him, his life, 
and his legacy.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlemen from Mississippi. I am going to 
miss Sonny Montgomery, with that great smile that illuminated this 
House and all of our lives.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this defense bill passed the committee by a 
vote of 60-1. It did that because we listened. My great partner on the 
committee, Ike Skelton, and I and all of our subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members listened to all of the members, worked all of the 
issues that connect your constituents with you, with all of our troops 
around the world.
  This is our connection, this defense bill, that provides for the 
policies that run their lives while they are in the military, that 
provide for the quality of life for their families back home, that 
provides for the tools that they need to undertake this dangerous 
mission in this war against terror.
  This is your connection. And let me tell you, the theme of the bill 
this year was troop protection. And to those ends, we moved over $100 
million into new jammer capability for IEDs, lots of money, lots of 
additional money for armored platforms, lots of new technology for body 
armor for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our Marines. At the 
same time, for our National Guardsmen, we completed this transition, 
even when they are not mobilized, for TRICARE, for our health care 
program. We did great things.
  And for those people who have fallen, I want to remind you that last 
year we moved up that benefit, and it should have been done a long time 
ago, to half a million dollars in cash for the families of our fallen 
heroes so that they could carry on their lives.
  This bill is your connection to the troops. We did a good job. And I 
would ask you to trust us, to trust the members of this committee. And 
with all due respect to the gentlemen who just offered this amendment, 
you will notice there was no motion to recommit offered by a member of 
the committee, and that is because this is a good bill. It does a good 
job. It gives the tools to the troops in this war against terrorism 
that they need.
  Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 5122, if ordered, and on the motion 
to suspend with respect to H. Res. 802.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 220, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--202

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

                               NOES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce

[[Page 7921]]


     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cardoza
     Evans
     Garrett (NJ)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Van Hollen


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1637

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 396, 
noes 31, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--396

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

                                NOES--31

     Baldwin
     Capps
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Markey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Stark
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cardoza
     Evans
     Garrett (NJ)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Smith (TX)

                              {time}  1645

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 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.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be present 
for the following rollcall vote today due to a death in the family. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 5122 (the National 
Defense Authorization Act).

                          ____________________