[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11904-11966]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5631

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2007, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty, (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $25,259,649,000.

  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his leadership and for the very hard work that he consistently does 
for the security of our Nation.
  I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an issue that is of great 
importance, and that is ensuring that our Federal dollars are not used 
to support groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow 
democratically elected governments.
  Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, we would not need to have to 
explicitly stipulate this, but events in Haiti in 2004 and in Venezuela 
have led me to believe that we need to codify this straightforward 
nonpartisan position.
  As we know, the administration has committed its second term to 
spreading democracy around the world, and this should not be a partisan 
issue. It is at the core of our Nation's values; and quite simply put, 
it is fundamental to who we are as a people and what we stand for as a 
Nation.
  However, Mr. Chairman, we need to be sure that this administration, 
or equally any future administration, that if they do not agree with 
certain democratically elected governments, that it does not use the 
Department of Defense funds to overthrow those democratically elected 
governments. Such actions fly in the face of our own fundamental 
democratic principles. So I would just like to ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) if he could comment on this and what his 
views are with regard to the ideas that we are presenting today.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from 
California I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a democratically 
elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's long concern and 
attention to raising this issue. And I want to assure her that as this 
bill moves forward we will be mindful to work with her and her staff to 
do everything we can to help.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, thank you, again, to the 
gentleman for his attention to this issue

[[Page 11905]]

and to so many issues that are important to our Nation. He is truly a 
courageous hero to many of our minds and many of our views, and we look 
forward to continuing to work with him and the entire House in standing 
up for democracy throughout the world.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for a 
colloquy. She has an amendment, but I hope we can discuss this.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of 
entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
and Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania.
  As indicated, I have an amendment that I was prepared to offer that 
asks for the same increase, 2.7 percent, that the Federal employees 
were getting for military personnel, which is now at 2.2 percent for 
the military.

                              {time}  1445

  One of the few issues on which all Members of Congress agree is that 
our military personnel are cherished defenders of our Nation, that we 
value them highly, that we are proud of them. Every day they stand 
between the status quo and an ideal for a better future and put their 
lives on the line to realize this goal.
  The current pay increase for military personnel in this 
appropriations bill is 2.2 percent. This is a total of $84.9 billion 
for military personnel accounts, which is $1.9 billion greater than in 
fiscal year 2006, but it is $1.2 billion less than necessary, I 
believe, to help us get to 2.7 percent.
  We just passed the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriation bill, 
which provided a 2.7 percent pay increase for civilian Federal workers, 
as well as targeted pay increases for a variety of enlisted personnel 
and officer grades. We need to make the strong statement that we value 
our Armed Forces just as much as we do our civilian public servants. My 
amendment simply increases military personnel pay by 2.7 percent over 
fiscal year 2006.
  Every day we are reminded of the sacrifice our children and our 
neighbors are making. Over 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq, and over 
19,000 have been injured. Several years ago military personnel were 
paid 13 percent less than comparable civilian pay. This gap, however, 
has narrowed within the past few years to 6.5 percent in fiscal year 
2005. And it is my goal to ensure that we will continue to narrow even 
more in the coming years.
  According to the fiscal year 2006 pay charts, after 4 months of 
service, newly enlisted individuals earn less than $2,000 per month 
even if they have completed ROTC courses or 2-year or 4-year college 
programs. Mr. Chairman, I know we can do better.
  I want to thank both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young of Florida for being 
steadfast warriors on the battlefield of benefits for our military and 
for increasing the benefits to their families and to them. I would hope 
with the increases in experience and education and commission that we 
are seeing in our young military that we will close the civilian gap so 
that our young military, our reservists, National Guard, and others 
will not suffer this, if you will, incompatibility with their needs.
  Finally, a May 2004 survey of reservists from the Department of 
Defense found that 51 percent reported an earning loss, including 44 
percent who reported a drop of 10 percent or more, and 21 percent 
reported an income loss of 20 percent or more. Although this may be due 
to differences in taxes and other factors, we need to make sure that 
those in Active Duty are not punished for serving. I hope, as we move 
through this process, the voices that will be heard will be Members 
like the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, that we must 
do more for our young men and women on the frontlines, our reservists, 
and our National Guard.
  I ask the gentlemen here today with me do they share my concerns to 
increase the salaries? And as well, I would hope that they would work 
with all of us to find a way to properly compensate and reward our 
brave men and women in uniform wherever they might be.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas 
that both the chairman and I have done everything we can to make sure 
that the pay is comparable with the civilian sector. In the past it was 
usually opposite.
  And what we are concerned about in the amendment you were going to 
offer was where it came from. So we are going to work something out. If 
there is an increase in the civilian pay, you can be assured that the 
Defense Department will get the same increase.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for her question.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  This is an amendment that I would have offered, and I am delighted to 
not have to be able to offer it. And I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania and thank the gentleman from Florida. And in noting all of 
their work, we have worked together, and I am very appreciative and 
hopeful that we will be able to work together on this increase in 
salaries and compensation for our brave men and women.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The reason I asked you to yield, Mr. 
Chairman, is that it strikes me that the entire membership should know 
that already Mr. Murtha and you together have lost out to the 
legislative branch subcommittee. It is a very unusual thing. I think 
maybe Mr. Murtha has lost control.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response 
to the gentlewoman's question, as Mr. Murtha suggested, we look for 
every way that we can to enhance the quality of life for the members of 
our military, to get as many pay increases and as many benefits as we 
can, because we recognize how important that these heroes are, these 
warriors are, to the security of our Nation.
  I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this issue, but I would say 
Mr. Murtha and I have looked for every opportunity we can to make 
things better for those who serve in our military.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $19,049,454,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $7,932,749,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of 
     the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $19,676,481,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with

[[Page 11906]]

     performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or 
     while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $3,034,500,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,485,548,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $498,556,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,246,320,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,693,595,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,038,097,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $11,478,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $22,292,965,000: Provided, That of funds 
     made available under this heading, $2,499,000 shall be 
     available for Fort Baker, in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions as provided under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army'', in Public Law 107-117.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,129,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $29,853,676,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $3,351,121,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $29,089,688,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $19,883,790,000: Provided, That not 
     more than $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $40,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary 
     expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: 
     Provided further, That of the funds made available under this 
     heading, $6,300,000 is available for contractor support to 
     coordinate a wind test demonstration project on an Air Force 
     installation using wind turbines manufactured in the United 
     States that are new to the United States market and to 
     execute the renewable energy purchasing plan: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement 
     the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison 
     office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office 
     of the Secretary of a military department, or the service 
     headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a legislative 
     affairs or legislative liaison office: Provided further, That 
     $4,000,000, to remain available until expended, is available 
     only for expenses relating to certain classified activities, 
     and may be transferred as necessary by the Secretary to 
     operation and maintenance appropriations or research, 
     development, test and evaluation appropriations, to be merged 
     with and to be available for the same time period as the 
     appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     any ceiling on the investment item unit cost of items that 
     may be purchased with operation and maintenance funds shall 
     not apply to the funds described in the preceding proviso: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $2,064,512,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,223,628,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $202,732,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $2,659,951,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau

[[Page 11907]]

     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $4,436,839,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; 
     transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized 
     by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and 
     issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished 
     from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department 
     of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same 
     basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel 
     on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $5,035,310,000.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $11,721,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation 
     purposes.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $63,204,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

              Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise, and for 
     defense and military contacts, $372,128,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $3,529,983,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $27,375,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve: Provided, That 
     $19,200,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph are 
     available only for the purpose of acquiring one (1) HH-60L 
     medical evacuation Variant Blackhawk helicopter only for the 
     Army Reserve.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,350,898,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $110,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $2,047,804,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2009, of which $218,481,000 
     shall be available for the Army National Guard and Army 
     Reserve.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,710,475,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $197,181,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; communications and electronic equipment; 
     other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and 
     accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training 
     devices; expansion of public and private plants, including 
     the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $7,005,338,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $534,360,000 shall be available 
     for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $10,590,934,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2009, of which 
     $154,800,000 shall be available for the Navy Reserve and 
     Marine Corps Reserve.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $2,533,920,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $775,893,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $19,600,000 shall be available 
     for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical,

[[Page 11908]]

     long leadtime components and designs for vessels to be 
     constructed or converted in the future; and expansion of 
     public and private plants, including land necessary therefor, 
     and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     as follows:
       Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $784,143,000;
       NSSN, $1,775,472,000;
       NSSN (AP), $676,582,000;
       CVN Refuelings, $954,495,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $117,139,000;
       SSN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $22,078,000;
       SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls, $189,022,000;
       SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $37,154,000;
       One DD(X) Destroyer, $2,568,111,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer, $355,849,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer Modernization, $50,000,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship, $520,670,000;
       LPD-17 (AP), $297,492,000;
       LHA-R, $1,135,917,000;
       Special Purpose Craft, $4,500,000;
       Service Craft, $45,245,000;
       LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $110,692,000;
       Prior year shipbuilding costs, $436,449,000; and
       For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $410,643,000.
       In all: $10,491,653,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2011: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2011, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $5,022,005,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $23,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,191,113,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $11,852,467,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $470,300,000 shall be available 
     for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $3,746,636,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,079,249,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009, of which $163,800,000 shall be available 
     for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $15,423,536,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009, of which $145,600,000 shall be 
     available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; expansion of public and private plants, 
     equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway, $2,890,531,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2009.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement 
     for the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $500,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard 
     components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense 
     committees the modernization priority assessment for their 
     respective Reserve or National Guard component.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $39,384,000, to remain available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $11,834,882,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2008.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Murtha

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha:
       On page 27, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount, 
     the following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by 
     $5,000,000)''.

  Mr. MURTHA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to restore funding for

[[Page 11909]]

an important national program known as PASIS, Perpetually Available and 
Secure Information Systems program.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the 
gentleman that, as he knows, this is something we had intended to do in 
the committee, and it is important that we do it at this point; so we 
accept this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. I appreciate it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $17,654,518,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2008: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Cobra Judy program.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $24,457,062,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2008.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $21,208,264,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2008.

                              {time}  1500


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
       Page 28, line 23, before the period, insert the following: 
     ``: Provided, That not less than $10,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph shall be used for prosthetic 
     research''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In the best of all worlds, Mr. Chairman, I 
would hope that the point of order could be waived; but at the same 
time as I discuss this amendment, I will acknowledge the leadership of 
the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee.
  Living near a veterans hospital, having the pleasure of having 
represented the veterans hospital in Houston, Texas, and living in the 
State of Texas and recognizing the facilities that we have dealing with 
the rehabilitation of injured persons including injured soldiers, I 
would say that this is one of the more important funding areas that 
this bill has an ability to address. Why? Because we realize that some 
19,000 of the U.S. military and the number is growing have been 
injured.
  As we know, both Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha have steadily provided 
insight as they visited the troops in many of our military hospitals, 
including Bethesda and Walter Reed; and as I have had the opportunity 
to visit those hospitals, as well as the veterans hospital in Houston, 
the Michael DeBakey Hospital, which I had the pleasure of naming in 
honor of Dr. Michael DeBakey, one of the world's renowned heart 
surgeons, but also a veteran of World War II.
  This idea of funding more prosthetics research is recognizing the 
cherished defenders of our Nation. It is giving them a second chance at 
life. This amendment would add additional funding of $4 million in that 
area. We know that every day they stand between the status quo and an 
ideal for a better future.
  Might I just say that we have seen some of the more heinous injuries 
coming from the IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops injured in 
Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars. 
Bulletproof Kevlar vests protect soldiers' bodies, but not their limbs.
  I am exhilarated that the rate of death is the lowest of any war we 
have fought in our history, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in 
that. Yet we must continue the responsibility of rehabilitation.
  The good news is that prosthetic research by the military has 
generated their finest quality of prosthetic limbs, and we have seen 
and I have seen young men and women experience the joy of being able to 
walk again or to use their arms again. They, of course, must now 
readjust to life at home, they must relearn how to move, how to eat, 
how to walk, how to go grocery shopping, how to cook and how to adapt 
to the rest of their lives.
  The importance of prosthetic research is increasing in light of the 
ongoing hostilities in Iraq and the growing sophistication of the 
improvised explosive devices used against our troops.
  I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital, we met a number of wounded 
soldiers, many of whom were badly scarred physically, and needed to 
have the knowledge that the prosthetic devices would be available for 
them.
  So this amendment is simple. It attempts to place special emphasis on 
work that is ongoing and the importance of continuing both the research 
and the funding regarding prosthetic research. This will help the 
encreased utilization of prosthetics for our soldiers. Someone out 
there is listening, I hope, in order to know that we are concerned 
about the many issues that impacts these soldiers' lives; and one of 
those issues is to have the opportunity to walk again.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida insist upon his 
point of order?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, 
reluctantly, I might say, against the amendment because it provides an 
appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may 
not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an 
earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would. I would like to yield to the 
distinguished ranking member to ask about his belief and concern about 
the importance of prosthetic research funding and continue to have the 
opportunity to work with him and Mr. Young on this issue.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not yield, but the Chair 
will hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, nobody has worked harder than Bill Young, 
his wife and myself in taking care of these troops at all the 
hospitals, all over the country. Just last year we put in money to 
start a new center for rehabilitation of people that had lost their 
limbs and so forth.
  We appreciate your recommendation. We hope you withdraw the 
amendment, and we will continue to work toward full funding, as much as 
we think is absolutely necessary for all these hospitals.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will take the time to 
discuss the point of order and not discuss it, simply to say this 
amendment's intention was to further highlight both the work already 
done by the ranking

[[Page 11910]]

member and the subcommittee Chair, but also to express the need in my 
particular locality in Houston, Texas, where a number of these veterans 
are coming back needing prosthetics.
  Let me thank the ranking member and the chairman for the work already 
done and ask at this time, as the moneys will be continue to be 
emphasized and the need already known, I will look forward to working 
with both of them as these funds continue to increase to help the need 
that is existing for those needing prosthetics coming back from the 
front line.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 73, line 5 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill through page 73, line 5 is as follows:

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith, $181,520,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2008.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,345,998,000.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the 
     necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $1,071,932,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides 
     for the acquisition of any of the following major components 
     unless such components are manufactured in the United States: 
     auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard 
     services; propulsion system components (that is; engines, 
     reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and 
     spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the 
     exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the 
     obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be 
     considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the military department 
     responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions 
     in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.

            Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund

       For the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund, 
     $18,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions, to include construction of facilities, 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 
     1521), and for the destruction of other chemical warfare 
     materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile, 
     $1,277,304,000, of which $1,046,290,000 shall be for 
     Operation and maintenance; $231,014,000 shall be for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation, of which 
     $215,944,000 shall only be for the Assembled Chemical Weapons 
     Alternatives (ACWA) program, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008; and no less than $111,283,000 shall be 
     for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program to 
     remain available until September 30, 2008.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $936,990,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this 
     Act.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $216,297,000, of which 
     $214,897,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $1,400,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2009, shall be for 
     Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding 
     level for continuing the operation of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
     $256,400,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $597,111,000, of which $27,454,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2009 and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008: Provided further, That 
     the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the 
     personnel and technical resources to provide timely support 
     to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community 
     by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials 
     collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and 
     national security investigations and operations.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in 
     this Act which are limited for obligation during the current 
     fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of 
     the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to obligations for support of

[[Page 11911]]

     active duty training of reserve components or summer camp 
     training of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $4,750,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using 
     authority provided in this section must be made prior to June 
     30, 2007: Provided further, That transfers among military 
     personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be 
     transferred under this section.

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act 
     may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such 
     contract--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a 
     budget request for full funding of units to be procured 
     through the contract and, in the case of a contract for 
     procurement of aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit 
     to be procured through the contract for which procurement 
     funds are requested in that budget request for production 
     beyond advance procurement activities in the fiscal year 
     covered by the budget, full funding of procurement of such 
     unit in that fiscal year;
       (2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include 
     consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the 
     contractor associated with the production of unfunded units 
     to be delivered under the contract;
       (3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor 
     under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred 
     costs on funded units; and
       (4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment 
     based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
       C-17 Globemaster; MH-60R Helicopters; MH-60R Helicopter 
     mission equipment; and V-22 Osprey.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and 
     maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and 
     similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust 
     Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated 
     states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free 
     Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the 
     Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical 
     education programs conducted at Army medical facilities 
     located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize 
     the provision of medical services at such facilities and 
     transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2007, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2007.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member 
     of the Army participating as a full-time student and 
     receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when 
     time spent as a full-time student is credited toward 
     completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this 
     section shall not apply to those members who have reenlisted 
     with this option prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, 
     That this section applies only to active components of the 
     Army.
       Sec. 8013. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor 
     Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available to convert to contractor performance an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by 
     more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees 
     unless--
       (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
     private competition that includes a most efficient and cost 
     effective organization plan developed by such activity or 
     function;
       (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over 
     all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers 
     for performance of the activity or function, the cost of 
     performance of the activity or function by a contractor would 
     be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that 
     equals or exceeds the lesser of--
       (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's 
     personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or 
     function by Federal employees; or
       (B) $10,000,000; and
       (3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a 
     proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of 
     Defense by--

[[Page 11912]]

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

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8014. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8015. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8017. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8018. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime 
     contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a 
     subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined 
     in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small 
     business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals 
     defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code 
     shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being 
     allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the 
     Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the 
     prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and 
     involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act 
     making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with 
     respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 430 of title 41, United States Code, 
     this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense 
     acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract 
     and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial 
     items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any 
     subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title 
     25, United States Code or a small business owned and 
     controlled by an individual or individuals defined under 
     section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code: Provided 
     further, That, during the current fiscal year and hereafter, 
     businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small Business 
     Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of Public Law 85-
     536, as amended, shall have the same status as other program 
     participants under section 602 of Public Law 100-656, 102 
     Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of 
     1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies of the 
     Department of Defense.
       Sec. 8019. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8020. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8021. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8022. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $36,188,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which--
       (1) $25,087,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol 
     Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug 
     activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving 
     youth programs;
       (2) $10,193,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force''; and
       (3) $908,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement, 
     Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive 
     reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for 
     counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies.
       Sec. 8023. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2007 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2007, 
     not more than 5,417 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in the 
     National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military 
     Intelligence Program (MIP).
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2008 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of

[[Page 11913]]

     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs is hereby 
     reduced by $25,000,000.
       Sec. 8024. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8025. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8027. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2007. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8028. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available during the current fiscal year and hereafter 
     for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
     Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines program.
       Sec. 8029. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8030. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey 
     at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian 
     tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units 
     located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force 
     Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing 
     units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for 
     such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the 
     Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes 
     located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, 
     and Minnesota.
       (c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation 
     Walking Shield Program shall resolve any conflicts among 
     requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection 
     (a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air 
     Force under subsection (b).
       (d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included 
     on the current list published by the Secretary of the 
     Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian 
     Tribe Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 
     U.S.C. 479a-1).
       Sec. 8031. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $250,000.
       Sec. 8032. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2008 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8033. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2008: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and 
     development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert 
     action programs authorized by the President under section 503 
     of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2008.
       Sec. 8034. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8036. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;

[[Page 11914]]

       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of 
     less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of 
     equipment that is in development or production, or contracts 
     as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense, 
     who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the 
     award of such contract is in the interest of the national 
     defense.
       Sec. 8037. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to--
       (1) field operating agencies funded within the National 
     Intelligence Program; or
       (2) an Army field operating agency established to 
     eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised 
     explosive devices, and, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Army, other similar threats.
       Sec. 8038. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the 
     Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, may use funds 
     made available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement 
     other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided 
     in the House report accompanying this Act, and the projects 
     specified in such guidance shall be considered to be 
     authorized by law.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8039. Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2006/2008'', $100,200,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2006/2008'', $76,200,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2003/2007'', 
     $15,000,000;
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2005/2009'', 
     $11,245,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', 
     $108,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2006/2008'', 
     $64,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', $29,600,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2006/2008'', 
     $138,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2006/
     2007'', $21,600,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2006/
     2007'', $42,577,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2006/2007'', $92,800,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     2006/2007'', $123,900,000.
       Sec. 8040. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8041. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8042. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands 
     and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of 
     pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be 
     incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and 
     Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve 
     provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to 
     Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence 
     Activities, including the activities and programs included 
     within the National Intelligence Program, and the Military 
     Intelligence Program: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National 
     Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8043. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003, 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.
       Sec. 8044. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.
       Sec. 8045. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction 
     shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as 
     defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball 
     or roller bearings purchased as end items.
       Sec. 8046. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8047. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8048. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Department of Defense who approves or 
     implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or 
     budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity 
     financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal 
     agency not financed by this Act without the express 
     authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for 
     in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts 
     providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense.
       Sec. 8049. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--

[[Page 11915]]

       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8050. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8051. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8053. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8054. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8055. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence 
     Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8056. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk will read as follows:

       Sec. 8057. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F/A-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Granger

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Granger:
       Strike section 8057 (page 73, lines 6 through 8).

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply deletes section 8057 
of the underlying bill. While there was merit in including this 
provision in 1997 when it was first enacted, the provision has become 
unnecessary due to comprehensive safeguards enacted into permanent law 
under the Arms Export Control Act, which is vigorously enforced by the 
Department of Defense.
  I believe this provision of this bill is no longer necessary to 
safeguard our technology. I have discussed this amendment with both 
sides, and I ask that it be adopted.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the original language I thought was extremely important 
at the time that it was adopted by the House. It was adopted as an 
amendment by Mr. Obey in 1997. But I believe that probably it has 
outlived its necessity.
  I would say to the gentlewoman that we will agree to this amendment. 
However, I would like to advise her and the House that as we move to 
the conference on this bill, we are going to be extremely involved in 
determining that the protection of our technology will be very, very 
positive. This aircraft, this weapons system, has a lot of great 
technology that we have to protect. So we have to work out the proper 
language, and we will do that as we go through the conference.
  We are willing to accept the amendment with that understanding.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the House needs to understand the history of 
this. Back in 1997, when the F-22 was first being contemplated, there 
was a controversy about whether it should be built, whether it was 
needed, given the capability of our other aircraft. We were told that 
we had to go ahead and construct the plane because we had given away so 
much technology by selling other high performance aircraft, F-15s, F-
16s, that we had to regain our technological edge.
  So I said, well, if that is the case, if we are going to build the 
thing, at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology 
edge this time. Hence, the language in section 8057.
  Now, I must confess that times may have changed, but I don't know 
that we are yet at the point that would justify removing these 
limitations. My own preference, given my biases about arms sales around 
the world, my own preference would be to impose the same kind of 
limitations on new aircraft that we are developing, such as the F-35, 
as we impose now on the F-22. But I recognize that that is not in the 
cards, given the mindset of the Congress these days.
  So given that fact, I would simply say that I have indicated on 
numerous occasions that I have an open mind and I would be willing to 
be persuaded, but I am not yet convinced that we are at the point where 
we ought to relinquish the controls on the export of this aircraft.
  I recognize what the committee is about to do, but I am significantly 
uncomfortable with it, and I am certainly not convinced that we have 
reached the point where we ought to remove these restrictions. I would 
simply ask the chairman, I would hope that if the

[[Page 11916]]

committee does intend to accept this amendment, that it will have an 
in-depth discussion with the Pentagon to make certain that we know 
exactly what we are doing in terms of the kind of technology that we 
might be letting loose, that it might not be in the interest of this 
country to do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman 
that protecting this technology is extremely important to this 
chairman. This is a super aircraft. It is just an unbelievable weapons 
system. Mr. Murtha and I have both seen it fly, we have talked with the 
pilots who fly it, we have seen the systems that they use, and this 
gives us technology superiority in the air. Anyone that goes into any 
kind of a battle will tell you that they want to make sure that those 
aircraft overhead belong to us and not to the other guys.
  So we are going to be extremely careful before we allow this to 
happen, that the technology will be protected and that it will be 
available, the aircraft, the sales would only be available to those who 
are unquestionable supporters, and allies, of the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that is useful, but I am 
still concerned about the fact that we will be allowing a very high-
technology aircraft to wind up in the hands of people who may be allies 
today, but God knows what they are going to be tomorrow.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find the exchange between the Chair, the ranking 
member, and the gentlewoman from Texas to be very interesting; I 
appreciate the sensitivity with which it is being approached by the 
subcommittee as we move on to conference. I hope that there will be a 
way, sooner, rather than later, that we can have a broader conversation 
about export controls and about dual use technology, because I am 
hearing on a regular basis that we are not correlating these in ways 
that are in the best interest of our national security and in terms of 
the way that we are practicing technology control in the ordinary 
course of business.
  Now, in the International Relations Committee we have fallen a little 
short of the mark because we haven't come forward with legislation 
under our jurisdiction dealing with an update of this issue. I would 
hope that the conversation that the chairman talks about could be done 
in a broader context in terms of what we are doing, to make sure that 
we are not driving other areas of technology overseas and working to 
our competitive disadvantage.
  I have also heard stories that I believe to be credible, which I look 
forward to maybe advancing further with the distinguished gentleman, 
where there have been situations where our allies are using our 
equipment, but we have artificial barriers in place to be able to have 
them use things like spare parts and technical manuals to be able to 
use them. I've heard there are odd sorts of jerry-rigged solutions that 
take place in the theater of battle that look to be on their face 
nonsensical and perhaps driving people to do things that in the long 
run may provide problems for protecting our technology.
  While I have no objection to this amendment and I appreciate the 
words of the chairman, I am hopeful that this can be done in a broader 
context to make sure that we are achieving our objectives, not freezing 
things in amber rather working against the long-term interests of both 
American business and American technology.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the 
gentleman makes a very good point, and it has not fallen on deaf ears.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8058. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8059. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made 
     available by this Act may be used to support any training 
     program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign 
     country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible 
     information from the Department of State that the unit has 
     committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all 
     necessary corrective steps have been taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible 
     information available to the Department of State relating to 
     human rights violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of 
     any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
     describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and 
     duration of the training program, the United States forces 
     and the foreign security forces involved in the training 
     program, and the information relating to human rights 
     violations that necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the 
     main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
     manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
     entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes or there exists a significant cost or 
     quality difference.
       Sec. 8061. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new 
     start advanced concept technology demonstration project may 
     only be obligated 30 days after a report, including a 
     description of the project, the planned acquisition and 
     transition strategy and its estimated annual and total cost, 
     has been provided in writing to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the 
     congressional defense committees that it is in the national 
     interest to do so.
       Sec. 8063. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a 
     classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment 
     of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as 
     directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 8064. During the current fiscal year, refunds 
     attributable to the use of the Government travel card, 
     refunds attributable to the use of the Government Purchase 
     Card and refunds attributable to official Government travel 
     arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management Centers 
     may be

[[Page 11917]]

     credited to operation and maintenance, and research, 
     development, test and evaluation accounts of the Department 
     of Defense which are current when the refunds are received.
       Sec. 8065. (a) Registering Financial Management Information 
     Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a 
     mission critical or mission essential financial management 
     information technology system (including a system funded by 
     the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A 
     system shall be considered to be registered with that officer 
     upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system, 
     together with such information concerning the system as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management 
     information technology system shall be considered a mission 
     critical or mission essential information technology system 
     as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
       (b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management 
     automated information system, a mixed information system 
     supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system 
     improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone 
     A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with 
     respect to that milestone, that the system is being developed 
     and managed in accordance with the Department's Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense 
     (Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as 
     appropriate, with respect to any such system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1).
       (c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen 
     Act.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated 
     information system may not receive Milestone A approval, 
     Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that 
     milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance 
     with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 
     The Chief Information Officer may require additional 
     certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such 
     system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification 
     shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and 
     milestone schedule for each system covered by such a 
     certification and confirmation that the following steps have 
     been taken with respect to the system:
       (A) Business process reengineering.
       (B) An analysis of alternatives.
       (C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (D) Performance measures.
       (E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the 
     Department's Global Information Grid.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology system'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section 
     5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       Sec. 8066. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8067. Notwithstanding section 12310(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, a Reservist who is a member of the 
     National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under 
     section 502(f) of title 32 may perform duties in support of 
     the ground-based elements of the National Ballistic Missile 
     Defense System.
       Sec. 8068. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing 
     demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under 
     a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing 
     projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by 
     the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture 
     ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of 
     Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant 
     to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military 
     Articles issued by the Department of State.
       Sec. 8069. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under section 2667 of title 10, 
     United States Code, in the case of a lease of personal 
     property for a period not in excess of 1 year to any 
     organization specified in section 508(d) of title 32, United 
     States Code, or any other youth, social, or fraternal non-
     profit organization as may be approved by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, or his designee, on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       Sec. 8070. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages 
     only for military installations in States which are not 
     contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.
       Sec. 8071. Funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year 
     may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the 
     satellite and ground control segments of such system's 
     modernization program.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8072. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $78,300,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other 
     activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and 
     carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property, 
     construction, personal services, and operations related to 
     projects carrying out the purposes of this section: Provided 
     further, That contracts entered into under the authority of 
     this section may provide for such indemnification as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary: Provided further, That 
     projects authorized by this section shall comply with 
     applicable Federal, State, and local law to the maximum 
     extent consistent with the national security, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 8073. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to 
     apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal year 2007.
       Sec. 8074. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $2,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department 
     of Defense, to remain available for obligation until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, these funds shall be available only for a grant to 
     the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction 
     and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs 
     of military family members when confronted with the illness 
     or hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
       Sec. 8075. Amounts appropriated in title II of this Act are 
     hereby reduced by $71,100,000 to reflect savings attributable 
     to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of 
     miscellaneous or other contracts in the military departments, 
     as follows:
       (1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $31,100,000.
       (2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $35,000,000.
       (3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', 
     $5,000,000.
       Sec. 8076. The total amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act is hereby reduced by $22,000,000 to 
     limit excessive growth in the procurement of advisory and 
     assistance services, to be distributed as follows:

[[Page 11918]]

       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $20,000,000.
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $2,000,000.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8077. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $77,175,000 shall be made available for the 
     Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That of this amount, 
     $13,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing 
     Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow 
     missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's 
     defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws, 
     regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made 
     available under this provision for production of missiles and 
     missile components may be transferred to appropriations 
     available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be 
     merged with and to be available for the same time period and 
     the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     contained in this Act.

                      (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8078. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', 
     $436,449,000 shall be available until September 30, 2007, to 
     fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That 
     upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the 
     amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
       To:
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     1999/2007'':
       New SSN, $15,000,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2000/2007'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $39,049,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2001/2007'':
       New SSN, $31,000,000;
       Carrier Replacement Program, $318,400,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2003/2007'':
       New SSN, $22,000,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2005/2009''; and
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $11,000,000.
       Sec. 8079. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or 
     compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under 
     section 7622 of title 10, United States Code arising out of 
     the collision involving the U.S.S. GREENEVILLE and the EHIME 
     MARU, in any amount and without regard to the monetary 
     limitations in subsections (a) and (b) of that section: 
     Provided, That such payments shall be made from funds 
     available to the Department of the Navy for operation and 
     maintenance.
       Sec. 8080. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2007 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.
       Sec. 8081. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     initiate a new start program without prior written 
     notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8082. (a) In addition to the amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $5,400,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made 
     available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant 
     in the amount of $5,400,000 to the entity specified in 
     subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to 
     opportunities for skilled employment in the construction 
     industry.
       (b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center 
     for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment, 
     a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided 
     for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth 
     in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 
     1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
       Sec. 8083. Financing and Fielding of Key Army 
     Capabilities.--The Department of Defense and the Department 
     of the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans 
     to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon 
     (NLOS-C) and a compatible large caliber ammunition resupply 
     capability for this system supported by the Future Combat 
     Systems (FCS) Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in order to field 
     this system in fiscal year 2010: Provided, That the Army 
     shall develop the NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS 
     development timeline to achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. 
     In addition the Army will deliver eight (8) combat 
     operational pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of 
     calendar year 2008. These systems shall be in addition to 
     those systems necessary for developmental and operational 
     testing: Provided further, That the Army shall ensure that 
     budgetary and programmatic plans will provide for no fewer 
     than seven (7) Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
       Sec. 8084. In addition to the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $13,000,000 
     is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall make grants in the amounts 
     specified as follows: $4,500,000 to the Intrepid Sea-Air-
     Space Foundation; $4,000,000 to the Center for Applied 
     Science and Technologies at Jordan Valley Innovation Center; 
     $1,000,000 to the Women in Military Service for America 
     Memorial Foundation; $2,000,000 to The Presidio Trust; and, 
     $1,500,000 to the Red Cross Consolidated Blood Services 
     Facility.
       Sec. 8085. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2008 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 
     31, United States Code shall include separate budget 
     justification documents for costs of United States Armed 
     Forces' participation in contingency operations for the 
     Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance 
     accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these 
     documents shall include a description of the funding 
     requested for each contingency operation, for each military 
     service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and 
     for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these 
     documents shall include estimated costs for each element of 
     expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and 
     decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic 
     data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each 
     Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major 
     weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency: 
     Provided further, That these documents shall include budget 
     exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of 
     Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency 
     operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal 
     years.
       Sec. 8086. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or 
     deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense 
     system.
       Sec. 8087. Of the amounts provided in title II of this Act 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
     Wide'', up to $20,000,000 is available for the Regional 
     Defense Counter-terrorism Fellowship Program, to fund the 
     education and training of foreign military officers, ministry 
     of defense civilians, and other foreign security officials, 
     to include United States military officers and civilian 
     officials whose participation directly contributes to the 
     education and training of these foreign students.
       Sec. 8088. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd 
     Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in 
     support of national defense requirements during the non-
     hurricane season.
       Sec. 8089. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for integration of foreign intelligence information 
     unless the information has been lawfully collected and 
     processed during the conduct of authorized foreign 
     intelligence activities: Provided, That information 
     pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in 
     accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment 
     of the United States Constitution as implemented through 
     Executive Order No. 12333.
       Sec. 8090. (a) At the time members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under 
     section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member 
     shall be notified in writing of the expected period during 
     which the member will be mobilized.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national 
     security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements 
     of the Armed Forces.

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8091. The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds from 
     any available Department of the Navy appropriation to any 
     available Navy ship construction appropriation for the 
     purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from 
     inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any 
     ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That 
     the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under 
     the authority provided by this section: Provided further, 
     That the funding transferred shall be available for the same 
     time period as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may not transfer any 
     funds until 30 days after the proposed transfer has been 
     reported to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, unless sooner notified by 
     the Committees that there is no objection to the proposed 
     transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority 
     provided by

[[Page 11919]]

     this section is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     contained elsewhere in this Act.
       Sec. 8092. (a) The total amount appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $45,000,000 to limit excessive growth in the travel and 
     transportation of persons.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction 
     proportionately to each budget activity, activity group, 
     subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity 
     within each applicable appropriation account.
       Sec. 8093. For purposes of section 612 of title 41, United 
     States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made under the 
     heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' that is not 
     closed at the time reimbursement is made shall be available 
     to reimburse the Judgment Fund and shall be considered for 
     the same purposes as any subdivision under the heading 
     ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' appropriations in the 
     current fiscal year or any prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 8094. The Secretary of Defense may present promotional 
     materials, including a United States flag, to any member of 
     an Active or Reserve component under the Secretary's 
     jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary, 
     participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, along with other recognition items in conjunction 
     with any week-long national observation and day of national 
     celebration, if established by Presidential proclamation, for 
     any such members returning from such operations.
       Sec. 8095. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions the 
     total amount appropriated in title II of this Act is hereby 
     reduced by $514,800,000, the total amount appropriated in 
     title III of this Act is hereby reduced by $93,900,000, the 
     total amount appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby 
     reduced by $315,900,000, the total amount appropriated in 
     title V of this Act is hereby reduced by $10,400,000, the 
     total amount appropriated in title VI of this Act is hereby 
     reduced by $10,350,000, and the total amount appropriated in 
     title VII of this Act is hereby reduced by $3,650,000: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall allocate this 
     reduction proportionally to each budget activity, activity 
     group, subactivity group, and each program, project, and 
     activity, within each appropriation account: Provided 
     further, That this reduction shall not apply to ``Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund''.
       Sec. 8096. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     to reflect savings from favorable foreign currency 
     fluctuations, the total amount appropriated in title I of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $23,200,000, the total amount 
     appropriated in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $32,800,000, the total amount appropriated in title III of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $22,100,000, the total amount 
     appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $20,200,000, the total amount appropriated in title V of this 
     Act is hereby reduced by $700,000, the total amount 
     appropriated in title VI of this Act is hereby reduced by 
     $700,000, and the total amount appropriated in title VII of 
     this Act is hereby reduced by $300,000: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction 
     proportionally to each budget activity, activity group, 
     subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity, 
     within each appropriation account.
       Sec. 8097. The Secretary of Defense shall, not later than 
     90 days after the enactment of this Act, submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report detailing the 
     efforts by the Department of Defense Education Activity 
     (DoDEA) to address dyslexia in students at DoDEA schools: 
     Provided, That this report shall include a description of 
     funding provided in this and other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts used by DoDEA schools to address 
     dyslexia.
       Sec. 8098. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used for the purchase of heavy and light 
     armored vehicles for force protection purposes, 
     notwithstanding price or other limitations applicable to the 
     purchase of passenger carrying vehicles.

                                TITLE IX

                       ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'', 
     $4,346,710,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'', 
     $229,096,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine 
     Corps'', $495,456,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $659,788,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', 
     $10,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel, 
     Army'', $251,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'', $24,280,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Navy'', $1,954,145,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Marine Corps'', $1,781,500,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Air Force'', $2,987,108,000: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', $2,186,673,000, of which up to $300,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, may be used for payments 
     to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating 
     nations, for logistical, military, and other support 
     provided, or to be provided, to United States military 
     operations, notwithstanding any other provision of law: 
     Provided, That such payments may be made in such amounts as 
     the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of State, and in consultation with the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, may determine, in his 
     discretion, based on documentation determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense to adequately account for the support 
     provided, and such determination is final and conclusive upon 
     the accounting officers of the United States, and 15 days 
     following notification to the appropriate congressional 
     committees: Provided further, That the Secretary

[[Page 11920]]

     of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     congressional defense committees on the use of funds provided 
     in this paragraph: Provided further, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army National Guard'', $220,000,000: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                           Iraq Freedom Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for ``Iraq Freedom Fund'', 
     $4,000,000,000, to remain available for transfer until 
     September 30, 2008, only to support operations in Iraq or 
     Afghanistan and classified activities: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein 
     to appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
     maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; 
     procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; and 
     working capital funds: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     provided under this heading, $2,500,000,000 shall only be for 
     classified programs, described in further detail in the 
     classified annex accompanying this Act: Provided further, 
     That not less than $1,500,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Joint IED Defeat Organization: Provided further, That funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That this transfer authority is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part 
     of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each 
     fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees 
     summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Army'', $132,400,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and 
     Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $1,214,672,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2009: Provided, 
     That the amount provided under this heading is designated as 
     making appropriations for contingency operations directly 
     related to the global war on terrorism, and other 
     unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made applicable 
     to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th 
     Congress).

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Army'', $275,241,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'', 
     $1,939,830,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, 
     Navy'', $34,916,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'', 
     $131,400,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
     Navy and Marine Corps'', $143,150,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'', 
     $28,865,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'', 
     $621,450,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $912,500,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $32,650,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air 
     Force'', $9,850,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'', 
     $121,600,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under 
     this heading is designated as making

[[Page 11921]]

     appropriations for contingency operations directly related to 
     the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
     related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital 
     Funds'', $1,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided 
     under this heading is designated as making appropriations for 
     contingency operations directly related to the global war on 
     terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related 
     operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 
     (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 9001. Appropriations provided in this title are 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2007, unless 
     otherwise so provided in this title.
       Sec. 9002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of 
     this Act, funds made available in this title are in addition 
     to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.

                           (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 9003. Upon his determination that such action is 
     necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense 
     may transfer between appropriations up to $2,500,000,000 of 
     the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this 
     title: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress 
     promptly of each transfer made pursuant to the authority in 
     this section: Provided further, That the authority provided 
     in this section is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense and is 
     subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority 
     provided in section 8005 of this Act.
       Sec. 9004. Funds appropriated in this title, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this 
     title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be 
     specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414).
       Sec. 9005. None of the funds provided in this title may be 
     used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in 
     fiscal years 2006 or 2007 appropriations to the Department of 
     Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, 
     development, test and evaluation new start program without 
     prior written notification to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       Sec. 9006. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds made available in this title to the Department of 
     Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed 
     $1,000,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with 
     the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to train, equip 
     and provide related assistance only to military or security 
     forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to enhance their capability to 
     combat terrorism and to support United States military 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such 
     assistance may include the provision of equipment, supplies, 
     services, training, infrastructure and funding: Provided 
     further, That the authority to provide assistance under this 
     section is in addition to any other authority to provide 
     assistance to foreign nations: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate not less than 15 days before 
     providing assistance under the authority of this section.
       Sec. 9007. (a) From funds made available in this title to 
     the Department of Defense, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be 
     used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to fund the 
     Commander's Emergency Response Program, for the purpose of 
     enabling military commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent 
     humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within 
     their areas of responsibility by carrying out programs that 
     will immediately assist the Iraqi people, and to fund a 
     similar program to assist the people of Afghanistan.
       (b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the 
     end of each fiscal year quarter (beginning with the first 
     quarter of fiscal year 2007), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     regarding the source of funds and the allocation and use of 
     funds during that quarter that were made available pursuant 
     to the authority provided in this section or under any other 
     provision of law for the purposes of the programs under 
     subsection (a).
       Sec. 9008. During the current fiscal year, funds available 
     to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance 
     may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to 
     provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift 
     and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces 
     supporting military and stability operations in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense 
     committees regarding support provided under this section.
       Sec. 9009. Supervision and administration costs associated 
     with a construction project funded with appropriations 
     available for operation and maintenance, and executed in 
     direct support of the Global War on Terrorism only in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan, may be obligated at the time a construction 
     contract is awarded: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section, supervision and administration costs include all in-
     house Government costs.
       Sec. 9010. The reporting requirements of section 9010 of 
     Public Law 109-148 shall apply to the funds appropriated in 
     this title.
       Sec. 9011. Amounts provided in chapter 1 of title V of the 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
     Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 are hereby 
     designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 402 
     of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 114, line 
24 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the 
bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 9012. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Government of the United States to enter into 
     a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. 1 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       Strike section 9012 (page 115, lines 1 through 4).

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I bring an amendment here to the 
floor that strikes section 9012 from the bill. The bill language under 
9012 says: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
by the Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights 
agreement between the United States and Iraq.''
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should not foreclose our options in 
Iraq, and H.R. 5631 prohibits the United States from entering into any 
military base agreement with Iraq. If we rule out all bases, we forego 
a critical part of diplomatic relations. My amendment would strike this 
section from the bill.
  Historically, basing rights agreements have been a necessary part of 
diplomatic relations with foreign governments. These agreements outline 
guidelines and conditions for operating American military bases 
worldwide. It is both common and responsible for the United States to 
enter into, and periodically renegotiate, basing rights agreements with 
countries hosting American troops. This has been done with every 
country hosting U.S. troops including Afghanistan.
  The newly elected democratic government of Iraq should be no 
exception, and it is likely and appropriate that basing agreements will 
soon be negotiated. In this way, my amendment respects Iraqi 
sovereignty.
  Prohibiting these negotiations will not make the problems go away. 
Rather, by refusing to enter into a sensible diplomatic dialogue, the 
United States would neglect its diplomatic duties. Opposing my 
amendment would tie the hands of those responsible for engaging in 
civilized diplomatic relations with Iraq, but supporting my amendment 
would allow for prudent decision-making and dialogue with the 
independent nation of Iraq.
  The use of the term ``permanent bases'' is a loaded term. The BRAC 
process clearly demonstrates there is no such thing as permanent U.S. 
military bases, even within the United States. Furthermore, military 
basing agreements can be negotiated for any length of time, including 
short term and temporary, and they can be renegotiated at any time. I 
am not proposing installation of permanent bases

[[Page 11922]]

in Iraq with this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I am simply asking that the 
United States be allowed to pursue this historically necessary avenue 
of responsible foreign relations.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I think that this amendment does the opposite of what he would hope. 
It sends a signal to the American public: we expect to spend time there 
forever. Permanent bases can be negotiated at any time with the 
government. What we are saying with this bill is that at this point in 
time there shouldn't be any permanent bases in Iraq. And when you 
strike this language, it does the opposite of the impact the gentleman 
wants to have.
  As I travel around the country, I hear this all the time. I hear the 
President say no permanent bases, I hear the Secretary of Defense say 
no permanent bases in Iraq. I am just reiterating what the policy of 
this country is, that we shouldn't have permanent bases in Iraq.
  Once we start down this road of permanent bases, I remember reading 
something where Harry Truman said we would be out of Germany in two or 
three years; we were there for 50 or 60 years. We are spending almost 
$8 billion a day, or a month, in Iraq. And I think one of the bases 
that we were going to build, the construction costs were almost double 
what they anticipated the permanent base we were looking at or at least 
the temporary base we were looking at would be. I can't imagine what a 
permanent base would cost if you are going to build it. You have got to 
have permanent security. There are all kinds of things that have to be 
built in.
  This is not the time to eliminate a provision like this, and I would 
hope that the gentleman would withdraw this amendment because it is 
very disruptive to what our troops are doing. We are trying to figure 
out a way to solve this problem. And when the gentleman offers an 
amendment like this, I think it has the opposite impact of what he is 
trying to do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us think that things that we say in this House 
are extremely important and to all of the Members in the House. But on 
occasion there are things that are said in this House that are heard by 
a lot of people not only in the House, not only in our districts, but 
in other parts of the world.
  I understand Mr. King's amendment, and I understand how serious he 
considers this to be; but what I am worried about is this: if we strike 
this prohibition from this bill that was well thought out, what we are 
saying to the Iraqi people and what I am satisfied the propaganda 
machine of al Qaeda in Iraq are going to do is use this and say: see 
there, we told you so. The Americans plan to occupy us for the rest of 
our lives.
  We don't have any plan to do that, and we don't want the Iraqi people 
to think that we are going to do that, and we don't want the American 
people to think that we are going to be constantly occupying Iraq. I 
understand Mr. King's interest, and most of the time I agree with him, 
but in this case I can't agree with him because I just think it sends 
the wrong message not only to the people of Iraq, not only to the 
people of America, but to the people of other Muslim nations who might 
say, hey, are we next? Are we going to be occupied? Are we going to 
have American troops in our streets? We don't want that to happen. We 
don't want that message delivered across the oceans. I think that we 
have to defeat this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Murtha, and I would 
invite participation of the chairman if he is so inclined, because I 
have an issue that I hope the conferees will consider when they meet to 
work out the final version of the bill.
  Specifically, I would like to ask that the conferees examine the need 
to include funding to provide for the videotaping of interrogations of 
detainees in U.S. custody.
  Now, as Members of this House know, I have before the House a bill 
that would, if enacted, require that all interactions between detainees 
at Guantanamo and similar facilities and U.S. personnel be videotaped. 
Videotaping interrogations would not only help deter any claims of 
actual or potential abuse of detainees, but just as importantly, it 
would protect the interrogators from false accusations of abuse.
  Indeed, across this country, including in my own district, many 
police departments routinely videotape interrogations for precisely 
these reasons. It is a powerful and effective tool for protecting both 
the interrogator and the one being interrogated.
  Additionally, videotaping interrogations would ensure that the 
maximum possible intelligence value is gained during and after the 
interrogation sessions. If analysts and linguists have the chance to 
review videotaped interrogations, they have additional opportunities to 
evaluate both the quality of the information gleaned from the 
interrogation, but they will also be able to look for body language and 
other clues about the truthfulness of the person being interrogated.
  And I should mention that the legislation I have and what we are 
talking about here has been endorsed by a variety of groups as an 
effective way to conduct interrogations with the protections of all 
involved, and I know they would be supportive of the conferees acting 
on this request. I hope that I can have the cooperation of my friend 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would yield, is it the gentleman's 
understanding that such interrogation is not currently being 
videotaped?
  Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is correct. I am informed, well, most 
recently by a trip to Guantanamo by the Armed Services Committee staff, 
that videotaping of detainee interrogations has not been conducted 
consistently and uniformly.
  Mr. MURTHA. I can see some merit to what the gentleman is 
recommending, and certainly I will bring it up to the conferees when we 
get to conference, and we will see what they say and get some expert 
opinions. I can see some merit in what the gentleman is proposing, and 
I will certainly do my best to work something out.
  Mr. HOLT. Well, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and 
related issues. I know the gentleman was instrumental last year in 
facilitating the establishment of specific guidelines for the treatment 
of detainees, and I hope that once again he can help refine and 
strengthen our policies in this area in conference. I thank the 
gentleman.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the 
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking 
member
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and the 
entire subcommittee for excellent work on the Defense Appropriations 
Act of 2007. This act does an extraordinary job of continuing the 
transformation of our forces, while funding our military at war.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that every military threat now and in the 
foreseeable future is derived from or impacted by one thing, and that 
is our dependence on foreign oil.
  We fund a Defense budget of $500 billion this year, including 
supplemental spending. Of that amount, $10.6 billion is spent on the 
Pentagon's direct energy costs alone, and of that $10.6 billion, $4.7 
billion bought one thing, fuel for our Air Force planes. That is about

[[Page 11923]]

the same amount as the President has budgeted for the National Cancer 
Institute this year alone.
  The Department of Defense uses 97 percent of all Federal fuel 
consumption, and half of that is used for fuel for the Air Force. A 
single F-16 can burn 28 gallons of gas a minute, in fact.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, $10 million for the Air Force's 
alternative fuels research program to help reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil to fly our own Air Force planes is not included in the 
budget.
  I was going to submit an amendment that I would let the Air Force 
allocate $4 million for B-52 synthetic fuels testing, $3 million for 
other synthetic fuel testing, and about $3 million for studies on 
synthetic fuel and suitability for use in jet engines. However, I will 
not proceed with my amendment in the hope that the honorable gentleman 
and ranking member will pursue this effort during conference with the 
Senate.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely right. Matter of 
fact, 10 years ago, we put language in that would allow them to produce 
jet fuel from coal. The Air Force did not particularly like it, did not 
particularly agree with it, but now this particular year they said to 
me this could reduce the cost of their fuel substantially. So I agree 
with you, and we will do everything we can to work this thing out.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I 
know he, above all people, realizes that our energy dependence is a 
national security issue that we must triumph over. I thank the 
gentleman.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Castle:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to provide award fees to any 
     defense contractor for performance that does not meet the 
     requirements of the contract concerned.

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by thanking the gentleman 
from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and their staffs for 
their exemplary work on what is not easy legislation. What I am about 
to discuss is something that has been brought more to light this spring 
than it had been brought heretofore, but I think it is documented 
enough that we should try to add it to this bill. It is a simple but, 
in my judgment, much-needed amendment to the legislation before us 
today.
  Currently the Department of Defense spends over $200 billion annually 
to acquire products and services from defense contractors, including 
everything from spare parts to major weapons systems. In an effort to 
encourage contractors to perform at the highest level possible, the 
Department often gives its contractors the opportunity to collectively 
earn billions of dollars through monetary incentives known as award 
fees.
  Unfortunately, while there is no doubt that U.S. weapons programs 
continue to be the best in the world, 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.
  In response to these setbacks, Congress recently asked the General 
Accountability Office, known as GAO, to study the Department's use of 
incentives and the role they play in the acquisition system. On April 
5, the GAO reported that the Pentagon's current incentive practices 
often do not hold contractors accountable for achieving desired 
outcomes and routinely undermine efforts to motivate contractor 
performance.
  Specifically, the GAO noted that the Department regularly provides 
these bonuses to contractors, often giving them second, third and 
fourth chances, despite the fact that the contractor's work does not 
fulfill the Department's expectations.
  As part of its report, the GAO issued detailed recommendations for 
how the Department could improve its strategy for using incentives to 
motivate exceptional performance. The Pentagon has concurred with the 
majority of GAO's suggestions, and during consideration of the fiscal 
year 2007 defense authorization bill in May, I successfully included an 
amendment by voice vote that would implement these reforms.
  While the language included in the authorization bill is a crucial 
step forward, the effectiveness of these changes will ultimately be 
determined by how well GAO's recommendations are executed.
  The Pentagon recently identified significant cost overruns in 36 of 
its major weapons systems. With such costs rapidly increasing, my 
amendment ensures that none of the funds provided in this bill will be 
used to continue the wasteful incentive practices identified by GAO.
  As the Department moves forward in complying with GAO's findings, 
this amendment will provide an additional safeguard, to make certain 
that these funds are not wasted in violation of the new incentive 
guidelines.
  Mr. Chairman, cost increases and business management weaknesses 
damage our government's ability to provide our men and women in the 
military with the resources to 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 work with the Department to 
make certain that incentives are being used to maximize its return on 
investment and provide soldiers with needed capabilities at the best 
value for the taxpayer.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is well aware of the issue that the 
Castle amendment addresses. In fact, the subcommittee had scheduled a 
hearing to look into not only this issue, but a number of other 
acquisition issues where we believe that there can be some performance 
changes. Unfortunately, because of a heavy voting day on the floor, we 
had to postpone that hearing, which will be held sometime in July now.
  In view of that, I want to say that I agree with what Mr. Castle is 
offering, and I am certainly prepared to accept his amendment. I think 
it is a good amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle/
Shays amendment. As chair of the Science Committee, I oversee the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the 
critical weather forecasting services it provides. NOAA is a partner 
with the Air Force on the next generation of weather satellites, known 
as NPOESS.
  In May I held a hearing about an Inspector General report on NPOESS. 
One of the key findings of that IG report was that the contractor 
received excessive award fees for a problem-plagued program. Over the 
first 3 years of NPOESS--September 2002-September 2005--the contractor 
received 84 percent of the award fee available to it, for a total of 
$123 million. This occurred despite the fact the NPOESS is more than 5 
years late and its total costs have risen from $6.5 billion to $11.5 
billion. In my mind, that does not represent performance worthy of $123 
million in award fees.
  Another investigative body, the GAO, found that excessive award fees 
are not unique to NPOESS, but are a problem throughout the Department 
of Defense. Mr. Castle's, amendment directly addresses specific 
recommendations in that GAO report by prohibiting payment of award fees 
if contractors do not meet expectations.
  It is absolutely vital that the major programs like NPOESS succeed. 
NPOESS will provide our ``eyes in the sky'' for both civilian and 
military weather forecasting, and we cannot afford to be stumbling 
around blind. We cannot allow the excessive use of award fees to 
continue in these major procurement programs and must hold contractors 
accountable for how they spend taxpayers' money. I strongly support the 
Castle/Shays amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Castle's amendment to 
prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding bonus fees for good 
performance to any defense

[[Page 11924]]

contractor that does not meet the contract's requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed we need to debate this subject. I'm 
disappointed that while our servicemen and servicewomen are in harm's 
way, and while the Congress and the American taxpayer are spending 
billions of dollars to ensure they have all the resources and equipment 
they need, the Defense Department is paying bonuses to companies that 
haven't earned them and companies are accepting bonuses that are not 
due to them.
  During consideration of the Defense Authorization Act, we wisely 
passed an amendment also authored by Mr. Castle that requires the 
Defense Department to develop and issue standards that link award and 
incentive fees to desired program outcomes, such as meeting cost, 
schedule, and capability goals. I look forward to the Department 
implementing these standards, but until they do we should ensure 
unwarranted and undeserved payments are not paid.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, hell hath no furry like an electronic warfare officer 
spurred into action.
  This field is quite technical and obscure, but provides one of the 
keys to answering the question of why the United States can command the 
skies with such few casualties.
  While the Air Force has eliminated its fleet of tactical jamming 
aircraft, the United States Navy has kept theirs, based on the EA-6B 
Prowler aircraft. The Navy's choice in this field appears to be 
superior because during conflicts with Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and 
Afghanistan, our joint combatant commanders have routinely denied entry 
to U.S. tactical aircraft in a theater of war unless there was a 
Prowler present to ensure that enemy air defenses were rendered blind 
or under attack.
  Mr. Chairman, the Prowler fleet is now aging. Most aircraft are well 
over 30 years old and are planned to be replaced by the electronic 
attack variant of the F-18, the F-18G or so-called Growler. The Growler 
is vital to maintaining the safety of future Navy air crews sent into 
harm's way against competent air defense forces.
  Mr. Chairman, under the committee's mark we changed the President's 
request from buying 30 F-18E and Fs and 12 Growlers to buying 42 F-18E 
and Fs. This would dramatically delay the F-18 Growler line for a year 
and may present a gap in the force protection for Navy air crews sent 
into harm's way.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like your assurance that when we move this bill 
to conference, if there is an additional 302(b) allocation available, 
we might be able to address this critical 12 aircraft F-18G, Growler, 
model procurement so that we make sure that Navy air crews have not 
just what they need now, but what they need in the future with regard 
to tactical jamming aircraft.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding, 
and I would say to the gentleman, as you and I have discussed this many 
times, the importance of this capability cannot be overstressed. It is 
extremely important.
  The gentleman has reminded me, and I remember very well, in Kosovo 
and Bosnia we had to bring the EA-6Bs from all over the world to 
concentrate on their mission there. So the additional capability, I 
think, is well-intended. I will be glad to work with the gentleman as 
we go to conference.
  As you are well aware, our 302(b) allocation was $4 billion less than 
the President's request, and so we had to do some cutting. 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that we would have liked to 
have done that we just could not do. The money was not there, but the 
gentleman makes a very important point that this capability is 
extremely important, I think more so than most people realize, but as 
an officer who flew in those aircraft, you know an awful lot about 
this.
  So I am with you. I want to do the best we can to enhance our 
capability. Thank you for bringing this issue to the Congress.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and wish to work with 
you and the Chief of Naval Operations on this and make sure that we can 
work together in conference to make sure our Navy air crews have full 
electronic support.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following provision:

       Sec.   . It is the sense of Congress that the Department of 
     Navy is to be commended for having the highest percentage of 
     Alternative Fuel Vehicles acquired by any federal agency 
     during fiscal year 2005.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the Navy for having 
the best record for purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles of any agency 
in the Federal Government. Whereas the overall record for all agencies 
is just 26 percent of all new acquisitions being alternative-fuel 
vehicles, the Navy had a 62 percent of AFVs, which is 2,722 of the 
4,338 vehicles they acquired.
  I have been making these amendments on every appropriations bill 
because I feel so strongly that we ought to have the different agencies 
abide by the laws that Congress passes which would require them to 
purchase more alternative-fuel vehicles.
  The Army is also to be commended because this one agency purchased 
8,835 alternative-fuel vehicles, about 50 percent of the 17,703 
vehicles the Army acquired last year. In fact, the Army acquired more 
AFVs than all the other civilian agencies combined.
  Many of you may think that I am fast becoming a broken record coming 
to the floor and talking about alternative-fuel vehicles. I prefer a 
more apt metaphor: I feel like the squeaky wheel.
  From the bottom of my heart, I believe that our Nation's addiction to 
oil has a direct threat to our national security. The Federal 
Government has to lead the way that will ease our dependence on 
unstable, undemocratic, oil-producing sheikdoms.
  The bill before us today pays for the costs of our operations in 
Iraq, paid for with taxes from the American people. At the pump the 
American people pay for gasoline, and some of the profits are finding 
their way into the pockets of the terrorists that our brave men and 
women are fighting right now. So, in essence, we are paying for the war 
on terror twice, and we have to stop this insanity.
  The way to do it is to look at alternative means of producing our 
energy. We have to take the fight to the terrorists before they come 
back here, and that is not the only part of the solution. What we do 
here at home is obviously just as important. So ending our dependence 
on oil must be a key to this.
  Just yesterday Roll Call ran a special section called, ``Fueling 
Alternatives.'' There were editorials by myself, by Senator Burns, 
former Senators Dole and Daschle, and we all spoke of the importance of 
ethanol as an alternative fuel. Columns by Senator Bayh and 
Representative Kingston talked about providing incentives to consumers 
to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles. I am doing a bill with 
Representative Kingston that would do exactly that, wean us off of 
Middle Eastern oil.
  We have a broad, bipartisan group of Members of Congress who see the 
benefits for our national security, our economy and our environment if 
we take these steps to end our addiction.
  And so I find myself on the floor again, though this time I am 
pleased to be able to talk about the good work of two agencies of the 
Federal Government; two agencies that are in the forefront of our fight 
against terrorism; two agencies that are strained to the limit with 
incredible demands; two agencies that have, in the midst of numerous 
other missions, taken a small step to lead the way to our safety and 
security. So I commend the

[[Page 11925]]

Navy and I commend the Army and for all that they do and for being the 
leaders as well in procuring alternative-fuel vehicles.
  Mr. Chairman, I will cede the point of order, and I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for the development, deployment, 
     or operation of the web-based, end-to-end travel management 
     system of the Department of Defense known as the Defense 
     Travel System.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, in 1998, the Department of Defense had a 
very good idea. They had the idea that they should consolidate the 
literally millions of trips DOD personnel made every year on an 
electronic-based travel management system that would result in quicker, 
easier, and more efficient travel and thus saving taxpayers money.
  Despite the good idea, Mr. Chairman, 8 years and almost $500 million 
later, what we have is a no-bid contract to develop a system that is 
essentially inoperable, has pitifully low utilization rates, and cannot 
even guarantee it can book the lowest applicable airfare. Therefore, 
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply limit the money available to 
fund this failed effort, which is known as the Defense Travel System, 
or the DTS.
  Now, I know that some will oppose this amendment and they will say 
that we cannot afford to stop the investment now because we have 
invested so much and we are so close to success. The unfortunate 
reality is that we must stop now because we have wasted so much and 
success is nowhere in sight. I think that argument has been made in 
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now 2006; and I think it is time to cut our 
losses.
  After 8 years of development and almost $500 million spent, less than 
15 percent of all DOD travel is actually booked on the system. 
Logically, that means over 85 percent of the travel in DOD is booked on 
traditional travel services. Every trip that is booked on the system is 
also manually reviewed by a travel agent to confirm that the 
transaction is complete and that it has attained the lowest applicable 
airfare because the system cannot guarantee that it can attain the 
lowest applicable airfare.
  So if you divided the amount of taxpayer money we have invested in 
this system with the number of trips that have actually been 
successfully booked on this system, each transaction costs about $1,500 
before the actual travel cost or the travel agent fee. And what makes 
this situation even worse is that there are other GSA-approved 
electronic-based travel systems that are fully operational today and do 
not cost the taxpayers one penny in maintenance or development cost and 
only charge on a per-transaction basis for every successful transaction 
when it is actually used.
  Mr. Chairman, spending $.5 billion on a travel system that does not 
work and nobody uses might actually be worse than the days when the DOD 
spent $640 on toilet seats. At least people used the toilet seats.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar all funds in this act for 
development, deployment, or operations for the Defense Travel System. 
This would put us back to millions of individual transactions that 
would be almost totally unaccountable and which would have no proper 
oversight.
  I admire the gentleman's goal in trying to come up with a system that 
is better than DTS, but I don't think he has done that. He has just 
done away with the DTS. We are attempting to get some integrated 
financial management at the Pentagon, and DTS is just one of the many 
programs that is trying to accomplish this integration. The program has 
some problems, but I don't think we ought to kill the effort and go 
back to ground zero and start all over again.
  The prohibition on spending any money to develop, deploy or operate 
would bar the Department from even operating the current system and 
would also bar the Department from continuing any improvements to DTS. 
This would ultimately leave the Department's 3.5 million active duty 
military, reserve, and civilian employees without any travel system. 
DTS is currently the only system that can meet the full spectrum of 
cost, capability, security, and savings requirements, as well as the 
protection of personal information so important to the Defense 
Department and its global travelers.
  Interrupting development of this important program would cause an 
enormous disruption, adversely affecting and, in some cases, seriously 
jeopardizing Defense Department mission requirements. I believe this 
amendment is well intended, but I believe that barring all funding 
would be a serious mistake, so I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Indiana. Certainly there is no government agency 
or no government Department that is immune from having waste, fraud, or 
abuse and duplication; and this does indeed include the Department of 
Defense.
  I have no doubt that there is much hard work that has been done by 
the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, but I 
also believe that every single Member of this body has a 
responsibility, has a duty in these challenging fiscal times to root 
out the waste, the fraud, the abuse, and the duplication wherever they 
can find it.
  I think that once again, as we look at how much money the taxpayers 
have already invested in a system that clearly does not work, when 85 
percent, approximately 85 percent of the travel out of DOD is booked in 
other systems and only 15 percent in the DTS, clearly there are 
alternative systems available. GSA has already approved two E-travel 
systems that are being used throughout the Federal Government and could 
also be used by DOD.
  So what we have now is already $.5 billion that is being invested in 
a system that doesn't seem to save any money, and certainly I don't 
think the case can be made that it is essential to our national 
security or essential to our war effort.
  We are sitting here in very challenging fiscal times, when our 
national debt, in just a few years, has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8.5 
trillion, Mr. Chairman. Of course, at the same time, tax revenues have 
escalated. We have personal tax revenues up 15 percent and corporate 
tax revenues are up 40 percent. That would seem to indicate that the 
challenge in the national debt is on the spending side.
  So when you have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 500 to 600 
different agencies, it is almost impossible for any one Member or any 
one committee to have effective oversight on each and every one. So I 
applaud the gentleman from Indiana on his work here. Because we all 
know that soon, soon in America's future we will face a very, very bad 
fork in the road. One fork is going to lead us to a Federal Government 
that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security. There may be no Department of Defense. There may be no Border 
Patrol. We will see that in one generation.
  The other fork in the road is going to lead to doubling of taxes on 
the American people. And that is unconscionable, Mr. Chairman. It is 
just unconscionable. We all know the old saying a billion here, a 
billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Well, 
it looks like we have at least $.5 billion here that has been spent on 
a system that nobody is using, that costs way beyond what the 
marketplace is

[[Page 11926]]

charging now, and there are alternative systems developed by private 
enterprise that are doing a better job and being utilized by others.
  So, indeed, our Nation faces two great threats. The war on terror, of 
course, is the greatest threat; but we have another threat, and that is 
out-of-control spending. And every Member, every Member of this body 
has the responsibility to root out the waste, the fraud, and the abuse; 
and that is why I salute the gentleman from Indiana for what he has 
done.
  I don't think the case has been made that this is essential to our 
national defense. I don't think the case has been made that it is 
helping taxpayers. So we need to prevent future tax increases. We need 
to prevent more debt being placed upon our children and our 
grandchildren, and I think we need to adopt the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana, and I once again salute him for his work.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering his amendment 
to H.R. 5631. Mr. Chocola has been a constant fighter against waste, 
fraud, and abuse, and today he offers an amendment that gives us sound 
responsible oversight, which is a critical part of our job here in 
Congress. He has done us a favor by bringing this program to our 
attention.
  The Defense Travel System was envisioned as an end-to-end E-travel 
system for DOD employees. Yet with the money spent, we could have, for 
the next 40 years, given Orbitz $1 million a month; plus, with the 
additional $50 million that we are putting in, we could pay them 
another $4 million a month just to use their computer system to do 
approximately the same thing.
  Or else, if we had decided for the 15 percent of the people who are 
actually using the system, we could have bought a fleet of $250 million 
personal jets and used $1 million a year to fuel those jets up and fly 
the people around.
  All the facts point to a system that is behind schedule, overbudget, 
and inoperably broken, costing taxpayers a lot of money. At times like 
this, Congress should help agencies stop digging themselves deeper 
holes. This amendment will stop funding this wasteful program and allow 
DOD to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole they should not be in 
and reconsider a better plan for scheduling, ticketing, and paying for 
travel.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
ask for a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense, 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
     in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-148).

  Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering today is 
a simple one. It serves to reaffirm the United States' commitment to 
the Convention Against Torture. It does this by prohibiting the use of 
funds in contravention of laws and regulations promulgated to implement 
the Convention Against Torture.
  Now, this may all seem very familiar, because I offered essentially 
the same amendment to three appropriation bills on this House floor 
last year, and each time the amendment was adopted with near unanimity. 
And since those votes, we also passed the amendment of Senator McCain, 
which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees 
under the law.
  But President Bush, in his signing statement of that bill, announced 
that he did not feel bound by the restrictions on this administration's 
ability to be able to torture individuals who come within the 
protection of the United States Government. The Bush administration 
says that it can choose to ignore what the United States Congress says 
and actually what the President signs, a bill which binds him to 
implement.
  This House cannot and should not allow the administration to get away 
with simply ignoring laws enacted by Congress. This is particularly the 
case when we are talking about torture, where the international 
reputation of our Nation is at stake.
  In addition to refraining from the practice of torture under 
international law, we also have a responsibility as a Nation that we 
not outsource torture to other countries, that is, that we render, that 
we extraordinarily render prisoners who we have captured to other 
countries which we know engage in torture, and accept as a promise from 
that country they will not torture these individuals, even though these 
countries are on the list of the State Department as countries that we 
know engage in torture.
  This policy must be rejected by this House. We should not and cannot 
undermine our standing as the international leader in human rights by 
allowing for the outsourcing of torture in the name of the United 
States to fight terrorism, because we send a signal to the rest of the 
world that we are not willing to abide by the rules that we say we 
intend for the rest of the world to adopt.
  And make no mistake, that is what this country is doing when it 
carries out renditions of prisoners that we have captured to notorious 
human rights' violators; it is outsourcing torture. It must be 
rejected. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As usual, Mr. Markey is very persuasive, as he has been in the past. 
It is important that the United States Congress make it very clear to 
anyone who would listen that we do not intend to use torture and that 
we do not use torture or inhumane treatment.
  As the gentleman suggested, the House agreed with the McCain 
amendment, and it was included in last year's legislation.

                              {time}  1600

  We believe that the Markey amendment basically restates existing law, 
and because of that we have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used by the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the 
     project designated as the ``Wind Demonstration Project''.


[[Page 11927]]

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this process of challenge earmarks on the 
floor is often described at tilting at windmills, so I suppose it is 
only proper that we start today with an earmark for the wind 
demonstration project.
  This amendment seeks to prohibit $6.3 million from being used to fund 
this project. It appears that this is the second year in a row that 
this project has received multiple millions of dollars in Federal 
funding. Last year's defense appropriations included $4.25 million for 
this same earmark. It appears the funding was not requested by the 
administration.
  While little information is made available in this year's report, 
last year's conference report indicated that the funding is for a 
``wind demonstration project on a U.S. Air Force installation using 
domestically manufactured turbines that are new to the U.S. market to 
test the security and reliability of wind generation on base.''
  So I ask when this country is at war and seeing unprecedented 
increases in the Federal debt, why are we spending more than $10 
million on windmills for military bases? How is it in the list of 
extensive and costly priorities for the United States military that 
testing newly introduced turbines rises to the list above research and 
development that could save lives? How is it possible in addition that 
taxpayers could be asked to spend more than $10 million on an earmark 
that doesn't even include such basic information as where this will be 
sited or what companies will directly benefit from the funding?
  How can we honestly say to Members that Members have a real 
oversight, that we have real accountability here when we are spending 
millions of dollars?
  I would submit that spending like this doesn't just waste precious 
defense dollars, but it leaves taxpayers hanging in the wind.
  Let me simply conclude by saying that this applies to many amendments 
that I will address today. They may be worthy projects, yes, but how 
can we justify them? How can we justify using the money in the defense 
bill?
  Here we have a technology, wind generation. Let me just say in March 
2005 at the request of Congress, the Department of Defense issued a 
renewable energy assessment that stated that currently 2.5 percent of 
the energy used on military installations is already from renewable 
sources. This level of renewable energy use meets a Federal goal 
already set by the Department of Energy.
  In addition the report indicated the best way to increase the level 
of renewable energy being used by military installations would be 
through purchasing commercially developed renewable energy, not by 
spending earmarked money, millions of dollars, to put windmills there.
  We know that wind energy is the most unreliable there is, and how we 
are supposed to pursue renewable projects to increase energy security 
at military installations by installing windmills simply strains 
reason.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  There are a lot of ideas that Members of Congress come up with that 
the Department of Defense initially opposes, and then they find out all 
at once they work.
  For instance, some years ago we came up with a research project to 
produce fuel for jets out of coal, and now you would think it was the 
Air Force's idea, and we will save as much as 50 percent of oil costs 
for the jet fuel. This is something where the commercial side is way 
ahead, and we certainly ought to be trying to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff:
       At the end of the bill (before the Short Title), insert the 
     following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. (a) None of the funds made available in this 
     Act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance in the 
     United States except as authorized under--
       (1) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); or
       (2) chapter 119 or chapter 121 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (b) For purposes of this section, the terms ``electronic 
     surveillance'' and ``United States'' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Murtha for forging a strong bill to fund our Defense 
Department and DOD entities, and I applaud them for their hard work and 
dedication. As we consider this important bill today, I appreciate the 
opportunity to address a crucial issue.
  At the outset, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Inslee for all of his 
leadership on this issue, which has been tremendous. We have been 
working side by side on this amendment today. I would also like to 
thank Mr. Flake that I have introduced legislation along with for his 
tremendous leadership. This amendment is, in fact, based on legislation 
that I have offered with Mr. Flake. I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen 
for all of his leadership.
  The bill that I introduced with Representative Flake several months 
ago was a bipartisan bill of five Democratic Members and five 
Republican Members, and addresses the NSA surveillance program that 
almost every Member of this body learned about in the morning 
newspaper.
  This amendment recognizes two important principles: First, that the 
government must have all of the tools necessary and all of the 
authority required to pursue al Qaeda and other terrorists who would 
seek to harm our country. And second, this amendment recognizes that we 
are a Nation of laws.
  While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in 
electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress 
possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United 
States, and, in fact, Congress has spoken in this area through Title 
III and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  When Congress passed these statutes, it intended that they provide 
the sole authority for surveillance on American soil. Our amendment 
simply reinforces existing law that the government must obtain a court 
order when U.S. persons are targeted or surveillance occurs in the 
United States of America.
  Recently when the Attorney General testified in the Judiciary 
Committee, I asked about the limiting principle of the NSA program; was 
it restricted only to international calls; what if the administration 
decided tomorrow it had the inherent authority to tap purely domestic 
calls between two Americans, did it feel it could do so without court 
order; and the Attorney General said that he would not rule it out. He 
would not rule out having the pure authority without going to court to 
tap the calls between two Americans on American soil.
  So what is the limiting principle if this program can change from day 
to day without the input of Congress? The only limiting principle is 
the good faith of the executive, which, when the executive shows it is 
infallible, might be a sufficient limiting principle, but the executive 
is no more infallible than we are here in Congress, and so we have a 
role to play.
  In enacting FISA, Congress specifically sought to balance our 
national security interests with legitimate civil liberty concerns. In 
so doing, Congress expressly permitted surveillance without court order 
for 15 days after the declaration of a war.
  Additionally, Congress provided the authority to engage in electronic 
surveillance for up to 72 hours without court order.
  Furthermore, after the September 11 attacks, the administration came 
to Congress and asked us to modify FISA to respond to the new 
challenges in the war on terror, and Congress responded by making those 
changes.
  Electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and others seeking to 
harm our country must continue; it simply can and should comply with 
the law.

[[Page 11928]]

  We stand ready to work with the administration if further statutory 
revisions to FISA or other authorities are required to meet the new 
challenges in the war on terrorism. Until then, we must restore the 
rule of law. I urge the House to do so today.
  I know my colleagues Mr. Sherman, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Van Hollen will 
want to strike the last word to speak on this as well.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee is not here today due to a important personal commitment in 
his district, and he asked me to state his opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying that this is an 
extremely important provision, and this amendment would do, in my 
opinion and in Chairman Hunter's opinion, great damage to the ability 
of our country to provide national security for the American people.
  That is why the administration also strongly opposes the Inslee-
Schiff amendment. It is a direct effort to cut off the President's 
ability to engage in surveillance pursuant to his constitutional 
authority, and the authorization to use military force as passed by the 
Congress.
  The program has been briefed to all members of the House and Senate 
Intelligence Committees. They are fully briefed to all aspects of the 
terrorist surveillance program and are conducting oversight.
  I would just point out NSA Director General Hayden said on January 
23, 2006, at the National Press Club, ``The TSP allows interception of 
the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda 
and related terrorist organizations. There are no communications more 
important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al 
Qaeda with one end in the United States. The purpose here is to detect 
and prevent future attacks.''
  In underscoring the importance of this, on January 25, 2 days later, 
the President of the United States said, ``The 9/11 Commission made 
clear in this era of new dangers, we must be able to connect the dots 
before the terrorists strike so we can stop new attacks.'' And the NSA 
program, he said, is doing just that.
  Those of us on the Armed Services Committee and other Members of 
Congress in various other capacities work night and day trying to 
provide a high level of national security for our country. This 
amendment would do damage to that effort. It would make that effort at 
least much more difficult.
  To the credit of the CIA and to the credit of the administration and 
our government generally, we have been able to get through the years 
since September 11, 2001, without additional attacks.
  The activities are reviewed for this program every 45 days. We are 
making every attempt to make sure that this program is carried out 
correctly and safely and doesn't infringe on the rights of the American 
people. The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly 
reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, 
including NSA's general counsel and inspector general.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The problem we have here is those of us who have been briefed on the 
program, even though admittedly we were not briefed until it became 
public, can't talk about the program. I was briefed for an hour and 45 
minutes, and I feel comfortable that there are adequate safeguards. But 
we can't talk about the safeguards.
  I asked NSA, what can we say about the program and not violate the 
security? And they said, well, you have to look at what the President 
said. Well, I looked at what the President said, and he didn't say very 
much. This is a real problem we are getting into, and the more we talk 
about it, the more difficult it makes it.
  Now you are actually authorizing this program. If you vote for this, 
you authorize this program. You say you have safeguards. That is what 
you are going to have. If this passes, this authorizes this program. At 
one point we couldn't even say that this program existed. So I think 
this is a very difficult time for those of us who have been briefed 
about it.

                              {time}  1615

  And I know there are a lot of people in the executive branch that 
know about it. But the way I read this amendment, you say follow the 
proper procedure and you agree with the amendment. You agree with the 
procedures. I think that there is some real benefit if they do it 
right. But if this passes, I think you ought to know this is 
authorizing the program. And if it fails, you are saying, in fact, let 
them go ahead and not pass. So we are in a catch-22 position here, Mr. 
Chairman. And we can't talk about it at all. And I think we have to be 
careful that more and more people don't talk about it so that more 
people don't know the value of the program. We have got a heck of a 
problem here. And I recommend we vote against it. But if we vote 
against it, then we actually are saying, well, you can go ahead with 
the program as it is. And yet I believe there are enough safeguards. 
But if we pass it, we actually are authorizing the program.
  I don't even know if we can work it out, Mr. Chairman, because there 
are so few people that really know about the program.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURTHA. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The amendment says 
that there is a prohibition on using funds to fund this program unless 
it meets the requirements of FISA. Any part of the program that does 
meet the requirements of FISA, meet the existing law passed by the 
Congress, could continue to be funded. Those parts that don't meet the 
requirements of FISA, the administration will have to go back.
  Mr. MURTHA. Let me take back the time. I agree with that. I agree. 
And I think there are sufficient safeguards in the program already. We 
are in a bad situation here, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I can say 
any more.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. As Mr. Murtha has suggested, there is a lot that can't be 
said about this amendment and about this program. But what I would like 
to say is, let's don't tie our hands behind our back when we are 
fighting a vicious, cruel enemy.
  Intelligence is extremely important in the war against terrorism. 
First of all, you don't have, in this particular war, you don't have an 
army against an army. You don't have a country against a country. You 
have terrorists attacking innocent people here in the United States on 
September 11, and leading up to September 11, and anywhere else in the 
world that they decide that they are going to attack.
  One of the best defenses against these attacks is the ability to know 
where they might be or when they might strike or what the target might 
be. Don't deny the people on the front lines of this intelligence war 
and information war and the hot war, don't deny them every tool that 
they can possibly have.
  As Mr. Murtha said, for those that have been briefed on this program 
on a regular basis, I am not aware of anyone who is concerned that the 
rights of Americans to their privacy have been violated. I certainly do 
not believe that the rights of Americans have been violated in this 
program. And so I think it is crucial to oppose this amendment; this is 
far beyond politics. It goes a lot deeper. This goes to the safety and 
the security of American people wherever they might be. And it is 
unfortunate that we can't reveal everything that is done, how it is 
done, where it is done, when it is done; but believe me, it is 
effective and the privacy of the American people have been protected.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, of course I would yield.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate 
your yielding. And we are up against a vicious enemy, and we ought to 
have

[[Page 11929]]

every power of intelligence and every tool in the tool box and I 
completely agree with that. I think we can do that within the laws that 
the Congress has passed. And the gravamen of my concern is something 
that took place in the Senate, when one of our GOP colleagues asked the 
administration, during the debate over the PATRIOT reauthorization, 
which I supported, do we need to change FISA. We were making modest 
changes to FISA, and the Republican Senator said, Do we need to do 
something larger? And the administration response was no, that FISA is 
operating just fine as it is.
  Now, if there are changes that need to be made, there is a 72-hour 
after-the-fact authorization. If that window is too short, it can be 
lengthened. If there are other problems, they be changed. And all that 
can be changed without disclosing to the public the nature of the 
program itself.
  I haven't been briefed on it. I am not one of the lucky few, or maybe 
I am lucky. But it concerns me when the administration says we don't 
need to change existing law, when I think we can retain all of these 
tools, but the Congress can play its role in making sure that these 
programs are authorized by law, that they are not being conducted 
extralegally.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, let me reclaim my time and suggest that 
if you want to rewrite FISA, you don't do it on the floor on an 
appropriations bill. You introduce a bill, or you go to the proper 
committee of proper jurisdiction. This is not something you do on the 
floor. This is serious. It is not something you do on the floor without 
any real hearings or consideration. If you want to change FISA, let the 
authorizing committee change it. They are the ones that have the 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will.
  Mr. DICKS. I am also one of those who have not been briefed on this 
particular program. But I would like to ask the gentleman, is the 
gentleman suggesting that the administration is not complying with 
FISA?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, that would certainly clear it up without 
getting into any classified information if somebody here, the chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee or the chairman of the Full Committee or 
someone can say, yes, the administration is complying with FISA, and 
they have taken this program to the FISA court for clearance. That is 
what people who support this amendment are concerned about, that 
Congress enacted legislation here saying that if you want to go out and 
gather this kind of information, you have to first go to the FISA court 
to get approval and to show cause. I think that is what this really all 
gets down to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of 
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DICKS. So that is the question we have here, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will continue to yield in just a minute. On 
the legal aspects of this, I am going to Mr. Lungren. I think he is 
prepared, and he will probably get his own time, because I am limited 
to 2 minutes.
  But in the minute I have left, I will yield to Mr. LaHood.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am the longest-serving 
member of the Intelligence Committee. I am in my eighth year. I am the 
vice chairman of the committee.
  If it were disclosed, the answers that you want, it would be a 
violation of those who serve on the committee and those who have been 
briefed. They can't disclose that information. They will be thrown off 
the committee.
  Mr. DICKS. I was on the committee for 8 years and served as the 
ranking member.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I know you were. But this is highly classified 
information.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have yielded to the gentleman 
from Illinois.
  Mr. LaHOOD. This is highly classified information. What you all need 
to know is, the people that you have put your trust in, that the 
leadership have put their trust in, those that serve on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, those that serve on the Intelligence 
Committee have been briefed. Now you have to trust them that they know 
what is going on here.
  All 435 members can't be briefed. You know why they can't be briefed, 
because we all love to talk and it would get out.
  So what I am saying to you, the gentleman from California, the author 
of the amendment, you need to trust Mr. Murtha, you need to trust the 
chairman of the committee. You need to trust Mr. Hoekstra. You need to 
trust Jane Harman. These are people with the responsibility from your 
leadership to serve on these committees. They know what is going on.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield so I can respond to the 
question?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the other 
Members get their own time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into the specific debate on this 
amendment because I think there are equities on both sides. But I must 
comment on a statement that was just made by the gentleman from 
Illinois when he said that the reason this information can't be more 
broadly shared is because people in Congress like to talk.
  When Mr. Negroponte was before the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and I have been an ex oficio member of that committee now 
for over 12 years, but when I asked Mr. Negroponte, who, after all, is 
the Director of Intelligence, when I asked him whether or not he could 
cite a single instance in which any member of the Defense 
Appropriations Committee had ever leaked any classified information, he 
indicated he could not.
  I also asked him, and I think this is an accurate recollection, I 
also asked him if he could tell me how many times stories had appeared 
in the Washington Times that his own agency thought had been leaked by 
the executive branch of government.
  And I asked him how many times he thought those leaks had been 
provided by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And his response 
was, to the best of his knowledge, none.
  And yet, I want to make clear, not all members of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee have been briefed. Now, I believe they 
should have, because taxpayers dollars go through the appropriations 
bill, and I think every member of that subcommittee needs to know what 
the facts are on this case.
  But the fact is, let's not get into the belief that it is the 
Congress who routinely leaks. The White House routinely leaks more 
classified information than the Congress even has. And anybody who 
doesn't believe that doesn't know the score.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I can't quote Mr. Negroponte, 
but I can quote Benjamin Franklin who, in 1776, explained the unanimous 
decision of the Committee on Secret Correspondence for not telling 
their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a covert operation. 
And he said we find by fatal experience that Congress--
  Mr. OBEY. I am going to take back my time. I was prepared to 
entertain a serious question. That is not a serious question. I am not 
interested in what happened 200 years ago. I am interested in what is 
happening today and tomorrow.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Defense Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, as well as the House Select Committee on Intelligence. 
I'd like to answer several questions that have come up with this 
amendment.
  When questioned about the purpose of this amendment, the author said 
that he thought that the FISA law, or

[[Page 11930]]

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, should be rewritten. And 
there are some who believe that legislation should be rewritten because 
it was originally penned in 1978, and we have had significant changes 
in technology since that time. Each of us carries a phone or 
BlackBerry, none of which existed in that format back at the time. So 
there have been changes that have gone on to our technology.
  But to answer the question of the gentleman from Washington, the 
administration does believe that they are within the current law, and 
they do believe they have the authority to do what the gentleman has 
alleged that they are doing. I don't think that there is anything that 
really needs to be expressed much beyond this, except that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) said he believes that FISA 
should be rewritten, if it doesn't meet the requirements of today's 
environment, it should be rewritten. This amendment doesn't do that. 
All this amendment does is strike funds for any electronic surveillance 
program in the United States. And I think that would be an opportunity 
for putting this country in peril.
  One of the reasons we haven't had an attack since September 11, 2001, 
is because we have used every means necessary to keep ahead of the 
terrorists.

                              {time}  1630

  The terrorists have used videos to advance their ideals. They have 
used the Internet. They have used Web sites. They have tried to raise 
money and reach out and touch Americans in a negative way again and 
again and again. And this country has done everything possible to 
prevent that from happening, and they have done it successfully, and 
they have done it by using technology. And this amendment appears to be 
tying hands on our ability to use technology, and I think that is 
wrong.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Very quickly, the only thing the amendment provides is that 
surveillance on American soil cannot be funded if it is not in 
compliance with FISA. So if you are in compliance, if this program 
complies with FISA, it could go on.
  Just to address the chairman's point, and this is on the same point 
you are making, too, which is we should not be debating this on the 
House floor, that you should introduce the bill, and it should be heard 
in committee. Mr. Chairman, we have introduced the bill. I along with 
Mr. Flake, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Leach, and others have introduced the bill. 
We have not been able to get a hearing in committee, and so the only 
opportunity for us to raise this issue is on the House floor
  Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I suggest you pursue your bill then, 
because what you are doing here absolutely ties the hands of the 
Federal Government from protecting us, and it does not rewrite FISA.
  Now, let me also make this argument that FISA is a very narrow 
portion of our law. There is a much broader scope that is applicable to 
the situation necessary to protect this country. So focusing on one 
portion of the law is tying our hands and trying to make the whole 
world comply with this one narrow segment of law, in my view, it ties 
our hand, and I don't think we should do it.
  What I would suggest is that you withdraw this amendment, pursue your 
bill, along with the Republican cosponsors, because this does tie our 
hands. It gives us an opportunity to be less safe, and I suggest the 
gentleman withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are times where the Constitution needs to be 
considered, and this is one of those times. Those of us who support 
this amendment, I hope that both Republicans and Democrats will do so 
because I think Republicans and Democrats ought to agree on one central 
proposition, and that is the proposition that our government ought to 
protect our citizens aggressively, assertively. We need electronic 
surveillance to be doing it to the full extent of the law, and that 
intelligence should be done in compliance with the American way.
  There is an American way to do intelligence, and there is a Chinese 
way to do intelligence. There is a Turkish way to do intelligence. 
There is a Russian way to do intelligence. And there is an American way 
to do intelligence. And the American way to do intelligence is to do a 
very simple thing: Comply with the law that has been passed and signed 
by Congresses and Presidents.
  And all this amendment does is say a very simple proposition: You 
don't spend taxpayers' money to do illegal acts by the Federal 
Government. That is all it says. And when it passes, we will do 
assertive, aggressive intelligence of these scoundrels by doing a very 
simple thing: Get a warrant. And if you do not have time to get a 
warrant, get it 72 hours after you do the intelligence, because the 
FISA Court allows that to happen. That is the simple proposition here.
  Now, why is that important? It is important because the people who 
fought the Revolution realized that no American is perfect, and that 
includes no American President. To the proposition that all men are 
created equal, you can add the proposition that no man is created 
perfectly. And that is why we demand some judicial oversight on this.
  And, by the way, the central argument I have heard about this is that 
a few Congressmen have said it is okay, apparently. Well, calling a few 
Congressmen is not enough under the law. Why? Because the law is very 
specific. It says that each application for an order approving 
electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a 
Federal officer in writing, upon oath or affirmation, to a judge. To a 
judge. And we are great Congressmen. I have eminent respect for all the 
people who were briefed on this. But not a single one of them wears a 
black robe, and not a single one of them was given authority by the 
United States Constitution to make this decision. Calling Ray or Norm 
or any of my great colleagues and saying, ``Does this sound okay to 
you,'' is not enough in American democracy.
  Now, we have had other occasions in our democracy where we have been 
challenged by fear, and I do not want to see us succumb to that again. 
And for those of us who think it shouldn't bother us, the President is 
not going to bug us, other nations have lost their liberty because of 
that attitude, because some Supreme Court Justice said loss of liberty 
does not come like a curtain coming down like a thunderclap. It comes 
the way the twilight comes, gradually, and you do not notice.
  Do not wink at this potential violation. Say that we are going to do 
intelligence the American way. For those people in Iraq and Afghanistan 
who are risking their lives for democracy and the liberties we enjoy, 
don't we have enough gumption to send a simple message to the executive 
branch of the United States from the U.S. Congress, a very simple 
message that we expect the law to be fulfilled, that our personal 
protection to be fulfilled by getting a warrant the way the law 
requires? That is all that we require.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  There has been a lot of talk about following the law. People seem to 
ignore what Griffin Bell said at the time the Carter administration 
brought this bill before the Congress to be passed into law. At that 
time he very carefully said that enactment of FISA did not exclude the 
authority the President has under the Constitution.
  We have heard on this floor about illegal acts. I would remind my 
colleagues that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and 
the President has inherent authority under Article II of the 
Constitution in this area. We may not like it, but the fact of the 
matter is that is one of the reasons you have elections for a 
President, to have the authority and the power that he

[[Page 11931]]

has under the Constitution. The vesting clause of Article II of the 
Constitution which gives the President executive authority, coupled 
with his authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, forms the 
basis for the surveillance of al Qaeda members and those who are 
affiliated with al Qaeda.
  The President's actions are certainly consistent with the Founding 
Fathers, as expressed in John Jay's observation in Federalist Paper No. 
64: ``The President . . . will be able to manage the business of 
intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest.'' An examination 
of historical records makes clear that the Founding Fathers intended 
the President to have primary, if not exclusive, control over the 
business of intelligence. We may not like it, but that is what the 
Constitution establishes. We may have a FISA law, but that does not 
restrict the President if, in fact, he has inherent authority under the 
Constitution.
  The argument that the President has somehow violated the law 
misunderstands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 
Congress has no more authority to intrude on the executive authority of 
the President than the President does on the enumerated authority of 
the Congress. As James Wilson argued during the ratification debate in 
his own home State of Pennsylvania: ``The President of the United 
States can shield himself and refuse to carry into effect an act of 
Congress that violates the Constitution.'' In the same context, John 
Jay points out in Federalist 64 that ``it surely does not follow that 
because they have given the power of making laws to the Legislature, 
that therefore they should likewise give them power to do every other 
act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and 
affected.'' The United States Supreme Court summed it up well in Ex 
parte Miligan: ``Neither can the President in war more than in peace 
intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the 
proper authority of the President. Both are servants of the people, 
whose will is expressed in the fundamental law.''
  It is interesting to note for those who have talked about historical 
record that the First Congress, which created the Department of 
Treasury and the Departments of War and Foreign Affairs, gave Congress 
access to the records and papers of the Treasury Department, but not to 
the Departments of Foreign Affairs and War. It is clear that the power 
of the President vis-a-vis Congress was broader with respect to foreign 
affairs than it was in the domestic realm of governance. We may not 
like it, but that is what the Constitution says.
  According to Madison, the ultimate check on Presidential power 
possessed by the Congress rests with the ``first principle in free 
government.''
  According to John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the limits on such 
Presidential authority must be found elsewhere in the Constitution 
itself.
  Look, we ought to look at what Justice White observed in his 
concurring opinion in the Katz decision. These are the words of Justice 
White: ``Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been 
authorized by successive Presidents.'' In other words, it did not start 
with this administration. He said, ``The present administration would 
apparently save national security cases from restrictions against 
wiretapping.'' Again, Justice White's words: ``We should not require 
the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of 
the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has 
considered the requirements of national security and authorized 
electronic surveillance as reasonable.''
  As explained publicly by the President, he followed the prescription 
of Justice White. He has personally had hands-on over this. He has had 
his Attorney General with hands-on authority over this. But then in 
addition, he did notify the Congress. He notified the leadership of the 
House and the Senate. He notified the leadership of the House and the 
Senate committees of jurisdiction. No, he did not notify all of us, but 
he comported with the law and the interpretation of the Constitution 
suggested by Justice White.
  I would suggest if one looks up the definition of the word 
``moderate'' in Webster's Dictionary, you would find the picture of 
Justice White. He started the middle ground on all of this.
  So I would suggest, as we look at this, we understand that we may 
have a debate about how the President has done it, but to suggest that 
what he has done is unlawful or illegal does not recognize either the 
Constitution or the comments of the Founding Fathers in support of the 
Constitution.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Carter signed the FISA into law, he said 
in his signing statement: The bill requires for the first time a prior 
judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in 
which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies 
the executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic 
surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the 
legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our 
country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure 
FBI field agents and others involved in intelligence collection that 
their acts are authorized by statute, and, if a person's communications 
are concerned, by a court order, and it will protect the privacy of the 
American people.
  In my reading of FISA, and I served for 8 years on the Intelligence 
Committee, 4 years as the ranking member, I do not think there is an 
exception here. I do not think the President of the United States has 
inherent authority to violate FISA.
  If you took Mr. Lungren's approach to this problem, he can comply 
with FISA when he wants to. He does not have to do it ever. That simply 
cannot be the reason Congress enacted this statute.
  I think President Carter had it right when he signed this into law. 
There is one way and only one way to gather foreign surveillance 
information domestically, and that is you go and get a warrant and go 
to the FISA Court first. First. And maybe you have 72 hours to do that. 
That is certainly understandable.
  But in my mind, if you want to change FISA, change FISA. But I cannot 
accept an interpretation that says the President can comply with FISA 
when he wants to, and he does not have to comply with it when he does 
not think it is in his best interest to do so. He is not a king. He is 
a President.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I want people to understand the sweeping 
scope of Mr. Lungren's argument. What he argues is that the President 
of the United States, during a time of fear and war that we are now in, 
has the unchecked, unfettered, unlimited authority to ignore not just 
FISA, but any law passed by the Congress of the United States and 
signed by any President. His argument here means that no law restricts 
this President or any other President to do anything else. Not just 
intelligence. Torture, false imprisonment; you go as far as you want.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the author 
of the amendment.
  Both of you are the authors of this amendment.
  There is no restriction on the utilization of money if the President 
has complied with FISA; is that not correct?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. That is absolutely right. The only thing that the 
amendment does is it says that when you are surveilling people on our 
home soil here in the United States of America, it has to be authorized 
by FISA. If it is not authorized by FISA, if it is outside of FISA, you 
cannot use the funds in this bill.

                              {time}  1645

  The gentleman from Illinois says, ``Trust us. There are some of us 
that

[[Page 11932]]

know the program, trust us. We can't disclose information about the 
program here on the House floor.'' I am not asking anyone to disclose 
information about the program on the House floor. The only question 
raised by this amendment is are we funding programs that are in 
contravention of existing law, FISA.
  I think you are exactly right about my colleague from California's 
argument, which is basically the President has the inherent authority 
to do anything he wants when he wants, surveil who he wants when he 
wants, how he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
  In fact, this is why I made the point. When the Attorney General 
testified in committee, he said he believed, as evidently my colleague 
from California does, the President has the inherent authority to tap 
calls between two Americans on American soil, that he wouldn't rule 
that out.
  Well, I am not satisfied by an argument that says, trust us. We are 
from the government.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think President Carter 
had it right. He said all electronic surveillance for foreign 
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States has 
to come under the FISA Court. That makes sense. That is, I think, the 
purpose of this amendment, is to make certain that the money is being 
expended in compliance with FISA.
  The gentleman is a cosponsor of this amendment. Is that your 
understanding?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
exactly right. The President can do all of the intelligence he needs to 
do in a way that complies with FISA. That is what we want him to do. 
That is what the Constitution requires.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the main sponsor of this 
amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
  I would love for the President to have this authority, as he should 
have it. I would love to give him this authority, but I think unless he 
is going to go under FISA, he ought to come ask for it. I think that he 
needs it, I think it is proper.
  But when we are told, as we have been on the Judiciary Committee by 
the Attorney General, that he feels that any domestic surveillance 
could be okay, he wouldn't rule it out, what isn't allowed? Why does 
the President need FISA at all if he can simply go around it? What 
purpose does FISA serve? Why did we go through what we went through for 
months and months with the initial PATRIOT Act and then for a year to 
reauthorize it?
  In the end, we had to ask ourselves, after hearing the testimony of 
the Attorney General, why did we do this? Why are we so specific and so 
careful about the powers that we give to the executive when they can 
simply ignore it and go on their own? It simply begs the question if 
you are not going to use FISA, why not just run amuck?
  I submit that the acid test for Republicans on this has to be, would 
we be comfortable if a Democrat were in the White House using this 
authority? I have to say I wouldn't be. But nor am I comfortable with a 
member of my own party having it.
  There is a separation of powers argument here. We are a coequal 
branch of government, and I think it is our constitutional obligation 
to say if you are not going to use FISA, tell us why. Tell us what we 
need to do to make it more applicable.
  We have offered that numerous times in the Judiciary Committee, yet 
we are told, no, you don't need to change it. Of course we don't need 
to change it if they can simply go around it. So I think the 
gentleman's amendment is perfectly proper.
  Believe me, if this amendment passes, and the administration feels 
compelled, they will come directly to Congress and ask for the 
authority, but they will do it right, and I think the Congress will be 
glad to give it to them. But there has to be bounds here.
  We are the elected representatives. It struck me when one of the 
Members in opposition to this amendment said a lot of people in the 
executive branch know about this program. That ought to be disturbing 
to a lot of us, that far more people in the executive branch know about 
this program than the elected representatives of the people. Does that 
not disturb anybody around here that many people over in the executive 
know about it and we don't?
  We are told in the National Security Act that the President is 
supposed to inform the committees of jurisdiction. It doesn't say a few 
members of those committees, the committees of jurisdiction.
  I think we simply ought to follow this. This is a reasonable 
amendment. I would urge those in my party and the other party to 
support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering 
this amendment.
  I think we should all be able to agree on a couple things. This is an 
extremely important issue. It should be beyond partisan politics. We 
should use all our means to intercept communications from al Qaeda for 
our national security. We should also abide by the rule of law.
  The rule of law is not an a la carte thing. You don't get to pick and 
choose which laws you like and which laws you don't like. We don't say 
to the American people when we pass statutes in this Congress and they 
are duly signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution, 
pick the ones you like to comply with and ignore the ones we don't 
like.
  Well, this President and any President should not be held to any 
different standard than the American people when it comes to abiding by 
laws duly passed by this Congress and signed by the President in 
accordance with the Constitution, and that is what this debate is all 
about.
  The amendment is very simple. It is so straightforward, I am just 
going to read a portion of it right now. ``None of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance 
in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'' and other chapters cited here.
  In other words, comply with the laws passed by this Congress and 
signed by the President.
  Now, we have heard from our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee 
to trust us, this is a needed program. A lot of us haven't had the 
benefit of that information. But I would say, many of us have not 
disputed the need for the program.
  Maybe we should have this program. We certainly want to intercept any 
communications from al Qaeda. But it does concern me that the members 
of the same Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether or not the 
program as it is currently configured is complying with FISA. That 
certainly is not a classified thing, whether or not it is configured to 
comply with FISA. The fact that the members of the Intelligence 
Committee cannot tell us whether it is configured with FISA or not is 
troubling.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, all of the articles in the Washington Post 
that talked about this said that it wasn't, in some cases. None of us 
get in trouble for disclosing that fact. Your amendment doesn't 
restrict money if it does comply with it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. If it 
complies with FISA, it is fine.
  Now, what is troubling is the Attorney General was asked way back why 
he didn't come to Congress to seek changes to the law to accommodate 
this program, and he said he considered that possibility, but then he 
didn't think Congress would pass it. Well, if that is your conclusion, 
you don't get to just say, well, I am going to ignore the law and 
circumvent it. You have to work with Congress.
  What is really troubling is I think all of us here, if we heard the 
same information that members of the Intelligence Committee say they 
have access to, would also conclude it may be

[[Page 11933]]

a necessary program. But if it is, let's put it within the confines of 
the law. That is all this amendment does.
  Yes, it authorizes electronic surveillance. We want it to authorize 
electronic surveillance. But we want to authorize electronic 
surveillance within the confines of existing law, and if existing law 
can't accommodate that program, let's come back here, let's pass a 
statute and change it.
  Those who say FISA hasn't been changed, it is outdated, the fact of 
the matter is we have made eight changes to FISA since its enactment in 
1978. We can make more changes to FISA right now to accommodate this 
program.
  But let's just make it clear: If you don't think you can get a law 
passed by the Congress, you don't get to choose to ignore it. It is not 
an a la carte system. Our Constitution is based on the rule of law. We 
can protect the American people, we can intercept al Qaeda 
communications, and we can do it in accordance with the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. The 
debate here and potentially the outcome confirm a very important point: 
We do not suffer in this country from a problem of the Presidential 
usurpation of power. We suffer from congressional dereliction of duty. 
It is not a case of the President overreaching. It is a case of us 
ducking and dodging and letting him do all the tough issues.
  This amendment is a very simple one. Now, Members have said on the 
other side, I heard the gentleman from Kansas say, why don't you bring 
in a bill? Two reasons: First of all, if we brought in a bill, it would 
never see the light of day. How can a majority party which has 
specialized in strangling legislation at its birth complain when we 
don't think that is a good way to debate important issues?
  But there is another reason. This is one that can sustain a veto. The 
Supreme Court has made it very clear: It will not referee disputes 
between the executive and legislative branches. The only way you can 
put some restraint on a President who is acting without restraint is by 
an amendment that says there are limits on what he can do with the 
money.
  Now, we have heard selected quotations from John Jay. Poor old John 
Jay hasn't been mentioned in years. I am glad his spirit has been 
invoked. But nobody much cares about John Jay most of the time.
  We have had some Supreme Court cases cited. Youngstown Sheet and Tube 
against Sawyer, which restricted the President in a time of war, was 
not mentioned.
  Let's be very clear: History does not dictate the answer. This calls 
on every Member of this House to say what kind of Constitution do you 
want? Do you want one in which the President can have unchecked 
executive power, not just in time of war, but any time?
  We are in what the President now says is a war against terrorism that 
is unlikely to have an end. So we are not talking about temporary 
wartime powers. We are talking about what kind of Constitution do you 
want?
  We have a President who has asserted his right to do whatever he 
thinks necessary to protect the country, including, remember, arresting 
American citizens and having them incarcerated indefinitely with no 
chance to present a case. The Supreme Court said, whoa, that goes a 
little too far. But this is what the President has asserted with regard 
to FISA.
  One gentleman said, well, remember what Griffin Bell said. I will be 
honest with you, I have found that as a general principle, ignoring 
Griffin Bell is a good idea. I have always done that in important 
cases. But what Griffin Bell said or didn't say doesn't tell us.
  And this is the question, not what John Jay said or this one said, 
because you can quote each other to death. What kind of Constitution do 
you want? Do you want one where the President of the United States 
without any check can do what he thinks best? Because, by the way, the 
courts won't be involved here, because they can avoid a court decision 
by never prosecuting based on this evidence.
  So the only potential check here is if we say no. Yes, you can 
wiretap, as long as you can get a warrant. And getting warrants under 
FISA is not hard. But we do not like the principle of an unchecked 
Presidential power.
  I will yield to my friend from California if he will begin by 
answering this question: Conservatives tell me they like to be textual 
with regard to the Constitution. Would he cite for me, I thought maybe 
the Constitution got changed while I wasn't looking, so I went and read 
article II, it took about a minute and a half, it is a pretty small 
article. I am glad to see the President can get paid. It is right there 
in the Constitution.
  But would he cite for me the text of the Constitution, article II, 
which empowers the President to do this, even if Congress tells him not 
to?
  I will just add this. With regard to Youngstown Sheet and Tube, as I 
recall the analysis, it was there are three situations. I will ask for 
additional time, because I would like to have a colloquy. The President 
acting alone, the President acting with Congress, and the President 
acting in contradiction to what Congress has said.
  The analysis has always been acting with Congress, the President is 
at the peak of his powers. Acting alone, it is unclear. Acting in 
contravention to what Congress has said, he is at his weakest. Here, 
since we have FISA, this is in contravention to what Congress has told 
him to do.
  So I would now yield to the gentleman. Would he begin just by citing 
the parts of the Constitution that are relevant, and then, obviously, 
he is free to say what he wishes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I was speaking of the vesting clause in the U.S. Constitution 
that gives the President with the executive powers----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please read it. I would ask the gentleman 
literally to please read it, because I think it doesn't say what he 
says it says. Please read it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't have the exact words.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask, would a page bring me the 
Constitution while we are talking?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It is the vesting clause of the 
Constitution, vesting in the President the executive authority, coupled 
with his authority as Commander in Chief.
  Now, let me just say to the gentleman, so we can make it clear, I 
have never argued that the President has this authority in all things, 
as some have suggested, to kill people, to do this, to do that. I have 
cited authority which suggested in the area of gathering foreign 
intelligence, which is about what we are talking.
  Secondly, I would just say that the gentleman is right that we do 
have the power of the purse.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't argue at all that this 
is an inappropriate amendment to be considered, because this is the 
proper exercise of our authority to the power of the purse. What I have 
suggested is the arguments that the President is acting illegally or 
unlawfully are not appropriate, because he is acting under the 
Constitution, in my judgment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. So the gentleman 
then agrees with this point. There is nothing inappropriate about this 
amendment. So while he believes the President is within his power to do 
this, does the gentleman agree that if this amendment is adopted by a 
majority, the President would be bound by it?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. He would be bound by it with 
respect to the expenditure of funds in this particular bill. I don't 
think there is any question about that.

[[Page 11934]]


  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that if he can find, I thank the 
gentleman and I appreciate that. I take back my time. The gentleman 
knows the rules. The gentleman knows the rules. He may not know the 
Constitution, but he knows the rules. I take back my time just to say, 
so we understand----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let us have the common ground. The 
question here, and I think I will accept this, we are not debating 
constitutionality here; we are debating what public policy ought to be. 
The gentleman from California agrees it is appropriate for us to 
consider it and agrees that, if it passes, the President is bound by 
it.
  Now, I would yield to the gentleman. Are there other places the 
President can then find this money? Is that what the gentleman is 
saying? If the President were to be bound by this, would the gentleman 
suggest the President could then do this anyway in some other fashion? 
I would yield to him.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This doesn't cover all 
expenditures of the President under all circumstances. This is limited 
to the funds that are contained in this bill, as you know, because it 
is an appropriation bill.
  But could I mention one thing, because there has been some question 
about this. The FISA court of review issued an opinion in 2002 which 
stated: all the other courts that have decided the issue held that the 
President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches 
to obtain foreign intelligence information.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are beyond that. Look, I do not think 
the Constitution, I will be honest with you, I think people decide and 
then they pick the----
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Can we talk about----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am taking back my time. Let us debate 
the merits. Let us not hide behind----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to say, stop hiding behind 
varying degrees of constitutional interpretation. By hiding behind 
them, I mean this: I don't think that people sat and said, oh, geez 
this is what John Jay told me and this is what I am bound by. I think 
we are talking here about what we think public policy ought to be. 
Should the President or should not the President have to get a warrant 
through FISA? That is the text of this amendment. Let us debate the 
public policy.
  I yield first to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, I agree with that. I 
also think that the American Bar Association looked at this. They came 
to the conclusion that the President had to comply with the FISA law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me just say this. Here is the 
constitutional text that my friend from California invoked, and pretty 
accurately. Good memory the gentleman has. Article II, section 1: The 
executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of 
America, period.
  Now, he says that gives him the power. This is circular. Why does the 
President have the power? Because he has the executive power. But we 
are precisely here defining for ourselves, as Americans today, what the 
executive power is and has meant to be. All this says is that he has 
the executive power. Does the executive power mean he can lock somebody 
up without a trial as he has said it does? Does the executive power 
mean he can ignore an act of Congress and wiretap when he wants to? 
That is the question. Saying that the executive power is vested in him 
simply is a way of putting the question. The question is, What is the 
executive power?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to get to 
one question that has I think not been answered to the opposition to 
this amendment. And that is, the suggestion is by those who know the 
program better than I do that parts of it don't meet the requirements 
of FISA. And my question is, Why can't this program be authorized by 
law? Why can't we change the law to authorize it?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will answer the gentleman's question: 
because the President and his supporters do not want to concede that 
there is any limit on his power even if he could get this done through 
FISA, and that is the----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  Mr. FRANK. I ask for an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, but we are talking in circles. We are not even talking about 
some of the main issues that are before us. The sponsor of the 
amendment just admitted that we are talking about an authorization. 
This is an appropriations bill. This should be done at an authorization 
committee where you all are.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Just a minute. It is under my reservation.
  Let us bring this to a close. We can repeat our arguments so many 
times. I withdraw my reservation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In my remaining minute, I understand, I 
will say that my good friend from Pennsylvania I think is probably not 
distressed that we are talking about something that is not the heart of 
the bill. But the fact is, I will close by this, we are talking about 
it here because this is the only enforceable way to put restraints on 
the President. And I will tell you why I think it is important. 
Chaplain Yee at Guantanamo, Burton Mayfield in Oregon, Wen Ho Lee under 
the Clinton administration, there are, sadly, cases of entirely 
innocent individuals who were prosecuted and gone after.
  I don't think the President is ill intended here. And I think the law 
enforcement people are the good guys; I just don't think they are the 
perfect guys. So I want to give them power, but I want to subject that 
to some check beforehand and some process afterwards. And that is what 
we are saying here. We are fully in favor of empowering law 
enforcement, but we do not want them to be exclusive in the exercise of 
that power. And asking that they go before a judge to justify it when 
they are going to be wiretapping an American seems to us to be 
reasonable and to do no harm to America.
  And to repeat my answer to the gentleman from California: the 
opponents of this amendment are the proponents of the view that the 
President's power should be entirely unchecked, and that is dangerous.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the discussion and the debate 
that we have had on this amendment. I join with the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee in opposing 
this amendment.
  It would jeopardize one of the most critical abilities to detect and 
prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. In addition, it would 
interfere with an ongoing course of oversight that has been conducted 
on a bipartisan basis by the leadership in the authorizing committee 
since the inception of this program.
  It is the day after 9/11 and the President has asked NSA, other parts 
of the intelligence community, the military: What is the threat? How do 
we most effectively respond? And what is the threat to the Nation? And 
he has asked the intel community and the military

[[Page 11935]]

to come back with various options as how best to protect the United 
States in that time of uncertainty, and the executive branch and the 
various agencies come back with a series of proposals as to exactly 
what they believe can be done and should be done to keep America safe.
  The President doesn't act unilaterally; the President acts in a 
collaborative basis. It is not an overreaching of an Executive.
  To my colleague from Arizona, if a President of the other party went 
through the same processes that this President went through and 
exercised these authorities would I support that President? My answer 
would be different than my colleague from Arizona; the answer would be, 
yes, because the process was very straightforward. Four times within 
the first 8 months after 9/11, it was a collaborative process between 
leaders of this House and the U.S. Senate who sat down with the 
executive branch and reviewed this program in detail. Do you know what 
they said? This is a program that is necessary in a time of 
uncertainty. We support this program, and it needs to move forward.
  We have had some discussions and disagreements as to the extent of 
the number of people that should have been briefed on the authorizing 
committee. We have worked through that process, and now every single 
person who has the desire to be briefed on this program is briefed on 
the program and have had the opportunity or will be given the 
opportunity when they get new questions to have every single one of 
their questions answered.
  We have a way ahead on our authorizing committee. The ranking member 
has introduced legislation that she thinks may address some of the 
issues. But we know that FISA and electronic surveillance is a very, 
very difficult issue because technology has changed significantly since 
FISA was originally developed. And so we are going to move forward, and 
I am thrilled that within the Intelligence Committee we are going to 
continue a bipartisan way ahead. It doesn't mean we are going to agree, 
but it does mean that we have laid out a process as to what the needs 
are of the intelligence community to keep America safe, what the legal 
framework is, and evaluate the changes in technology and the 
environment so that we can do the necessary oversight and protect and 
balance civil liberties with the needs of America's security.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate it that you mentioned bipartisanship and 
mentioned our committee. I had not been planning to speak during this 
debate. I have great admiration for the bipartisan sponsors of this 
amendment. I also agree with their point, which is that the total 
program must comply fully with FISA. But my view is, as the chairman 
has stated, that we should deal with this issue in the legislative 
committee. And the reason we should deal with this issue in the 
legislative committee is that it is, as everybody here fully 
understands, very, very complicated. A number of us, 50 of us, are 
supporting H.R. 5371, The Listen Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoekstra was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I would like to ask our chairman: Will you agree that 
that bill and perhaps others will be the subject of the committee 
oversight and the subject of a legislative hearing in our committee at 
a reasonable future date?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, absolutely. And as we have talked 
about it, and I appreciate the patience of my colleague as we have 
worked through the briefings of the entire committee and as we move 
forward, the legislative hearing on H.R. 5371 and other legislative 
initiatives that some of our colleagues are developing that address 
both the FISA issues which may apply to the current program but also 
which will be further reaching in terms of taking a look at different 
technology and those type of things as that has evolved is something 
that I think we can do on a bipartisan basis, and I am committed to 
doing.
  Ms. HARMAN. And if you would yield to me again, first, to note that 
the American Bar Association and numerous civil liberties groups 
support H.R. 5371. But my further question is, Do you agree that the 
entire program should be covered by law? The President may have 
inherent authority to do things, but eavesdropping on Americans in 
America must be covered by the law that Congress passed. I am not 
asking you to agree to that point because you may not, although I feel 
strongly about it. But I am asking you whether you agree that it is the 
Congress that should determine the legal basis for the President's 
actions and not the White House acting unilaterally.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments. From my perspective, it is very, very important that Congress 
create the legal framework by which the President exercises his 
authority. And the only thing that could overrule our legislative box 
that in our case we put the intelligence community in would be the 
overriding authority of the Constitution.
  I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue 
to the floor in the form of this amendment today. I think that they 
have done the country a great service. If this House had been doing its 
job properly, this issue would have been out here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives quite some time ago.
  The fundamental principle that we are dealing with here is simply 
this: we are a Nation of law. All of our law is based upon the 
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the 
President of the United States the authority to violate the law. The 
President of the United States has violated the law.
  This is not the first administration that has sought to govern the 
country on the basis of the creation of a climate of fear. As one of 
our colleagues pointed out earlier in this debate, that can be traced 
all the way back to the Adams administration, the first Adams 
administration. But that attempt eventually was overthrown, and it 
didn't take a long time.

                              {time}  1715

  The last time we had a President of the United States who wanted to 
engage in illegal surveillance on the American people, the last time we 
had a President like this one who was engaging in that kind of 
activity, was the Nixon administration. President Nixon engaged in 
illegal surveillance on the American people. As a result of that and 
other things, he was forced out of office.
  Subsequently the Congress developed the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, FISA, in 1978. There are some of us who believe that 
FISA itself is a compromise of the fourth amendment of the 
Constitution. The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees 
independence and privacy to every single American citizen, and there 
are some of us who believe that the FISA Act compromises that. 
Nevertheless, it is the law.
  So what do we have now? We have a President who has gone beyond the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, who has engaged in illegal 
surveillance against the American citizens.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would direct the Member not to refer to the 
President of the United States in accusatory terms.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the way that I 
believe is appropriate, and I will continue to do so.
  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to ensure that 
the President did not violate the law and go beyond it. This 
administration has violated the law. We have not addressed that. The 
House of Representatives, the Senate has not addressed this issue.
  Now we have an opportunity to address it by virtue of the fact that 
we

[[Page 11936]]

have this amendment before us. This is an important vote today. Every 
Member of this House should act in accordance with the law and 
accordance with the Constitution and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will 
be very quick. Two final points in response to what the chairman and 
the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had to say.
  First, there is legislation on this subject, bipartisan legislation, 
that was introduced on March 16. We have had no oversight hearing on 
it, no markup on it, nothing, zero, zilcho, nada, which is why we are 
on the appropriations bill, the only vehicle in which we could raise 
this issue.
  Second, both Members have said that this amendment would somehow 
jeopardize an existing NSA program. What that means is that far from my 
colleague from California's point, that the program does not comply 
with FISA. Otherwise, how could it be jeopardized? So there is an 
admission by the chair of the committee that the existing program does 
not meet the requirements of FISA.
  What still has gone unanswered is why can we not make changes to FISA 
and the existing law? If this is such a vital program, why does it have 
to be done outside of the law?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the major point here that the opposition to 
this makes is the President has inherent authority. That has not been 
tested at the Supreme Court because once FISA was enacted, that was 
enacted to limit unbridled Presidential authority. I believe FISA is 
the only way that you can proceed; that the President must go to FISA 
if he is going to conduct these kind of foreign intelligence 
activities.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is 
exactly right. That is the law currently. Whether that law violates the 
Constitution is an open question. Nevertheless, because it has not been 
contested, it is the law, and the President, the administration, all of 
us have to live by that law.
  There is nothing that gives the President of the United States or 
anyone in this administration the authority to engage in surveillance 
of the American people, not a single American citizen, outside of the 
definition requirements within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has made 
it very clear it will not referee fundamental constitutional debates 
over power between the executive and legislative branches. Only if you 
got a case would this get to the Court, and they will dodge and duck 
and never allow there to be a case. This is the only constitutional way 
to confront it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  This is, I think, a very important debate, and I am glad we are 
having it. I think this is an absolutely terrible amendment. The 
question is really do you believe we are at war or not. The President 
has made it very clear. You have a known al Qaeda operative.
  Let us go back to World War II. You have got a German or a Japanese 
agent, in Germany, in the south Pacific, speaking to various people, 
and we are listening in. Now, would the American people in World War 
II, if they began speaking to somebody in the United States or a known 
American citizen, want the listening device put down and go to a judge? 
That is what we are talking about.
  He is in a cave, he is in Afghanistan, he is in Baghdad, he is 
talking. Let us talk about Israel, okay? Do you think the Mossad, if 
somebody is speaking from Jordan, and there are known terrorists 
operatives, and they are speaking to somebody in Israel, they want to 
put down the listening device and go in front of a judge? That is what 
we are talking about. Are we at war, or are we not at war? It is a 
known al Qaeda operative.
  They are overseas, and suddenly they are talking to an American 
citizen, be it in the United States or elsewhere, and it is time to put 
down and stop listening and go find a judge and put together a brief 
and get a judge to review it? I believe we are at war, and they want to 
kill us. They want to kill our wives. They want to kill our children.
  This is a good debate because this debate has been going on for 
months and months, and this is a horrible, horrible amendment because 
it ties one hand behind our back, and it should be defeated, and we 
should vote it soon and vote it down.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy, and I do think 
this is an important debate. I appreciate your perspective.
  I want to ask you a forthright question. Do you understand that under 
the scenario you have posed, that you can go over the executive, 72 
hours after the event, 72 hours after the event, you go and get a 
warrant, you can continue your tap, you can get the intelligence, 72 
hours? Do you understand that is allowed?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I understand that I want them to keep 
listening. I want the information, and this is what the debate is 
about. You want to stop. You want go to a judge. I do not think we 
should.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to make 
sure you understand. I want to make sure the gentleman understands that 
under this amendment you do not have to stop listening to anybody ever. 
We want to continue listening, and we simply require that 72 hours 
after that, we ask the executive to have another set of eyeballs take a 
look at it to make sure it is compliant. Does the gentleman understand 
this amendment does not stop anybody ever, as long as you go and have a 
warrant 72 hours after the intelligence gathering? Do you understand 
that is the purpose of our amendment? Because it is.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, that begs the 
question as to whether or not you can, in fact, effectively do that 
with the 72-hour limitation. There are those running the program that 
suggest that that is not possible, not because necessarily the 
limitation on going to court, but all of the work that needs to go 
forward before you get to the court to get the approval. That is what 
we ought to be talking about.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I 
understand it, what you all have laid out is not that easy to do 
basically; that you have to make a case in front of a judge, and if it 
is a known al Qaeda operative, I think we should be listening to all of 
their conversations.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield just for a moment, I just 
want to make sure members understand what we are voting on.
  If this amendment passes, the President of the United States and his 
executive authority will be able to continue to listen to these 
conversations unimpeded, unimpeded, as long as they go to a judge 72 
hours after.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think they 
should be able to do that. If you have a known al Qaeda operative, we 
should be listening to all their conversations. We should be listening 
to all conversations from all al Qaeda operatives.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee in a colloquy. Let me just state before we have this 
colloquy, my position is that FISA, as presently drafted, must cover 
the entire program. This is

[[Page 11937]]

my position after being fully briefed on the program, as the chairman 
said, and being fully briefed by the NSA and the Justice Department 
about how FISA works. It is my position that FISA can and must cover 
the full program. Be that as it may, I would like to ask the chairman 
some questions.
  As you noted, Mr. Chairman, some of us on the committee and a total 
of 50 Members of this House have introduced H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act, 
which would require that this program be brought fully under FISA, and 
which also states that more resources will be made available to change 
the way FISA is implemented so that using electronic means, more staff, 
whatever it takes, there will be a more efficient way to get 72-hour 
emergency warrants. I know you are aware of the contents of our bill.
  My question to you is are you prepared to hold a legislative hearing 
in the Intelligence Committee on our bill and any other bills that may 
be pending before our committee that address this issue of FISA as it 
is connected to the NSA program?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding.
  As the gentlewoman knows, we have worked through this very much in a 
collaborative process. We followed on the heels of the former chairman 
and the former ranking member in trying to make sure that we do this in 
a bipartisan basis.
  We have had a number of briefings on this program to fully understand 
how FISA works both from the NSA, from Justice and a number of place. 
It is interesting for those people who are not part of the committee, 
who make categorical statements that nothing has happened, and we know 
that we have had a way forward, where we have done things.
  But in terms of your simple question, I just had to take the shot, 
the opportunity to respond to just what I thought were some unfair 
characterizations as to what you and I have been doing in the 
committee.
  I commit that we will have a legislative hearing on this and other 
proposals that will create a framework that hopefully can move out of 
committee, but there will be a legislative hearing, yes.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are you prepared 
following the legislative hearing or hearings to report a bill to the 
House floor? Will you personally agree not to block any bill from being 
reported to the House floor?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will not use my position as chairman of the committee 
to block a consensus of the Intelligence Committee to move a bill to 
the floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this for myself and 
others who are listening.
  You are prepared to consider this bill, H.R. 5371, which would force 
this entire program to comply with FISA. Actually much credit for the 
construct of H.R. 5371 does go to Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake. I just want 
to clarify, and then I would like to yield, H.R. 5371 says the entire 
program must comply with FISA, and we will hold a legislative hearing 
on this bill and other bills, the committee will then report 
legislation to the House floor; is that correct?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. We will hold a legislative hearing, and we will 
determine whether there is a consensus in the committee that will 
enable us to move a bill that would reform FISA and move it to the 
floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Well, our bill, reclaiming my time, does not reform FISA. 
It just gives resources to make FISA work.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are further along than 
we were, but the phrase ``consensus,'' consensus is nice, but nothing 
in the House rules or the Constitution or the writings of John Jay say 
that it is a prerequisite for moving legislation.
  I would hope that the gentleman would say on an issue that we all 
agree is important, a bill will come to the floor, the majority will 
decide, but I do not think those of us not on the committee ought to 
only get an opportunity to legislate on this if there is a consensus.
  Now, if you are telling us do not do it as an amendment to the 
appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, because the bill is going to come 
forward, we need to know that a bill is going to come forward, 
consensus or not, and then the House can decide what it wants to do.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and 
I would appreciate it if he would answer that comment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from Massachusetts, 
consensus means that we have 12 votes to move a bill out of committee. 
All right. Consensus does not mean 21 ayes and zero noes. Okay. So 
thank you for that clarification.
  I think it is also important to know that moving a bill to floor that 
would deal with this issue, we would probably not be the only committee 
of jurisdiction. Other committees would have jurisdiction as well.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Schiff, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Harman was 
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the chair and ranking 
member, I know my bill, and I assume that the gentlewoman's also, has 
now been referred to both Intel and Judiciary, and without a similar 
commitment from Judiciary, there is really no commitment that would 
come to the floor.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Judiciary Committee would also 
act. Mr. Conyers is a lead author with me of the bill I am talking 
about. But I think it is critical that the Intelligence Committee act 
because we have the membership that is briefed on the program, and if 
we report a bill to the House floor for action, I would hope that the 
House would respond to that promptly.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little ambivalent about this 
amendment because the amendment seems to say that we should obey the 
law, and some people might get the implication if we don't pass the 
amendment that we are free not to obey the law.
  The amendment says that ``funds are prohibited from being used to 
engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as 
authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or title 
III.'' Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that. It 
says that this title and title III shall be the exclusive, exclusive, 
that is the word used in the law, the exclusive authority for domestic 
surveillance, for domestic wiretapping. Anything outside of that is 
illegal. Anything the administration is doing outside of FISA and title 
III, by the terms of FISA, is illegal.
  Certainly we should obey the law. I will vote for this amendment 
because I can't imagine the House saying we shouldn't obey the law, 
although I hear some of that from the other side. The fact is that this 
entire program, insofar as it is done outside of FISA or title III, is 
by definition illegal because the law says so, period.
  Now, I just came from the airport, and I heard a little of the 
debate, with people saying, well, maybe it is too hard to get a 
warrant. Maybe the work that has to go on beforehand is too hard and 
takes too long to get a warrant, even 72 hours after the surveillance 
begins, which is what FISA says. Well, if that is the case, let the 
administration make that case and let us amend FISA.
  Remember why FISA was passed. FISA was passed because of tyrannical,

[[Page 11938]]

illegal conduct by the FBI and by prior administrations that was 
considered by the Congress. After hearings and after revelations, they 
said, my God, we curtailed liberty in this country. We invaded the 
liberty of law-abiding, peaceful citizens under the cover of law, and 
we should never do that again; we are going to enact some safeguards. 
And Congress enacted FISA to be that safeguard.
  And to say if you want to do domestic surveillance, if you think 
someone is a Communist agent, in those days, or an al Qaeda agent 
today, here is the procedure by which you get the authority to wiretap 
that person. Should a known al Qaeda agent be wiretapped all the time? 
I would say, yes, but a court would say, yes, too. In fact, we provided 
in that law for a secret court. You can go get an exparte order on 
secret evidence in a secret proceeding, and you can even do it after 
the fact, 72 hours.
  Now, maybe it should be 96 hours or 5 days. Maybe someone could make 
a case for that. Let Congress change the law for that. But simply to 
say, the FBI tells us, the administration tells us that obeying the law 
is too difficult?
  I remember a few years ago hearing ringing phrases from Henry Hyde 
and a lot of other people about the rule of law. We should impeach a 
President because he allegedly violated the rule of law. And now we 
come to this floor and say ignore the law? The administration, if it is 
too hard, can ignore the law?
  The law says that FISA and title III are the exclusive authority for 
wiretapping in the United States, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. All 
this amendment does is repeat it.
  As I said, I am ambivalent about it because I don't know that we 
should have to repeat it, but apparently we do. So I urge the adoption 
of this amendment, and I would remind everybody that to vote against 
this amendment is to say we are endorsing the violation of the law. We 
don't care about the rule of law. We endorse the administration's 
illegal and extraconstitutional action and we are making ourselves 
complicit in that and there is no protection, because the President now 
claims the power to disobey any law under his inherent authority under 
article II as Commander in Chief.
  That is a power even George, III, didn't claim, to just disobey the 
law when he judges it necessary because of his being Commander in Chief 
of the armed services. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, 
not of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief of the United 
States. He is not a monarch.
  No President should have the power to disobey the law or to set aside 
the law when he thinks it necessary. If he thinks changing the law is 
necessary, come to Congress, change the law, enact a change in FISA. I 
might support it; I might not. But Congress will work its will. Enact a 
change in FISA.
  Simply to say, as this amendment does, that no funds shall be used 
except in accordance with law, because the law says no electronic 
surveillance shall occur, that is the words, no electronic surveillance 
except as provided in this act or in title III. That is the law. That 
is what this says. If we have any shame at all, we should adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the House passed H.R. 5631, the Defense 
Appropriations Act for FY2007. I commend Chairman Young and Ranking 
Member Murtha for crafting an important piece of legislation that will 
provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to 
continue their excellent record of service to the Nation. I was proud 
to vote for that measure, which passed by an overwhelming vote of 407-
19.
  However, I am disappointed that the House did not pass a very 
important amendment offered by Congressman Schiff to block funding for 
any surveillance program that does not comply with the safeguards in 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I have been deeply disturbed 
by the President's decision to expand domestic surveillance of U.S. 
citizens beyond what is permitted under existing law. As a member of 
the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, I am fully 
aware of the dangers posed by those who wish to harm Americans, and I 
have strongly supported efforts to make our Nation safer. However, 
President Bush has not yet explained to my satisfaction why powers 
available to him under existing law cannot meet the needs of the war on 
terrorism. For example, the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) 
already permits the warrantless surveillance of communications by U.S. 
citizens under certain limited circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bush 
Administration did not use those emergency powers and instead chose to 
expand the authority of the National Security Agency (NSA).
  As I have said before, if President Bush believes that FISA needs to 
be altered or updated to address new threats, he should make his case 
to Congress and propose legislative changes. The President's decision 
to expand domestic surveillance while notifying only a handful of 
legislators does not constitute Congressional consent and is a danger 
to our established Constitutional system of checks and balances. While 
Americans may disagree about the merits of broadening the government's 
authority to combat terrorism, it is in all of our interests that such 
important decisions should be made publicly, as they affect the very 
values of freedom and liberty on which the Nation was founded.
  Opponents of the Schiff amendment argued that we shouldn't be 
considering such a significant change in a spending bill. Under normal 
circumstances, I would agree with that assessment. However, because the 
House has neglected to consider any legislation to address the serious 
issue of domestic surveillance, we are left with no other choice.
  We cannot continue to shirk our Constitutional responsibility to 
conduct oversight of the executive branch and its activities. We must 
hold hearings and consider legislation to ensure that our efforts to 
protect our nation are done consistent with the civil liberties that we 
hold dear and comply with the Constitution--the supreme law of the 
land.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last work for 
purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman of 
the subcommittee.
  On May 11, the House passed the defense authorization bill for fiscal 
year 2007. As the chairman knows, the bill includes a funding 
authorization to build two Virginia Class submarines per year, starting 
in 2009. Consistent with the Navy's stated requirement, the House bill 
also includes language requiring the service to maintain a submarine 
fleet of no less than 48 attack submarines.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Navy has a growing shortage of 
fast attack submarines, and I offer for consideration the following 
statistics provided by the Navy: over the last 5 years, the Navy 
submarine force last fulfilled only 60 percent of the mission taskings; 
in 2006, the submarine force covered only 54 percent of the combatant 
commanders' requests; and most alarmingly, this year the force has met 
only 34 percent of high-priority missions.
  I congratulate this distinguished chairman for his hard work on the 
defense appropriations bill under consideration today. The bill does 
not include submarine provisions similar to those found in the 
authorization bill, however; and so I ask the chairman to work toward a 
conference solution that includes funding for the advanced procurement 
of a second Virginia Class submarine sometime before 2012. Increasing 
our submarine build rate is the only solution to a growing force level 
gap.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the very distinguished chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Connecticut has made a 
strong and convincing policy argument for building two submarines each 
year sooner than the year 2012, and we have discussed this off and on 
for the last several weeks. He is very, very persuasive. So I can 
assure him that I will

[[Page 11939]]

continue to work with him as we prepare to go to conference and go to 
conference to address the shortage of submarines in our Navy.
  I am a very strong advocate of our submarine capability. I think that 
is one of the best deterrence systems that we have, one of the best 
military systems, and I appreciate the work of the gentleman from 
Connecticut on this issue. As I said, we have had many conversations 
about this. I know of no better champion of submarines in the House 
than Congressman Simmons.
  But as we have discussed, the 302(b) allocation for this subcommittee 
was $4 billion less than the administration requested, so that made a 
shortage of funds. Anyway, Mr. Simmons has made a very strong case and 
I do intend to work with him because I also believe that we should have 
a larger submarine fleet.
  I go back to the days of President Ronald Reagan, who thought we 
should have a 600-ship Navy, which we don't have today, but I supported 
that as well. And I certainly support increasing the size of our 
submarine fleet. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and 
doing the good job that he has done in making this case.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his commitment 
and applaud him and the rest of the committee for their hard work on 
this legislation under consideration today, and I look forward to 
working with him in an appropriate fashion as the Congress moves 
forward with this important spending bill.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue I bring before my colleagues is that we have 
done a very good job in protecting the soldiers on the battlefield, and 
I want to compliment Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha for all you have done. 
And you have done that to protect them against ballistics. So we have 
given them the body armor. They have the side plates, the shoulder 
plates, throat plate, groin plate, and they have this helmet on them 
and it protects them against the ballistic and crash.
  But we have a problem. The problem is now, when these IEDs go off, we 
have blast injuries. Where before you would be close to a blast and the 
body or the torso would absorb part of that blast, now that blast hits 
all that armor that we have put on them, and part of that goes up the 
face where the helmet is strapped onto the chin, and when it goes up 
into the helmet there is no place for the force to be released. So you 
get a concussion, and as the force then comes back down you get a 
precussion. So we have traumatic brain injuries.
  We need to examine this, and I want to work with Mr. Young, with Mr. 
Weldon, and Mr. Murtha. We need for the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct a series of 
comprehensive, nonballistic and ballistic tests and an evaluation of 
the Marine Corps light combat helmet and Army combat helmet with all 
qualified sling, pad, and suspension systems available in accordance 
with the operational requirements applicable to such helmets.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Last week, on Thursday, I chaired a hearing in my subcommittee 
looking at this very issue with helmets, and we have a dilemma right 
now, Mr. Chairman.
  We have all of our Army being outfitted with modern helmets thanks to 
the good work of the appropriators. 500,000 of these helmets are on 
order and in place with cutting-edge technology inserts that the 
soldiers are very happy with. We have the Marines Special Ops units 
deployed with similar helmets with the inserts the Army is using.
  But we have 20,000 marines in theater, and 6,000 of those marines 
have requested an updated insert that the marines are unwilling to 
provide. So we have a private nonprofit, headed by a former Navy 
surgeon, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy inserts 
to give to our soldiers in theater, including the 6,000 marines.
  It is a very confusing issue. General Catto last week said, well, we 
are not going to stop them from using these inserts, but he won't order 
them for the rest of the marines. What this language does is it says 
complete this study within 60 days and buy immediately the helmets and 
the inserts, especially for the Marine Corps that the marines in 
theater are in fact requesting and using.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for his good work.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For those of us who have visited our wounded 
soldiers and marines in the hospitals understand the importance of the 
type of injury you are discussing. Sometimes it is very obvious, very 
evident, and sometimes it is not obvious at all, but it is there.
  I believe we can help with what you want to do here. I believe as we 
write our conference report that will come with the conference product. 
I think we can direct what it is that you want to see directed, and I 
am prepared to offer that as we go into the conference.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman, and I yield to Mr. Murtha.
  Mr. MURTHA. I agree.
  Mr. BUYER. I thank the two gentlemen and look forward to working with 
you as we go to conference.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Institute for Exploration at Mystic 
     Aquarium in New London, Connecticut.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, when I saw this earmark, which is $1 million 
for research at the environmental center at Mystic Aquarium, 
Connecticut, I thought I was experiencing deja vu. We had a similar 
amendment in the Energy and Water bill just last week, or 2 weeks ago. 
Now we are looking at the defense bill, and the only difference is the 
amount of the earmark. I believe it was $400,000 then; this defense 
bill earmark is for $1 million. My amendment would remove this earmark 
from the bill.
  Now, during our debate a few weeks ago on this subject, we learned 
that the aquarium has been in operation for over 20 years, that it is 
an educational and research institution with expertise in ocean 
environmental studies and in deep sea exploration. We learned that it 
provides activities and learning for boys and girls clubs. All of these 
are worthy activities, certainly.
  We learned that the world's foremost deep sea explorer collocates his 
operation at the aquarium. That is Dr. Robert Ballard, I believe.

                              {time}  1745

  What we didn't learn was why this aquarium gets favorable treatment 
over aquariums in Arizona or Massachusetts or Kansas. We didn't learn 
what enumerated Federal function the aquarium fills. We certainly did 
not learn, and we haven't learned yet today, and I hope to learn in the 
next 5 minutes, how the aquarium contributes to the most basic and 
critical function of defending our country.
  We just heard a great discussion about how we need to free up more 
funding for helmets for our military. I would suggest this is a great 
place to start. It is often said you can't vote for the Flake 
amendments because the money will simply be spent anyway by the agency. 
In this case the agency is the Department of Defense, and I think it 
would be hard to believe that they could make a case for a program less 
wise than this on their own, that they have something that fitters away 
more dollars than spending on an aquarium.
  I like the Boys and Girls Club, but they aren't fighting for us and 
defending our country. Maybe they have programs that benefit them at 
this aquarium, but I would submit that it is no way to spend our 
defense dollars.
  By voting against this amendment, you are saying that we place more

[[Page 11940]]

value in the defense bill for funding aquariums than we do in funding 
defense.
  Now we were trying to find out when we were researching this 
amendment, and we were not told much by the Appropriations Committee, 
so we tried to find out what this is, if it really is Connecticut, and 
I was told today, no, I think it is in Ohio on Lake Erie. I don't know 
what the aquarium does. I am anxious to learn what it does and how it 
contributes to defense.
  In this process without a unanimous consent agreement on this bill, I 
am unable to ask questions and then speak later. I hope whoever is 
sponsoring this legislation or supporting this will please tell us how 
it is more vital to fund aquariums in the defense bill than funding 
helmets for our troops, for example, or anything else the Defense 
Department can do.
  I would ask, please, for the sponsor of the amendment or whoever is 
defending it to tell us why we should be funding aquariums in the 
defense bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
oppose the gentleman's effort to try to eliminate the funding for this 
program.
  Let me first begin by saying that the Supreme Allied Commander of 
NATO supports this effort as one that is strategic. Many of us on the 
committee also support it because it is educational.
  Let me explain to the gentleman that the organizations that will 
carry out the undersea exploration in the Black Sea and in the eastern 
Mediterranean will do this working under the authority of NATO. There 
are very preeminent scholars who are involved in this, including Mr. 
Bob Ballard, best known for finding the wreckage of the Titanic.
  The efforts in the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean will be to 
explore underwater in a cooperative effort with our friends in both 
Ukraine and in Russia. The Government of Greece will be involved as 
well, but the instrumentalities that you talked about in this country 
are only locations through which some of our talented people have been 
selected and will be coupled with those of Ukraine, Russia and Greece.
  As you may or may not know, Russia has a base in Crimea, and as both 
Russia and Ukraine move towards NATO, I think it is important for the 
United States to find ways to work with them together so we can achieve 
a very progressive maturation and a set of relationships that include 
underwater exploration in which everyone feels they have a stake.
  One of the side benefits of this particular effort, so you know, is 
that there will be educational programs relating to math and science. 
This particular scientific endeavor will be broadcast through a live 
network of museums, science centers, Boys and Girls Clubs, and 
aquariums, perhaps the one the gentleman mentioned. There are literally 
hundreds of them, including Department of Defense schools in all of the 
NATO countries. So there is also a benefit for education.
  One of the goals is to take and broadcast through Ukraine and Russia 
so we work on this together. There is actually a term that they use, I 
might not have it exactly right, but it is like an instantaneous 
televideo connect where as they film underwater and begin to identify 
various undersea artifacts and conditions, and the oceanographers and 
the scientists involved will make this information available globally.
  So the Institute for Exploration Project is designed not only to help 
our strategic relationships in the region, but it has a benefit for 
children across the world. And by working on a project focused on 
exploration of the maritime conditions in those locations, we engage 
strategically with countries where we need to develop friendships and a 
common agenda without engaging in any kind of overt military activity. 
That is a bit of an explanation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Simmons), who has been such a great colleague in helping the Ukrainian 
Caucus move this project forward.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
I also rise in opposition to the amendment.
  If the logic of the amendment is to be understood, the Department of 
Defense should not engage in any funding of academic research. I think 
we know that the Department of Defense expends incredible dollars on 
academic research, especially applied research, that has application to 
some of their varied missions.
  The United States since World War II has enjoyed subsurface 
dominance. Just a few minutes ago we talked about the issue of our 
submarines and our Submarine Center of Excellence in Groton-New London. 
Well, that Submarine Center of Excellence in Groton-New London is 
collocated with the Institute for Exploration. We are not talking about 
funding for fish food and cleaning the tanks. My colleague from Arizona 
keeps saying it is an aquarium as if we have goldfish in this place, or 
something like that. That is to trivialize some of the activities that 
take place there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Simmons, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. SIMMONS. That is to trivialize the fact that Dr. Robert Ballard, 
a Navy officer, whose exploration activities also mirror his activities 
as a naval officer, and is involved in very interesting and sensitive 
research in the subsurface.
  I would say to my colleague from Arizona, the Department of Defense 
does engage in funding for academic research. The investment in this 
program is very consistent with that, and I feel that perhaps in 
another venue or another time we could make a very detailed explanation 
as to why this is important to our country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention to the gentleman 
from Arizona that some of the following school districts in your State 
will benefit directly, including the Mesa Unified School District, and 
schools in Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale, Glendale, Yuma, Prescott and 
the Arizona Science Center in Phoenix is also involved in the 
dissemination of materials.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was allowed to proceed for 15 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned school districts 
in my State that would benefit. I would say again, this is the exact 
point we are making. This is not the Labor-HHS bill. This is the 
defense bill, for crying out loud. We are trying to fund our defense, 
and we are bleeding off dollars to aquariums. This is the wrong place 
to have this debate. It should be on Labor-HHS.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I put this next one after the last one 
because they kind of are similar. Again, the argument has to be why 
aren't we debating this in the Labor-HHS bill? If we are debating it at 
all, it should be debated in the Labor-HHS.
  This earmark that we are seeking to strike is $1 million for the 
JASON Education Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia. Again, it seems like 
something

[[Page 11941]]

that ought to be in the Labor-HHS bill. The mission of the JASON 
Foundation, and this is from their own Website, is to ``inspire in 
students a lifelong passion for learning in science, math and 
technology through hands-on, real-world scientific discovery.'' That is 
a wonderful mission. I am glad kids are getting the opportunity, but we 
shouldn't be funding it in the defense bill.
  Dr. Robert Ballard has already been referenced here. He is the 
world's foremost ocean archeologist, and is its founder. They have good 
leadership. This is the same Dr. Ballard who collocates his ocean 
exploration operations out of the Mystic Aquarium, the recipient of 
$1.4 million in earmarks so far this year.
  With corporate sponsorship and support from the likes of Oracle, Sun 
Microsystems, EDS, Shell, and Texas Instruments, the JASON Foundation 
has very good backing. However, this earmark raises questions that 
apply to too many other earmarks: Why is it in the defense bill? Should 
it receive any earmark funding at all? Who requested it? We don't know. 
I to this moment do not know who requested this earmark. I am hoping 
the author will come and say. Has there been a hearing on the subject? 
What essential Federal purpose does this serve; and doubly, what 
defense purpose does this earmark serve?
  I think the mission of the JASON Foundation is noble, but the fact 
that we are funding it this way with this vehicle without real 
transparency is very disconcerting. This is not the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill. And frankly, given a lack of transparency and many problems that 
the current earmarking process presents, I don't think that it belongs 
in that bill either when we have a situation where I still to this 
moment have no idea who authored this earmark or what else it is 
supposed to do. All I know is what I have read, and yet we are being 
asked to approve a million dollars for it.
  This is the only oversight this earmark will likely ever get. There 
is virtually no oversight after this. The agencies don't know about 
these earmarks. Most of the time they can't tell us what the earmark is 
for. And if we don't ask these questions here on the House floor, they 
simply don't get asked. I am anxious to hear answers to the questions 
that have been asked: Why is it in the defense bill? Who requested it? 
Has there been a hearing on the subject? Is there a Federal purpose? 
And is there a purpose for it in the defense bill? I can't ask that 
question too many times: Why are we funding this in the defense bill?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment 
and to try to answer the gentleman's very appropriate questions.
  I will speak to both of the amendments that he might have in mind, 
the Tech Center in Apple Valley, California, and the JASON Foundation 
program, for it speaks very much to why this kind of funding should 
flow through the Defense Department. If there is a need that this 
country has today as it relates to our future security and national 
defense, it is to one way or another here at the Federal level, where 
we can impact education, it is to begin to turn around the involvement 
of young people as well as excellent teachers in the fields of math and 
science.
  Without any question, our future viability in terms of security does 
relate to America leading in these fields. The JASON Foundation is very 
much involved in that question; but most importantly, I would like to 
highlight that by describing the Tech Center in Apple Valley, 
California, and give you a feeling for what we are talking about as far 
as turning kids on to math and science and stimulating teachers to 
become better teachers in the fields of math and science.
  A young teacher dealing with kids at the elementary level took them 
out in the countryside in the nighttime in the desert. You and I know 
it gets cold in the desert, and they looked at the stars. When it 
started getting cold, he thought, we need a center where kids can study 
these things.

                              {time}  1800

  It led to this high-tech center. Amazing over time what has evolved 
from that model that one day may very well turn around the teaching of 
math and science in the country. No less than Dan Goldin visited this 
school, and walking into a classroom with me. Here were about 30 
youngsters around the room at computers. The unique thing about this 
was not just that. But these were third grade youngsters who happened 
to be handicapped, and they were using their computers to develop 
lesson plans for their colleagues in the third grade in Philadelphia.
  And Goldin's eyes got big as he examined some of the ideas coming 
from this high-tech center as to how to turn kids on. Over time he saw 
that this was perhaps the first chapter of the book that must be 
written that will change the way we teach math and science in the 
country. Dan Goldin eventually, with this young guy, became convinced 
that he ought to gift him the first antenna that brought men back from 
the Moon. And as a result of that gift, that school and its teaching 
model is currently across the country teaching kids to use the Internet 
by way of using this antenna. Now, tens of thousands of youngsters in 
school districts all over the country and in four foreign countries are 
participating in this effort to turn around the way math and science is 
taught, the way teachers are turned on, and the way kids are turned on 
to the fields of math and science.
  If we are going to lead the world in the future and have the security 
for the world for peace we need, we must get back in the business of 
math and science, and this chapter will be a piece of the book that 
will be written.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the chance to tell my 
colleagues about the benefits to students from military families from 
access to the JASON science education program.
  Since 1993, this non-profit subsidiary of the National Geographic 
Society has provided advanced science and mathematics training to DoD 
teachers and students. Because of the funding provided in past Defense 
Appropriations bills, many DoD teachers have had the opportunity to 
attend extended hands-on science training sessions with experts from 
NASA, NOAA and many major universities.
  As my colleagues are well aware, we are facing a science education 
crisis in the United States. Within the next five years, some 70 
percent of current advanced math and science teachers will be able to 
retire. More and more of the science and math students in our top 
universities are immigrants, with fewer and fewer students from our 
nation's public schools each year.
  Independent analysis shows that teachers who have the opportunity to 
attend the JASON seminars are much better prepared to lead their 
students into an understanding of science and math, and to get their 
kids enthusiastic about making a career out of these subjects. These 
seminars are highly recommended by the National Science Teachers 
Association.
  Schools that serve our nation's military families are increasing 
ranked among the best, and one of the chief reasons for that is their 
affiliation with enrichment programs like the JASON project. Our 
responsibility lies not only with providing weapons and training to 
those who would defend our nation. We must also make we give the very 
best opportunities and benefits to their families, who are also making 
a sacrifice in defense of America.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amount of money to invest in bringing 
better science and mathematics education to our military families. Our 
nation needs that training, and these families deserve it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Schiff of California.
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. King of Iowa.

[[Page 11942]]

  Amendment by Mr. Chocola of Indiana.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Mystic Aquarium.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the JASON Foundation.

  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 219, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               AYES--207

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

                               NOES--219

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     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
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle

                              {time}  1827

  Messrs. SULLIVAN, McCAUL of Texas, BONILLA, HOBSON, NEY, SOUDER, 
GOHMERT, and EHLERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GORDON, BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. BERRY, COOPER, 
WAMP, ROSS, REYES, SALAZAR, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 50, 
noes 376, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 296]

                                AYES--50

     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Beauprez
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cole (OK)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Feeney
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marshall
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Pearce
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ryan (WI)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--376

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conaway

[[Page 11943]]


     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     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 (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     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)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     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
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1832

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chocola

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 297]

                               AYES--141

     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--285

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas

[[Page 11944]]


     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1837

  Mr. SPRATT, Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GOODLATTE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding the Mystic Aquarium on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, 
noes 347, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 298]

                                AYES--77

     Andrews
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Holt
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Miller (FL)
     Moore (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Waxman
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--347

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     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
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     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 (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gohmert
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hart
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1842

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 298 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding the Jason Foundation on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 69, 
noes 352, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                                AYES--69

     Andrews
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Linder
     Matheson
     Miller (FL)
     Moore (KS)

[[Page 11945]]


     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--352

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     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
     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 (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gohmert
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Istook
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Price (GA)
     Scott (GA)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1846

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to to interpret voluntary religious discussions 
     as ``official'' as specified in the revised interim 
     guidelines concerning free exercise of religion in the Air 
     Force.

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have this amendment, and it took quite a 
bit of expertise on myself and staff to get this so it would be 
germane, and I sort of feel that that is one of my accomplishments. I 
intend to offer this, but then I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw it out of great deference to the chairman.
  The second is to bring it on the House floor and to discuss it so we 
can put it in the Record so that the Armed Forces, particularly the Air 
Force, when they talk about the revised interim guidelines concerning 
free exercise of religion in the Air Force, have an understanding what 
we in the House believe is appropriate.
  The amendment is basically saying that none of the funds made 
available in this act may be used to interpret voluntary religious 
discussion as official, because within this interim guidelines 
concerning free exercise of religion the word ``official'' is in the 
paragraph where we are talking about voluntary worship. Let me read 
this portion to you:
  ``Voluntary participation in worship, prayer, study, and discussion 
is integral to the free exercise of religion.''
  Now, that we all agree upon. And then they go on to talk about this 
voluntary discussion of religion. But then there is a sentence in this 
that goes on to say: ``Voluntary discussions of religion or the 
exercise of free speech where it is reasonably clear that the 
discussions are personal and not official.''
  So even within the paragraph talking about voluntary, talking about 
voluntary discussion of people coming together, there is still an 
interpretation by the Air Force that it is reasonably clear it is not 
official. Well, obviously if these people come together voluntarily to 
talk about their faith, to pray, to study, and have this discussion, it 
is voluntary and should the word ``official'' not even be in this 
paragraph. But it still gives the Air Force the ability to go in and 
say, well, you know, we can reasonably say that it is not clear that 
the discussion that you men and women have had while you are 
worshipping, you are praying, you are studying is an integral part of 
this free speech. It appears that there might be some official 
overtone. So it is official overtone. Then at that point they can step 
in and say, okay, you cannot have this discussion.
  So my amendment is basically saying that, no, the Air Force could not 
step in anytime there is voluntary participation in worship, prayer, 
study, and discussion. And it is simple on that respect.
  Some of the revised interim guidelines that the military put together 
is worded in such a way that it makes many of us feel a little 
uncomfortable. It seems like it is a little bit over the line, and I 
felt personally, and I say to the chairman, my colleague from Florida 
(Mr. Young), that when you add voluntary, I think that should be 
enough. And the word official and reasonably clear and some of these 
extraneous words that would imply intimidation to the people who are 
trying to worship and pray should not be a part of this interim 
guideline.
  So I wanted to go on record to say I as one Member don't agree, and I 
hope perhaps there are other Members who would take this amendment to 
heart. And so if we find that the Air Force somehow intimidates these 
people during voluntary participation in prayer,

[[Page 11946]]

worship, and study, that they would remember my amendment.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw out of deference and understanding the lateness of the hour 
and also the understanding that you have just been through one 
donnybrook and perhaps this one might be another one, but I still feel 
and I might at a later date bring this forward now that I finally 
figured out a way to make it germane.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to place a social security account number on any 
     identification card issued to a member of the Armed Forces, a 
     retired member of the Armed Forces, or a dependent of such a 
     member or retired member.

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member 
of the committee for this discussion we have had on so many issues 
today.
  As the senior Democratic member of the Veterans Committee, I have 
been particularly appalled at the loss of 26\1/2\ million records of 
veterans with their Social Security numbers and some medical data plus 
about 200,000 active duty personnel. So the issue of identity theft I 
think is on all our minds. And we all know that servicemembers and 
military retirees are at great risk for identity theft because the 
Department of Defense puts the Social Security number right on their 
military ID cards. The DOD is thereby placing millions of 
servicemembers, military retirees, and their family members at risk for 
identity theft, and the threat is heightened for servicemembers who 
must carry this ID with them at all times.
  We all know identity theft as being one of the fastest growing crimes 
of the decade, and it creates a nightmare for the victims who suffer. 
Identity thieves make off with billions of dollars each year, and each 
day more than 1,000 people are being defrauded. The Federal Trade 
Commission recently listed identity theft as the top consumer 
complaint. With just your name and your Social Security number, a thief 
can open credit lines worth thousands of dollars, rent apartments, sign 
up for utilities, earn income, and your credit rating is ruined. You 
risk being rejected from everything from a college loan to a mortgage, 
and it is all up to you as an individual to fix it all up. Law 
enforcement will generally not pursue these identity theft cases.
  Sixteen percent of the 13 million victims of identity theft in the 
last 2 years had their wallets stolen. Anybody who had their ID card in 
their wallet lost their identity. A military ID is one of those that is 
generally carried in a wallet. We could have saved 2 million people 
from the problems of identity theft. Just look at the two individuals 
who were recently convicted of Federal identity theft after creating 
331 fake credit cards in the name of high-ranking military officers. 
They just found their Social Security numbers and military IDs on a Web 
site and copied the information from the Congressional Record.
  The recent incident at the VA affirms our need to wean the Federal 
Government from its overreliance on the Social Security number for ID 
purposes. There seems to be a culture of indifference in many agencies 
with regard to these numbers. States and universities and health care 
insurance companies have given up their addiction of Social Security 
numbers. Why can't we in the Federal Government?
  So I hope this issue is taken very seriously. I know Mr. Murtha and 
Mr. Young are seriously looking at this. I hope they will look at it in 
conference and as they pursue this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to waive or modify regulations promulgated under 
     chapter 43, 71, 75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment brought by myself and my 
colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Jones, seeks to protect very basic 
job securities for Department of Defense employees by blocking funds 
for those parts of the National Security Personnel System that have 
been declared illegal. The workplace environment that would result if 
this amendment does not pass, that results in destroying basic worker 
rights; jeopardizes our ability to recruit and maintain qualified, 
skilled workers to protect our national security. These are hardworking 
men and women. They deserve our gratitude, they deserve our respect, 
they deserve a personnel system that respects their work and complies 
with principles that we hold forth.
  I have got to tell you, I just want to note who we are talking about 
here. These are the men and women who make sure that our equipment 
works. When I went out and saw the Carl Vinson, one of our great 
carriers coming back from the Afghanistan campaign, the sailors asked 
me to thank the people who worked on that carrier to see to it that it 
could launch 10,000 sortees without losing an airplane.
  These people are part of the defense team. They deserve respect. But, 
unfortunately, the current situation does not give them either respect 
or fairness in the personnel system.
  It is worth noting that the Office of Personnel Management questioned 
the legitimacy of this new program in March 2004 in a letter to 
Secretary Rumsfeld and said, ``The current system may be contrary to 
law insofar as it attempts to replace collective bargaining with 
consultation and eliminate collective bargaining agreements all 
together. In addition, other elements of the proposal lack a clear and 
defensible national security nexus and jeopardize those parts that 
do.''
  Now, this is not just us speaking; it is the Federal courts. At the 
beginning of this year, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Emmitt 
Sullivan ruled that the NSPS system failed to ``ensure even minimal 
collective bargaining rights.'' The court further enjoined the National 
Security Labor Relations Board on the grounds that it did not satisfy 
congressional requirement for independent third-party review. It has 
been declared illegal.
  Now, one might assume after such a ruling had come down that the 
Pentagon would attempt to fix the problem and that the administration 
would do so, but in fact that has gone on after 3 years. They are 
essentially snubbing their noses at collective bargaining rights, at 
civil service rights, at the right to know whether you are discharged 
or what your discharge would be, basic fundamental rights that we ought 
to give to the people who are critical members of the defense team.

                              {time}  1900

  That is why we bring this amendment, to preserve the right to be free 
from discrimination based on political opinion, something that our 
Civil Service rules need to protect; and the right to collective 
bargaining, to engage in collective bargaining in good faith; the right 
to due process for advance notice of suspension and some meaningful 
appeal rights for people who work on the defense team.
  So we are offering a commonsense amendment that will recognize that 
we should not be forcing this broken system that has been ruled illegal 
for people who are doing such great work for us, keeping our uniformed 
personnel on the post in Iraq and Afghanistan. We commend this 
amendment to our colleagues' attention.

[[Page 11947]]


  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, a simple and 
commonsense statement from this Congress that says we stand with our 
Nation's Federal civilian employees.
  We are here today to take a stand and rein in a personnel system that 
is opposed by nearly each and every one of the 700,000 members of the 
DOD Federal civilian workforce.
  The National Security Personnel System, or NSPS, is a system that 
restricts our Nation's Federal civilian employees of their collective 
bargaining rights, as well as the right to have an independent labor 
relations board settle disputes, as was recently affirmed in a court of 
law.
  This amendment would withhold the funding to go forward on 
implementing only those portions of the NSPS declared illegal. It would 
not arbitrarily kill the system as a whole, but allow Congress to carry 
out its oversight responsibility.
  Congress has continuously affirmed its strong support of the men and 
women in our Nation's military. Today, with this amendment, we are 
asking the same thing, reaffirm your support for our Nation's Federal 
civilian workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, by passing this amendment we will help send a message 
to these highly valuable men and women that we stand with them today; 
that we stand with those Federal civilians who maintain and repair our 
Navy and Marine Corps' battle-worn helicopters; that we stand with 
those Federal civilians who capitalize and upgrade our Army's Bradley 
fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks; that we stand with those Federal 
civilians who skillfully manage our Air Force's logistics and 
distribution operations; and that we stand with those Federal civilians 
who maintain, overhaul and upgrade our Navy's fleet of ships, 
submarines and aircrafts.
  I hope that my colleagues in this House of Representatives will join 
us and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I am pleased to join with my colleagues Mr. Inslee and Mr. Jones in 
offering this amendment, and the issue here is really straightforward: 
Are we going to require the Department of Defense to comply with 
guidelines established by this House and this Congress, or are we going 
to allow them, one more time, to ignore the will of Congress and roll 
over us here in the House of Representatives?
  Here is the situation. Back in 2004, this House passed the defense 
authorization provision that allowed the Defense Department to go out 
and set up a new personnel system, but we did it with certain 
guidelines. We wanted to provide the Department of Defense with greater 
flexibility, but we also wanted to ensure fairness to the employees.
  Here is what happened. The DOD took the flexibility part, and they 
ignored the portions requiring fairness to employees. They ignored the 
provision that required, for example, an independent entity to 
arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. They ignored 
the provisions that said you have to have a merit system protection 
board that has an independent judgment, instead of allowing the Defense 
Department to essentially overrule the decisions, at least on a 
preliminary basis, of an independent merit system protection board. So 
they made a number of changes to the congressional intent.
  As my colleague Mr. Inslee said, you do not have to take our word for 
it. Just listen to what a Federal judge said, and that is Judge Emmet 
Sullivan. He is the first person in the District of Columbia to have 
been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial 
positions, and he ruled in favor of the employees who brought a case 
and challenged the administration's decision on this. He said it was 
``the antithesis of fairness'' the way DOD had set up its system and 
determined that it was outside the scope of what the Congress had 
mandated.
  Now, they have ruled. That ruling came down in February. We have had 
a Federal judge, therefore, stick up for the Congress. The question is, 
are we going to stick up for ourselves? Did we mean what we said back 
there? A Federal judge has looked at the law and said, clearly, the DOD 
provisions are outside the scope of what we intended. Anyone who takes 
a fair look at what this Congress said to the administration and to the 
guidelines that we had in setting up the system would reach the same 
conclusion.
  Let us not once more roll over. A Federal judge has done the right 
thing. They said the administration should not roll over the will of 
Congress. Let us not allow them to do it. Let us make sure that we do 
not spend taxpayer money on a system that a Federal judge has said is 
outside the scope of what Congress intended.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Young and Mr. 
Murtha for their hard work and support of our troops and support of our 
Nation's defense, but I also join with my colleagues who have 
previously spoken.
  In November of 2003, I supported the National Defense Authorization 
Act, which authorized the NSPS system. At that time, I believed that 
NSPS would produce greater efficiencies in government. Further, I 
believed NSPS would reward government employees that displayed personal 
initiative, hard work, and productivity, all at the same time while 
preserving collective bargaining and Civil Service protections.
  Unfortunately, as others have outlined, the implementation of NSPS 
has been staggered and revised on several different situations, 
indicating both the complexity and the problems when applying some of 
the good aspects of NSPS with the reality of its implementation.
  Last November the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel 
Management published the final regulations for NSPS. These did not live 
up to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration between the 
government and labor that was promised when Congress passed the 
authorization bill several years ago.
  In fact, as has already been alluded to, a Federal judge agreed with 
representatives of labor that NSPS failed to meet fundamental 
standards. On February 27, 2006, a Federal court enjoined the NSPS 
regulations because they failed to ensure collective bargaining rights, 
did not provide for independent third-party review of labor relations 
decisions, and failed to provide a fair process for appealing adverse 
actions.
  For the thousands of Federal workers at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, 
which is in my district, the NSPS regulations as proposed would have 
had a damaging impact. The shipyard's unique labor and management 
relationship has created tremendous efficiencies and progress and has 
become a model for good government. This progress and the relationship 
at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could well be lost under the NSPS 
program.
  Under the broad and rigid centralized NSPS regime, the flexibility 
that has led to some of our government's best practices and most 
successful entities would be impossible. In fact, representatives of 
labor have indicated to me that many of the efficiencies that were the 
result of labor-management agreements would not have been possible 
under NSPS.
  NSPS, as proposed, systematically restricts opportunities for labor 
representatives to communicate, negotiate and collaborate with Pentagon 
management. Given the exemplary record of the Portsmouth Naval 
Shipyard, which is in my district, which has returned submarines to the 
water and to fleet commanders sooner than any other yard in the 
country, all while saving significant millions of dollars on submarine 
maintenance for taxpayers, it is difficult to imagine that none of this 
could have been possible under the proposed NSPS format.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues who have spoken 
previously

[[Page 11948]]

on this issue, and I rise in support of this amendment and ask the 
entire House to support it tonight.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I think at times we have an arrogance in the Defense Department when 
they ignore not the regulations, but what we are trying to do in this 
legislation. We expected them to talk to the people working in the 
Defense Department.
  I have never seen a better workforce than we have in the United 
States when it comes to the civilians who support our troops out in the 
field and civilians who work for the Defense Department, and we have 
tried several years now to get them to do more negotiations. They have 
continually ignored our advice, and I am very nervous about the way 
they have handled things.
  I have never seen so many union representatives come to me and say, 
we have asked them for this, and then the court, the court itself, says 
they are not being treated fairly.
  So I would hope we could accept this amendment or at least vote this 
amendment. It is a little broader than I would like, but we can always 
adjust that if we have to at some other point.
  I would advise, recommend the Members they support the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Based on the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Department of Defense, it is clear to me that it is time for Congress 
to send a message to the Administration about the importance of 
preserving bedrock principles of labor relations.
  In making my case for this amendment, I want to recount a few key 
points leading up to where we are today.
  In 2002, Congress enacted legislation to create the Department of 
Homeland Security. This legislation provided the Secretary of Homeland 
Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with 
the authority to develop a separate human resources management system 
for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Subsequently, 
in the FY2004 Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense was 
authorized to develop and implement the National Security Personnel 
System.
  In August 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Colyer ruled that 
the proposed Department of Homeland Security personnel rules ``would 
not ensure collective bargaining, would fundamentally alter [Federal 
Labor Relations Authority] jurisdiction . . . and would create an 
appeal process at MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] that is not 
fair.'' This federal court ruling should have been a wakeup call to the 
Department of Defense to take care in pursuing changes to labor 
relations regulations. However, DOD chose to ignore it, proceeding with 
plans to implement regulations that would make substantial changes 
concerning collective bargaining and review of appeals of adverse 
actions.
  In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that 
specific sections of DOD's NSPS regulations were unlawful. He ruled 
that NSPS ``fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively,'' 
that the proposed National Security Labor Relations Board ``does not 
meet Congress's intent for independent third party review,'' and that 
``the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees 
with fair treatment.''
  To their credit, the labor organizations that represent many federal 
government workers have been vigilant in protecting the rights of their 
members by appealing to the courts. I believe that it is time for 
Congress to reinforce the ruling of the federal court to ensure that 
the Administration gets the message: Congress does not intend that core 
principles of labor relations are to be eroded by DOD, and we are 
prepared to make that crystal clear by prohibiting the expenditure of 
funds on steps that violate the intent of the law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleagues, Representatives Inslee, Jones and Van Hollen, which 
would prohibit the use of funds in this bill to be expended on specific 
elements of the National Security Personnel System.
  In February, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that 
the Department of Defense, in establishing a rule to execute the 
National Security Personnel System, had failed to ensure the rights of 
the approximately 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of 
Defense.
  Specifically, the judge determined that the rule:
  Fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively.
  Does not meet Congress's requirement for ``Independent Third Party 
Review'' of labor relations decisions.
  And that the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide 
employees with the ``Fair Treatment'' required by the Congress.
  Yet, despite the decision, the department has proceeded with the 
implementation of the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply ensures that the Department of 
Defense will not continue to pursue a policy that is clearly against 
the law and against the best interests of our national security.
  I commend the gentlemen for their continued efforts on behalf of our 
Federal employees and urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before addressing this amendment, let me 
simply speak to the problem with this process of earmarking. We have 
the last amendment with regard to the Jason Foundation. All we know is 
that it was, I believe, requested for Ashburn, Virginia.
  We still do not know, after having voted for it, after 332 Members 
voted for it, after people came to defend other earmarks, nobody came 
to defend this one. We still do not know. What we do know is that the 
administration never requested it, that no hearings were ever held, no 
markup was ever held. We still do not know why it is in the defense 
bill.
  As I mentioned, we do not know who requested it. There is no 
oversight mentioned, no, no process or structure for oversight, 
nothing, yet we just appropriated $1 million for the Jason Foundation 
in Ashburn, Virginia. That is all we know, and that is all we will 
probably ever know.
  What kind of process is that? It is simply wrong. We should have a 
process that is more transparent where there is real accountability.
  Let us go on to this amendment. This is an amendment to strike $4 
million for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation in Media, 
Pennsylvania. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from 
being used for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation.
  According to the center's Web site, their goal is to enhance the 
competitiveness of the U.S. rotorcraft industry in the world 
marketplace.
  I should say nobody is more supportive of a strong, viable rotorcraft 
industry than I am. Just about 2 miles from my house is the Boeing 
facility that makes the Apache. About a mile and a half from my home is 
where MD Helicopter has made for Special Forces the Little Bird 
helicopter. So this is important for my district and every other 
district that does have a strong, viable rotorcraft industry.
  But what we should not be doing is picking winners and losers and 
saying the Federal Government, in the defense bill, is going to prop up 
one industry or another. We simply should not be doing that.
  The helicopter companies that are principal members of the center are 
world-class and competitive because they make a great product needed by 
our military and militaries around the world.
  I have toured a number of times the Apache facility. I have heard the 
accounts of soldiers who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the 
Apache has performed wonderfully. I have also toured MD Helicopter. It 
is a great product. I am sure Sikorsky and others who manufacture 
helicopters do as well.
  The question becomes, why are we using the defense bill as a 
mechanism to fund a center like this when these businesses are fully 
capable of marketing their own products?

[[Page 11949]]



                              {time}  1915

  The rotorcraft industry wants $4 million of Federal defense dollars 
to subsidize their marketing efforts around the globe. They are doing 
pretty well. I hope they continue to do well. They are competitive 
because they make a good product, not because the Federal Government is 
subsidizing them.
  Many of them compete for government contracts. That is great. We rely 
on them, but we shouldn't be saying, all right, we are going to pick 
you and we are going to lavish you with Federal dollars to help market 
your product.
  Those of us who oppose corporate subsidies for cotton and sugar and 
tobacco and the airline industry, I think that we also ought to say, if 
we are going to oppose those subsidies, why don't we oppose subsidies 
for the rotorcraft industry as well?
  At this time of war, we need to send money to help our troops and not 
subsidize private industry. Again, it is not the role of the Federal 
Government, and certainly not in a defense bill, to be picking winners 
and losers in industry, saying you are going to get a subsidy but you 
are not.
  This argument will come up as we offer additional amendments in the 
next few minutes, but I would ask support for this amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  First of all, let me say there is a role for this Congress to play in 
defense, in spite of my colleague from Arizona. If it wasn't for this 
Congress, a decision made by the administration back in 1989, when they 
canceled the V-22 program, would have been left undone. This year, the 
Marine Corps will deploy the V-22 program.
  In spite of the administration back then and Secretary Cheney 
canceling the program, we did the right thing for the Marines. Today, 
we are building 450 of these aircraft because this Congress knew what 
it was doing.
  I would remind my colleague that it was in 1996 that this Congress 
passed a defense authorization bill requiring that we arm the Hellfire 
missile on the Predator system. The administration didn't want it back 
then. They knew better than we did. Thank goodness this Congress armed 
the Hellfire missile on the Predator. That was our decision, not the 
administration's.
  If this Congressman would have come to me and asked me some 
questions, perhaps he would have been a bit more enlightened about what 
this is. This is not a subsidy program. This is a program to focus 
research and technology on the rotorcraft industry for our military and 
for other purposes.
  If the gentleman would have come to me, he could have attended one of 
our four hearings. Now he speaks a good game here. Why weren't you at 
the hearings when we discussed rotorcraft over the past 2 years? We had 
two hearings this year. Why didn't you come and sit on those hearings 
and understand what the rotorcraft center was all about? Why didn't you 
talk to the American Helicopter Society, headed by Rhett Flater? More 
importantly, why didn't you talk to the Boeing folks? Maybe by then you 
would have realized that a portion of this money, and by the way none 
of it goes into my district, the money is funneled out to 21 other 
locations, including your district. The Boeing Company received a grant 
from this program in your district, which you weren't even aware of.
  I will not yield because the gentleman has offered an amendment that 
he knows nothing about. I respect people of intelligence, who have 
integrity. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask me about this 
program. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask about the 
briefing, about the four hearings, about the memorandum of 
understanding signed in 2004 by every major rotorcraft manufacturer in 
this Nation, including Sikorsky, Bell Textron, including Kaman 
Industries, including Boeing, including Georgia Tech, Penn State, and 
Maryland, all the major rotorcraft centers in this Nation.
  You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask. You took a cheap shot. 
And you know what? Your cheap shot is just that. The amount of impact 
on my district is one job, one job at Penn State University. The money 
you just talked about flows into 21 other States, into universities and 
corporations doing research on rotorcraft technology.
  Now, why is that important? Because the primary responsibility for 
rotorcraft research was NASA, but NASA has seen fit to move away from 
that. And as a member of the Science Committee, we have worked 
repeatedly to try to get NASA to take the responsibility mandated by 
the law. NASA used to fund $30 million a year in rotorcraft research. 
In the past 5 years, they have spent zero. So we took the initiative 
that the Army established.
  And when the gentleman says on this floor, again ignorantly, that the 
military and the Pentagon don't support this, I would have said to him, 
why don't you go talk to the Army, because the Army has supported the 
Center For Rotorcraft Innovation repeatedly. The U.S. Army. Not the 
Russian Army, the U.S. Army. If you would have taken the time to go to 
the Army, you would have found those facts out.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, I hate to be emotional in this debate; but 
doggone it, I am not going to let somebody stand up here in total and 
complete ignorance and spout off a bunch of gobbledygook about 
subsidizing the rotorcraft industry. That is not what this is about.
  If you want to give the money back from your district, you go to 
Boeing and tell them to turn back the money they got from this research 
initiative. But don't stand up on the floor and make stupid allegations 
because you want a headline about cutting waste. This is not waste.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the memorandum of 
understanding, the list of all 21 centers that have received funding 
from this program, and the Center For Rotorcraft Innovation's outline.

                        Memorandum of Agreement

       This MOA is between the Boeing Company, a Delaware 
     corporation having offices at Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, 
     Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, a United Technologies Company, 
     having offices at Stratford, Connecticut, Bell Helicopter 
     Textron Inc, a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned 
     subsidiary of Textron having offices at Hurst Texas, the 
     Kaman Aerospace Corporation, having offices in Bloomfield, 
     CT, the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association (RITA) 
     Inc., a Delaware corporation, Keystone Helicopter 
     Corporation, having offices in West Chester, PA, The 
     Pennsylvania State University, located at State College, PA, 
     The University of Maryland, located in College Park, MD, the 
     Georgia Tech Research Corporation, located in Atlanta, GA, 
     the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation having offices in 
     Essington, PA, Augusta Aerospace Corporation having offices 
     in Philadelphia, PA and the American Competitiveness 
     Institute, having offices in Philadelphia, PA, hereinafter 
     which may be referred to individually as ``party'' or 
     collectively as ``parties''.


                               I. PURPOSE

       Sec. 1: The parties to this agreement agree to provide 
     oversight for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation (the 
     ``Center''), which will be established by the American 
     Competitiveness Institute (ACI), a Pennsylvania corporation 
     with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, PA.
       Sec. 2: The Center's mission will be to administer and 
     conduct rotorcraft pre-competitive research and development 
     with the participation of rotorcraft manufacturers, their 
     suppliers, operators, support providers, academic 
     researchers, government laboratories, industry associations 
     and other non-profit organizations. Research projects will be 
     conducted both at the Center and the participants' 
     facilities, including subcontractors as appropriate.
       Sec. 3: ACI will administer, at no cost to the parties, the 
     acquisition and expenditures of federal, state, local and 
     private funding for the creation of the Center by:
       (i) establishing and implementing a business plan to 
     acquire the necessary funding for the creation and 
     sustainment of the Center; and,
       (ii) establishing and implementing a plan for the Center's 
     design, operations and final incorporation into a rotorcraft 
     organization governed by industry and academia.
       Sec. 4: ACI shall provide oversight consistent with the 
     mission stated above. Such oversight shall include 
     participation and guidance associated with formation of the 
     Center, and such other Administrative support as mutually 
     agreed to by the Parties. Technical oversight, including 
     Program selection and monitoring of projects performed by the 
     Center shall be provided by the other Parties to this 
     Agreement.
       Sec. 5: A Center Director will be appointed by ACI to 
     oversee the daily operations of the Center.

[[Page 11950]]




                             II. BACKGROUND

       There have been several initiatives to facilitate joint 
     government, industry and academic collaboration to address 
     technical challenges facing the rotorcraft industry. Despite 
     this, tight government budget constraints and a shift in 
     emphasis to other programs, the rotorcraft program has 
     suffered and funding has failed to materialize. Advanced 
     rotorcraft systems for military applications and the emerging 
     needs for homeland security clearly demonstrate a need for 
     advancement through an investment in research and 
     development. The unique capabilities of rotorcraft are 
     indispensable in both national security and emergency 
     response situations. The highly competitive commercial 
     rotorcraft industry and its worldwide proliferation make it 
     an ideal candidate for technical cooperation and 
     collaboration. The intent of the Center is to centralize and 
     refocus the attention, technology and expertise of industry 
     and academia to achieve adequate and sustainable funding 
     through government and commercial sources. The goal is to be 
     a recognized Center of Excellence in rotorcraft technology to 
     support and coordinate research and development, education, 
     training and outreach to expand and strengthen the U.S. 
     rotorcraft community.


                     III. TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD

       Sec. 1: The organizations that are parties to this 
     agreement shall provide technical oversight to the Center 
     through a Technical Advisory Board.
       Sec. 2: The Technical Advisory Board shall be comprised of 
     a representative from each of the initial organizations who 
     sign this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 
     Georgia Tech Research Corporation is a cooperative 
     organization of the Georgia Institute of Technology (``GIT'') 
     and may identify a GIT employee as a representative to the 
     Technical Advisory Board.
       Sec. 3: The Technical Advisory Board shall utilize its 
     collective expertise in various aspects of the Rotorcraft 
     Industry to establish and maintain a technical roadmap to 
     guide Center activities consistent with its mission. It is 
     recognized that inputs from industry, academia, and 
     government sources are essential to creating and maintaining 
     a dynamic and relevant Center agenda.
       Sec. 4: Additional representatives may be added to the 
     Technical Advisory Board subsequent to the execution of this 
     agreement by majority consent of the initial parties to this 
     agreement.


                              IV. MEETINGS

       Sec. 1: The Technical Advisory Board will meet a minimum of 
     four (4) times a year at a time and location determined by 
     the Center Director.
       Sec. 1a: The Center Director shall preside over Technical 
     Advisory Board meetings, and with the advice and consent of 
     the Technical Advisory Board, shall set the time, place, and 
     agenda.
       Sec. 1b: Each Technical Advisory Board member may 
     designate, by notifying the Center Director in writing, a 
     qualified alternate to attend and participate in Board 
     meetings in his/her absence.


                        V. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

       Sec. 1: No membership fees or dues are required to be paid.
       Sec. 2: The salaries and expenses of representatives of the 
     Technical Advisory Board shall be the responsibility of their 
     respective organizations.
       Sec. 3: Any contractual relationship entered into between 
     Technical Advisory Board members shall be solely the 
     responsibility of those members, and the Center shall 
     expressly have no performance or fiscal obligation.
       Sec. 4: In no event shall the parties be liable to each 
     other or any third party in privity with any party for any 
     special, indirect, exemplary, incidental, or consequential 
     damages arising out of or in connection with this agreement.


                    VI. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES

       Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to 
     constitute, create, give effect to, or otherwise recognize a 
     joint venture, partnership, or formal entity of any kind 
     between the parties. No party shall have the authority to 
     bind any other party or the Center except to the extent 
     authorized in this Agreement. Each party shall bear sole 
     responsibility for its own actions in furtherance of the 
     Center.
       The parties agree to execute appropriate confidentiality 
     agreements prior to disclosing any proprietary information. 
     No intellectual property right or license, either express or 
     implied is granted to any other party as a result of this 
     Agreement.


                       VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

       An organization may terminate its participation in this 
     agreement at any time by notifying ACI in writing.
       This Agreement shall terminate upon the intended transfer 
     of the administration of the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation 
     from ACI to the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association 
     (RITA) or another suitable third party, and/or the execution 
     of subsequent Agreements by the parties relative to the 
     formation of the Rotorcraft Center.


                            VIII. ASSIGNMENT

       No party may assign or transfer this agreement, its 
     interest, or obligations hereunder without the written 
     consent of the parties to this agreement.
         The Boeing Company Integrated Defense Systems; Bell 
           Helicopter Textron Inc.; The Kaman Aerospace 
           Corporation; The Pennsylvania State University; Georgia 
           Tech Research Corporation; Keystone Helicopter 
           Corporation; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; American 
           Competitiveness Institute; Rotorcraft Industry 
           Technology Association; University of Maryland; 
           Piasecki Aircraft Corporation; Agusta Aerospace 
           Corporation.
       Bell Helicopter Textron: Fort Worth, TX--Lloyd Doggett, 
     26th district; Kay Granger, 12th district.
       The Boeing Company: Philadelphia, PA--Robert A. Brady, 1st 
     district, Robert A. Brady, 1st district, Chaka Fattah, 2nd 
     district, Allyson Y. Schwartz, 13th district.
       The Boeing Company: Mesa, AZ--Jeff Flake, 6th district.
       Sikorsky-UTC: Stratford, CT--Christopher Shays, 4th 
     district.
       Kaman Aerospace: Bloomfield, CT--John B. Larson, 1st 
     district.
       BF Goodrich: Vergennes, VT--Bernard Sanders, 1st district.
       Armour Holdings: Phoenix, AZ--Ed Pastor, 4th district, John 
     B. Shadegg, 3rd district.
       Smiths Industries: Grand Rapids, MI--Vernon Ehlers, 3rd 
     district.
       Endevco: San Juan Capistrano, CA--Ken Calvert, 44th 
     district.
       Lord Corporation: Erie, PA--Philip S. English, 3rd 
     district.
       Georgia Tech: Atlanta, GA--John Lewis, 5th district, 
     Cynthia McKinney, 4th district.
       Penn State University: State College, PA--John E. Peterson, 
     5th district.
       University of Illinois--Chicago: Chicago, IL--Bobby Rush, 
     1st district, Jesse Jackson, Jr., 2nd district, Dan Lipinski, 
     3rd district, Luis V. Gutierrez, 4th district, Rahm Emanuel, 
     5th district, Danny K. Davis, 7th district, Janice D. 
     Schakowsky, 9th district.
       University of Maryland: College Park, MD--Steny H. Hoyer, 
     5th district.
       University of Texas--Arlington: Arlington, TX--Joe Barton, 
     6th district.
       UCLA: Los Angeles, CA--Henry A. Waxman, 30th district, 
     Xavier Becerra, 31st district, Hilda L. Solis, 32nd district, 
     Diane Watson, 33rd district, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 34th 
     district, Maxine Waters, 35th district.
       Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ--J.D. Hayworth, 5th 
     district.
       West Virginia University: Morgantown WV--Alan B. Mollohan, 
     1st district.
       Ohio Aerospace Institute: Cleveland, OH--Stephanie Tubbs 
     Jones, 11th district.
       Mississippi State University: Starkville, MS--Charles 
     ``Chip'' Pickering, Jr., 3rd district.
       Syracuse University: Syracuse, NY--James T. Walsh, 25th 
     district.
       Ohio State University: Columbus, OH--Deborah Pryce, 15th 
     district, Patrick J. Tiberi, 12th district.
       KSR, LLC: Newport Beach, CA--John Campbell, 48th district.

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise 
speaking as the ranking member on Mr. Weldon's committee.
  Mr. Weldon, as my good friend from Arizona now knows, has a deep and 
abiding interest in this activity. And he is my good friend, that is to 
say Mr. Weldon, as well as you, Mr. Flake.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I certainly will yield to the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I simply want to respond to the allegation that I did not 
know that some of the beneficiaries were in my district. I stated that 
in my statement. I know they are. I live less than 2 miles from them. I 
spoke with the Boeing representative this morning, and I knew full well 
that it would impact them.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I accept you at your word, and reclaiming my time, I 
hope that this is instructive in the end for us.
  One of the reasons I like working with Mr. Weldon is I think we bring 
a certain amount of passion to our work. And as with many other things 
in our lives, sometimes your virtues are also your vices, so I 
understand that very, very well.
  My request is that you think perhaps about withdrawing this 
amendment. It is not to argue with you about your premises. Believe me, 
Mr. Flake, I don't do that. I understand exactly what you are saying, 
and I understand your concerns with regard to whether or not there are 
full and complete understandings of what we are doing and why we are 
doing it under the general aegis of earmarks. My point is that this 
particular designation has had

[[Page 11951]]

thorough, and I assure you nonpartisan, thorough, complete briefings 
and hearings. That is the way our subcommittee works on Armed Services. 
I assure you of that.
  Again, as I say, everybody's virtue is also their vice; but let me 
tell you, if it is a vice to go into exquisite detail as to what you 
are dealing with, then Mr. Weldon, and I guess by extension myself, is 
guilty of that.
  I can assure you that if there is an argument on the floor against 
what we want to do with rotorcraft innovation in research, then I could 
understand why you wouldn't want to vote for it. But I can assure every 
Member here, Republican and Democrat alike, that in the Armed Services 
Subcommittee, on which I am privileged to serve with Mr. Weldon, that 
we go into the details of what we are doing and why we are doing it.
  The final point here. The reason that I support this and the reason 
Mr. Weldon recommended it to the subcommittee and that he succeeded is 
that the big companies, the big companies don't do the innovation and 
the research. They really don't.
  Mr. Hunter in particular, and, again, I have had my differences with 
Mr. Hunter, but Mr. Young recognizes and Mr. Hunter recognizes that 
true innovation in this country comes from the small companies. It 
comes from the research areas that don't necessarily get the big 
contracts, nor are they sought out by the big companies. They are like 
the Titanic. They go right down there. And they can be told there's an 
iceberg, but, boy, they head there anyway by kinetic energy.
  I can assure you, Mr. Flake, if you would at least consider 
withdrawing the amendment, this is one time when the research has been 
done, the background has been done, the hearings have been held, and we 
are trying to support the true innovative research side with regard to 
rotorcraft that might not otherwise get the attention that it deserves 
and what we need to have for our Armed Forces.
  I can assure you that the ideological content or premise that forms 
the philosophy upon which you are making these inquiries I have no 
argument with, and I give you credit for standing up. It is not easy to 
stand up against the tide coming at you. It is a lot easier to vote 
against you and walk off and claim victory. I don't do that. I don't 
take any shots like that at you. I respect you and I understand what 
you are doing and why you are doing it. But in this instance, my 
request to you as a ranking member on this subcommittee is that you 
consider whether or not this might be an instance in which the House is 
well served and the Nation is well served by its adoption as 
recommended by the Appropriations Committee.
  I thank you for your kind attention.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, because I can see he has 
something to say real quick.
  Mr. FLAKE. Well, thank you, and I simply want to reiterate if I were 
to stand here and offer amendments that had no impact on my district at 
all, if I ignored those that had an impact, then I could be accused of 
hypocrisy and doing things that simply have no impact on me.
  I have tried to make a point to offer amendments that do have an 
impact, and I have offered them in other bills as well, those that have 
an impact on both my district and on my State. I simply think that this 
process is out of control and we have to start on it.
  And I appreciate the gentleman from Hawaii. That was a very good 
explanation. I appreciate that hearings have been held on this, 
certainly more thoroughly than some of the other earmarks. But the case 
I would make is that simply I have made my case.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. It would be an honor to yield to the gentleman from 
Hawaii.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. That is why I am hoping that you would 
consider in this instance possibly withdrawing it.
  When you say the process is out of control, I am not going to argue 
with you about that. I really don't. But this process with this 
project, I can assure you was totally in control, thoroughly vetted, 
and the decision that came out of it was I believe unanimous in the 
committee, and I don't believe received any opposition on the basis 
that it was done capriciously or arbitrarily or because of the 
influence of a Member for reasons other than the merits.
  I can assure you of that, and I make my request once again, and thank 
you for your time and thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues, and now I 
want to claim my time to oppose this amendment, but I wanted to talk 
about the bigger picture.
  Each year, the House Appropriations Committee receives about 35,000 
requests for individual projects in all the appropriation bills. Just 
to give one example, on the Labor-HHS bill there were 10,272 different 
requests. That is about 25 projects per Member. Yet this committee has 
worked very hard to scrutinize those requests and to decide which ones 
are good and which ones have less of a case and we eliminate all of 
them.
  To give you some of the numbers, it is incredible. This bill alone is 
$1 billion below last year's in terms of Member earmarks. The Ag 
Committee, which I sit on, is $35 million below last year's. The Energy 
and Water Committee is 16 percent, or $197 million below last year's in 
Members' earmarks. The Interior Committee is $89 million, or 32 percent 
less than last year. Military Quality of Life, $40 million below last 
year's. The Labor-HHS is $100 million, Transportation-Treasury is $2.1 
billion below last year's, and Science, State and Justice is $1.3 
billion less than last year's.
  And this is a sign of the committee doing their work on a bipartisan 
basis. We are going to continue to work for earmark reforms. The House 
Appropriations Committee is the first committee that wants to have 
earmark reform, something Mr. Flake is a great advocate of, in all 
committees, not just appropriations.
  For example, the infamous ``bridge to nowhere'' did not come from an 
appropriation bill. We need to have earmark reform. The Appropriation 
Committee supports that, but we support it for all committees, if we 
are going to make it complete. If it is good for one, let us do it for 
all.
  We also have Member scrutiny and Member criteria requests. And this 
year, more than ever, we are asking for local grant money, State money, 
matching money so that if we do appropriate something back home, the 
folks back home have skin in the game, not just something that the 
Federal Government is paying for.
  I have also, Mr. Chairman, a 2\1/2\-page list of some of the programs 
which the Appropriations Committee has terminated. Now, Ronald Reagan 
said, if you don't believe in resurrection, try killing a Federal 
program.

                              {time}  1930

  Indeed, that is the case. It is hard as the dickens to kill programs 
here, and yet Appropriations remains the only committee on a consistent 
level that is eliminating spending and terminating programs.
  In Agriculture, there were about eight eliminated, including the 
Classical Chinese Garden at $8 million. Mr. Flake, I am sure, would 
have approved of that. In Foreign Operations we eliminated the Asia 
Pacific Partnership for $46 million. I don't know what it did. Does 
anybody here?
  We eliminated the Congo Debt Relief, $160 million.
  In Homeland Security, we eliminated $21 million for the SURGE 
initiative, and a new Coast Guard headquarters for $50 million.
  In conclusion, Mr. Flake is not the only one applying the big 
magnifying glass to spending. This committee is doing it, and we need 
to be talking more about it. I appreciate the gentleman for what he is 
bringing up, but he is trodding on turf that a lot of us have already 
driven on at the committee level.

                   Continued Earmark Reforms for 2006

       (1) Include all Member project funding during the House 
     consideration of appropriations bills.

[[Page 11952]]

       (2) Sharply limit the number of Member project requests. 
     Curtailing the number of Member requests per Appropriations 
     subcommittee would dramatically improve oversight and lead to 
     a reduction of earmarks. Last year, the House Appropriations 
     Committee received nearly 35,000 individual project requests. 
     In the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, 417 Members requested 
     10,272 projects, or nearly 25 projects requested per Member.
       (3) Require that all project requests be submitted in 
     writing to the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction 
     via a Member-signed request letter or form.
       (4) Establish clearly defined criteria for all project 
     requests and require Members to specify how each project 
     meets those criteria. Member requests would also be required 
     to be strictly germane to the spending bills in which they 
     are contained.
       (5) Increase the proportion of projects that have a dollar-
     matching requirement. HUD economic development initiative 
     grants are among those that ought to be considered for a 
     local matching requirement.
       (6) Require all congressionally approved projects go 
     through a formal Executive Branch contracting and auditing 
     process.
       (7) Require that all other committees adopt similar 
     earmarking reforms. Earmarks are not unique to the House 
     Appropriations Committee. The most notable earmark in recent 
     history--the so-called ``Bridge to Nowhere''--had its origins 
     elsewhere.

                      FY07 Member Project Funding

       FY07 Agriculture Member Project Funding: The House bill 
     includes $435 million in Member project funding which is $35 
     million below last year's House bill level of $460 million 
     and $277 million below last year's conference agreement of 
     $812 million.
       FY07 Defense Member Project Funding: The bill includes a 
     little less than $5 billion which more than $1 billion below 
     last year's House bill and $2.7 billion below last year's 
     conference report.
       FY07 Energy and Water Project Funding: The bill includes 
     $1.04 billion in Member project funding which is 16% or $197 
     million below last year's House level of $1.24 billion.
       FY07 Interior Member Project Funding: The bill includes 
     $188 million in Member project funding for 246 projects. This 
     is an $89 million or 32% reduction compared to last year's 
     enacted total of $277 million in Member project funding.
       FY07 Military Quality Member Project Funding: Total Member 
     project funding in the bill is $572 million which is $40 
     million below the last year's House bill level of $612 
     million and $804 million below the enacted level of $1.376 
     billion.
       FY07 Labor-HHS Member project funding: The bill provides 
     approximately $1 billion for Member projects, $100 million 
     less than previous, comparable levels and less than 1% of the 
     total funding in the bill.
       FY07 Transportation-Treasury, HUD Member Project Funding: 
     Total Member project funding in the bill is $986 billion 
     which is $2.1 billion below last year's level. This is an 70 
     percent reduction from the previous year. In addition, for 
     the first time ever, the bill requires a 40 percent matching 
     requirement for grantees receiving Economic Development 
     Initiative funding.
       Science-State-Justice: The bill provides approximately $387 
     million for Member projects, $1.3 billion less than the 
     enacted level and less than 1 percent of the total funding in 
     the bill.

                          Program Terminations

       Agriculture includes 8 terminations for a savings of $414 
     million.
       Healthy Forests Reserve: $3 million.
       Invasive Species Grant: $10 million.
       Wildlife Air Safety initiative: $3 million.
       Classical Chinese Garden: $8 million.
       Financial Management Modernization Initiative: $14 million.
       Child Nutrition Program, contingency reserve fund: $300 
     million (new mandatory).
       P.L. 480 Title I program: $64 million.
       Ocean Freight Differential Grants: $12 million.

       Energy and Water includes 3 terminations for a savings of 
     $4ll million.
       Geothermal R&D technology: $23 million.
       Natural gas R&D technologies: $20 million.
       Construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant: $368 million.

       Foreign Operations includes 4 terminations for a savings of 
     $286 million.
       Conflict Response Fund: $75 million.
       Asia Pacific Partnership: $46 million.
       Africa Housing Facility: $5 million.
       Congo Debt Relief: $160 million.

       Homeland Security includes 6 terminations for a savings of 
     $154 million.
       Office of Screening Coordination and Operations: $4 
     million.
       SURGE initiative: $21 million.
       Maritime security response team shoot house: $2 million.
       Fast Response Cutter: $42 million.
       Citizen Corps: $35 million.
       New Coast Guard headquarters: $50 million.

       Interior includes 4 terminations for a savings of $54 
     million.
       Stateside Land and Water Grants: $30 million.
       Forest Service economic action program: $9 million.
       BLM rural fire program: $10 million.
       Asia Pacific Partnership: $5 million.

       Labor-HHS-Education includes 56 terminations for a savings 
     of $1.66 billion.
       Responsible Reintegration for Youthful Offenders: $50 
     million.
       Women's Educational Equity (FIE): $3 million.
       Math Now for elementary schools: $125 million.
       Math Now for middle schools: $125 million.

       Science-State-Justice includes 8 terminations for a savings 
     of $96 million.
       Grants for Televised Testimony: $1 million.
       Forensic Science Grants: $18 million.
       Crime Identification Technology Act Grants: $28 million.
       Cannabis Eradication: $5 million.
       Public Television Facilities, Planning, and Construction: 
     $22 million.
       Microloan Technical Assistance: $13 million.
       Microloan Subsidy: $1 million.
       PRIME: $2 million.

       Transportation-Treasury-HUD includes 6 terminations for a 
     savings of $742 million.
       Rural Housing and Economic Development: $17 million
       FTA Small Starts: $200 million.
       Housing Counseling Assistance: $45 million.
       National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program: $74 
     million.
       Open Roads Financing Pilot Program: $100 million.
       New Coast Guard Headquarters: $306 million.

       Denali Commission: $7 million.
       Prisoner Re-entry: $20 million.
       Community College Initiative: $150 million.
       Work Incentives Grants: $20 million.
       Management Crosscuts: $2 million.
       Working Capital funds: $7 million.
       NY State UI: $50 million.
       Tech Asst. Nat Activities: $2 million.
       HRSA--Health Career Opportunity Program (HCOP): $4 million.
       HRSA--Faculty loan repayment: $1 million.
       HRSA--Public health/dental training: $8 million.
       HRSA--Delta Health Initiative: $25 million.
       HRSA--Denali Commission: $39 million.
       HRSA--ER 1 Administration earmark: $25 million.
       CDC--Pandemic Flu base activities: $168 million.
       CDC--Bulk Monovalent Vaccine Purchase: $30 million.
       CDC--Mind-Body Institute: $2 million.
       CDC--Special Olympics Healthy Athletes: $6 million.
       CDC--Diamond Blackfan Anemia Program: $1 million.
       CDC--Arctic health program: $0.3 million.
       CDC--Hanford study: $1 million.
       CDC--Pfiesteria program: $8 million.
       CDC--Volcanic Emissions program: $0.1 million.
       CDC--ALS Registry: $1 million.
       SAMHSA--Access to Recovery: $98 million.
       CMS--Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control: $118 million.
       Health admin: $1 million.
       ACF--Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals: $5 
     million.
       ACF--Sex and other severe forms of trafficking program: $5 
     million.
       Early Learning Fund: $36 million.
       Embryo adoption campaign: $2 million.
       Alcohol Abuse Reduction: $32 million.
       Dropout Prevention Programs: $5 million.
       Close Up Fellowships: $2 million.
       Education Technology State Grants: $272 million.
       Foundations for Learning (FIE): $1 million.
       Whaling trading partners (FIE): $9 million.
       Javits Gifted and Talented Ed: $10 million.
       Mental Health Integration in Schools (FIE): $5 million.
       Parental Information and Resource Centers (FIE): $40 
     million.
       Ready to Learn TV: $24 million.
       Ready to Teach (FIE) $11 million.
       Star Schools (FIE): $15 million.
       Teacher to Teacher (FIE): $2 million.
       Language Teacher Corps (FIE): $5 million.
       State scholars (FIE): $8 million.
       State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders: $23 million.
       Underground Railroad: $2 million.
       Byrd Scholarships: $41 million.
       Demonstration in Disabilities: $7 million.
       Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program: $3 
     million.
       Interest Subsidy Grants: $2 million.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to initiate military operations against Iran 
     except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the 
     Constitution of the United States.


[[Page 11953]]

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the background is obvious and well known 
to all of us. The fact of the matter is we are now living in a moment 
which is among the most difficult and dangerous periods in the modern 
history of our country. It came about as a result of the administration 
sending our military to attack Iraq. There was no justification, 
certainly no adequate justification, for that attack. The rationale for 
doing so as it was presented to the Congress was falsified, 
unjustified. I think that we all see that today very clearly.
  The consequences of that action are afflicting our country very 
decidedly. We have now lost 4,500 American servicemen and women killed, 
tens of thousands others very seriously wounded. The dollar cost to our 
country is now approximately $400 billion. By the end of this year it 
is anticipated to be $450 billion.
  The costs to Iraq are even more severe. The loss of life in that 
country may be as many as 100,000 people. Circumstances of life in that 
country are worse than they were 3 years ago when the invasion occurred 
in March 2003. And we have now been engaged in an occupation of that 
country for more than 3 years.
  The fact that we all have to face is that it is becoming increasingly 
apparent that the administration has no plan for ending that 
occupation, and so it will continue. The loss of life will continue, 
the loss of funds will continue, and the deterioration of our 
reputation in the world will continue to decline.
  This Congress has been derelict in its duty. We have not examined the 
administration in its activities related to the attack on Iraq, the 
falsified way in which it presented the rationale to this Congress, the 
way in which it failed to adhere to the recommendations of the military 
with regard to actions taken prior to the attack and subsequent to it, 
right up to the present moment.
  So now we are faced with another potential problem that would magnify 
the one that we currently confront, and that is we have come to 
understand that there have been serious considerations within this 
administration to engage in a military attack on Iran. The rationale 
for that attack as it has been presented to us is that Iran is engaged 
in a nuclear weapons development program. Of course, that was part of 
the falsified rationale that was presented for the attack on Iraq.
  We also know, of course, that the President in his State of the Union 
Address here, the address that attempted to justify by presenting false 
information to the Congress, attempted to justify the attack on Iraq, 
associated Iraq with the phrase ``axis of evil'' with two other 
countries, North Korea and Iran.
  We now learn that there are discussions within the administration for 
a potential attack on Iran. And in the context of those discussions, it 
has also been suggested that the administration has the authority to 
engage in such an attack based upon the vote that was taken here to 
authorize the attack on Iraq based upon falsified, misleading 
information, information that was presented to us intentionally 
falsified and misleading.
  So the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that none of the 
funding in this defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any 
military operation against Iran without a full vote of the Congress of 
the United States in accordance with the Constitution of the United 
States.
  It is a very simple, very straightforward amendment, and I hope that 
this Congress will live up to its obligations and this House of 
Representatives in accordance with its responsibilities will pass the 
amendment.
  While our Chamber is on track to complete another lightning round of 
spending bills during this appropriations cycle, we have abdicated our 
oversight responsibilities across the board in the process. We are 
writing blank checks for bankrupt foreign policies without having 
sufficiently robust debate on the administration's actions abroad.
  Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a terrible mistake resulting in an 
inextricable quagmire. And regardless of what our friends across the 
aisle claimed during our waste of a discussion last week, we are still 
not on the road to success in that country.
  Now that other legitimate hot spots in the world, such as Iran, are 
heating up, we are a passive audience sitting on the sidelines as the 
Bush administration uses its damaged credibility and poorly-conceived 
diplomacy to try to head off a nuclear crisis within the most volatile 
area of the world.
  We should be an active participant in the formulation of our foreign 
policy.
  The Bush administration must be held accountable by Congress for its 
failings on the world stage. In addition, the administration must work 
with Congress before it stretches our already-depleted defense 
capabilities to the breaking point in another ill-conceived engagement.
  And while the administration's recent efforts to engage with the 
European community in diplomacy on this issue are a welcome change, 
their international dealings have not proven to be trustworthy--another 
cause of our diminished credibility abroad.
  This administration is tone-deaf when it comes to understanding the 
diverse religious beliefs and cultural principles of countries in the 
Middle East. It does not sufficiently support the troops that are 
already engaged abroad, and it does not understand the damage that this 
engagement has done to our armed services. We must rectify these 
problems, and Congress must be an active participant.
  Iran presents our Chamber with the opportunity to right past wrongs, 
and to assume the responsibility for oversight and management that we 
tragically abandoned in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I read the amendment about Iran, but I heard the debate about Iraq. 
The gentleman's debate made it appear that we just indiscriminately 
decided to attack Iraq.
  I would remind the gentleman that there were not only United Nations 
resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, but there was also an 
overwhelming vote in the House and in the Senate to authorize the 
President to take whatever military action was necessary.
  He talked about Iraq, and so I want to talk about Iraq. I want to 
talk about the June 25, 1996, bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. 
We were not in Iraq, nowhere near Iraq. Khobar Towers was bombed, and 
19 of our airmen who were living there lost their lives.
  In August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed 
with a loss of life, including Americans. And by the way, we were not 
in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.
  October 12, 2000, the USS Cole offshore of Yemen was bombed by 
terrorists, and 17 sailors lost their lives, and many others were 
seriously injured.
  And then there was September 11, and I don't have to explain what 
happened there because everyone knows what happened there. It was the 
Pearl Harbor of this century.
  So what does that have to do with Iraq? Information continues to be 
uncovered where Saddam Hussein, who was the dictator of Iraq until we 
removed him, Saddam Hussein had contacts with the terrorists of 
different stripes, not only al Qaeda, but other terrorists. And that's 
why, and Congress reacted to that, and Congress approved the President 
making whatever military move he thought was necessary. So that goes to 
the issue of the gentleman's debate on the Iran amendment relative to 
his comment about Iraq.
  The vote on the Iraq resolution was 296-133. That is a pretty sizable 
majority.
  I have a copy of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article I is a very 
long article, a very long section, and I am not sure which provision in 
here that the gentleman's amendment is talking about unless it gets 
down to the part of section 8 that says to declare war. I assume that 
is what he is talking about.
  To declare war in today's world, previous wars you had a little time. 
Even after Pearl Harbor, we had time to recover and react. Today's 
world you don't have that. So I would think you would want to be very, 
very careful about tying the hands of this Congress in authorizing 
whatever was needed to defend and support the United States and the 
security of the American people.
  I do not want another September 11 on my hands. I don't want 
something

[[Page 11954]]

else to happen that is going to kill innocent Americans, and then have 
people come to me and say, Why didn't you do something about it? Why 
weren't you prepared for it? Why did you have to wait and go through 
all of the political charades?
  I don't think that the American people would be very, very happy with 
this Congress if we didn't take every step necessary to prevent another 
aircraft hijacking and flying into the World Trade Center or something 
similar, or hijacking an airplane that landed in Pennsylvania or at the 
Pentagon. I think we better think very carefully before we, on an 
appropriations bill, make a major decision like this.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Just to remember, Khobar Towers, of course, was perpetrated by Saudi 
Arabians. The Cole and the embassies were attacked by al Qaeda, which 
was based in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden, who is still at large 
and still based in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But I am not going to 
revisit the debate of last week about Iraq.
  What we are going to talk about here is the Constitution and the 
authority of the United States Congress. There seems to be a new-found 
respect for that among the Republican leadership, and I appreciate 
that.
  Recently Speaker Hastert said: ``We need to protect the division of 
powers in the Constitution of the United States. We want to make sure 
that we protect the Constitution.''
  Majority Mr. Leader Boehner said: ``Every 2 years I stand in the well 
of the House and raise my right hand and swear to uphold and defend the 
Constitution.''
  So there is a new-found and growing respect on that side of the aisle 
for the Constitution. Unfortunately, all of that umbrage was about a 
search with a warrant of a Member's office, a Member of Congress who 
had $90,000 cold cash in his freezer.
  Now I don't agree with their concerns and don't feel that it is an 
abrogation of the Constitution, but I do feel that ceding our war 
powers is.
  In the case of Iraq, the United States Congress, I believe, 
unconstitutionally ceded its authority. We didn't declare war, we just 
said the President should do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, 
however he wanted. And it hasn't worked out real well.
  Article I, section 8, is quite specific about the authorities 
reserved for the Congress. They were worried, the Founders were 
worried, about the wont of kings to engage in foreign adventures, so 
they wanted to restrain the king and retain the authority to raise the 
armies, fund the armies, and declare war to the Congress.
  They are very clear in Article II, section 2, which says, ``The 
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of 
the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of 
the United States.'' That is, the President had the authority to repel 
sudden attacks, but not launch a offensive military actions without a 
declaration of war.
  Now, unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales, the President's former counsel, now 
head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General, has said he finds 
new inherent powers in the President in times of war, and he says the 
President has constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, as the 
sole organ of the Federal Government in foreign affairs, to deploy the 
Armed Forces of the United States. A formal declaration of war or other 
authorization from the Congress is not required to enable the President 
to undertake the full range of actions.
  This is a total denial of all previous jurisprudence of the writings 
around the Constitutional Convention and basically rendering Congress 
meaningless.
  Now, in this House we did have a proud moment after 9/11. On 
September 14, we voted with near unanimity, one person dissenting, to 
go after, essentially a declaration of war against the Taliban, the 
perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden.

                              {time}  1945

  Now that was a proud moment. And we should look back to that, and we 
should retain those authorities, and we should safeguard those 
authorities to this United States Congress. This would not tie the 
hands of the President in any way that isn't tied by the Constitution 
of the United States. If there was an imminent attack, if they had a 
missile on the pad and they were fueling it up to shoot at the United 
States of America, with a nuclear weapon on it, the President would 
have authority to repel a sudden attack. But if they are contemplating 
a preemptive or preventative or whatever they want to call it war, 
similar to the one launched under false pretenses in Iraq, then they 
should come and make the case to the people's House, the United States 
House of Representatives, and to the Senate and get the legal authority 
in order to conduct those actions.
  So I would urge our colleagues to stand up for our constitutional 
rights here in the United States House of Representatives. I know it is 
a lot easier to have plausible deniability sometimes and give the 
President a broad grant of authority; and if in the end it is skewed, 
then you can say, they really didn't exactly tell us the right stuff 
when they launched that war. It would be better for us to be very clear 
about the delineation of these authorities, and the House should 
approve this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Illinois Technology Transition Center.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds in this 
bill from being used for the Illinois Technology Transition Center, 
which receives $2.5 million in this legislation.
  The Illinois Technology Transition Center's objective is to stimulate 
enterprise growth by helping technology companies realize their 
commercial potential. The center offers entrepreneurial services, 
technology transition support, and commercialization support.
  Again, this is a defense bill, yet we are offering this funding.
  I support the technology center. I encourage growth in it. I think 
all of us do. It is a great source of entrepreneurship and innovation.
  The United States has the largest and most technologically powerful 
economy in the world. Technological progress is responsible for one-
half of the growth of the U.S. economy.
  Competition is a driving force in this innovation. We all know that 
free markets flourish when there is less government involvement.
  I am all for seeing the technology sector in Illinois grow, just as I 
do hope that it grows in Arizona or any other State.
  However, in this defense bill the American taxpayers are being asked 
to pay for support services for the private sector. I don't think that 
that is appropriate in a defense bill.
  Our troops are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We ought 
to be spending money in the defense bill on equipment, on helmets, on 
body armor, on other things, rather than subsidizing the technological 
center in one particular State.
  I should note I believe the Illinois Technology Transition Center was 
established by a contract with the Department of the Navy, the Office 
of Naval Research, in 2005. But it is also my understanding that the 
Office of Naval Research did not request this earmark for $2.5 million 
in funding.
  With that, I request support for the amendment.

[[Page 11955]]


  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the opportunity to speak 
against the amendment.
  I wonder if the gentleman would take a question.
  Mr. FLAKE. You bet.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Do you know who earmarked this money?
  Mr. FLAKE. I was told by a reporter this morning who it might be. 
That was the first time I learned it after I had already agreed to 
offer it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. And the answer to my question is?
  Mr. FLAKE. I was told that it was the Speaker who offered it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. And so when you were told that, did you think that maybe 
you might look into the earmark to see if it had merit and to see if it 
was a set-aside that might merit further consideration?
  Mr. FLAKE. Well, seeing that I had already agreed to offer it, I 
thought that had I agreed to pull back now, I would be looked to 
favoring one particularly powerful Member of my party.
  Mr. LaHOOD. The Illinois Technology Transition Center is a public-
private collaboration between academia, industry, and government. It 
collaborates with the Department of Defense, and it has identified 
innovative technology applications that meet DOD mission requirements 
and strives to take technology from the laboratory to use by DOD within 
12 to 18 months.
  This is an extraordinary opportunity for the public and the private 
to come together. The lion's share of the money that funds this is 
private dollars. It is not Federal dollars. It comes from people who 
have businesses and people who want to invest in smart people and smart 
ideas.
  And the answer to your question about Iraq is that one of the 
technologies that is being developed is being developed in my hometown 
of Peoria by a company called Firefly. And they are developing a 
revolutionary battery that will have the opportunity to withstand huge 
amounts of heat and not become the kind of traditional batteries that 
are currently used.
  Now, this would not have been able to come about if it hadn't been 
the collaboration of a private business and the Federal Government 
coming together in a collaboration.
  So are some of the technologies that are being developed in this 
center being used in Iraq? The answer is yes, they are.
  So the point is that there are many innovative approaches that are 
being taken here. And this kind of collaboration really takes the smart 
ideas that people in the private sector are using and trying to develop 
them with the public sector. And some revolutionary things have really 
come about. And I could name at least six or eight of them, but this is 
an opportunity for the private sector to take the lion's share of the 
money and collaborate with the public sector.
  Many of these innovative approaches are being requested by the 
Defense Department. Try them out, test them out, see if they work, and 
then send them out to the private sector to be funded. And some of 
these could not come about without this center. They would not come 
about without this center.
  So I wish the gentleman would have looked into this a little bit 
further, and I wish he would appreciate the idea that what is being 
developed here could not be developed without the opportunity for the 
public and private sector to work together.
  This is an appropriate appropriation for the defense bill. That is 
why it is not in any other bill. And it is appropriate, because many of 
the things that are being tested, many of the innovative approaches 
will be used by the Defense Department.
  Now, I don't know if the Department of the Navy requested this or 
not. I don't know the answer to that. But I know that some of the 
innovative approaches have been requested.
  The company that I mentioned, Firefly, is in direct collaboration 
with the Defense Department on a regular basis. And they did ask for 
Firefly to help them develop this. Eventually Firefly will be spending 
all of the money, and hopefully, what will happen is that once the 
battery is in full development, it will create jobs in central 
Illinois, in my district.
  And when people say to me, Congressman, what are you going to do 
about the erosion of the industrial base? It is to think outside the 
box. It is to take smart people to get them to think outside the box to 
create opportunities that eventually will create jobs that no one ever 
thought could exist in central Illinois because in my district people 
worked at Caterpillar for years and worked in other industries for 
years. This is the kind of thing that creates opportunities and jobs 
and could not come about without a collaboration between the Defense 
Department and this company that exists in my district.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. LaHood was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. This kind of collaboration could not come about, and 
these jobs, very few at this point, but an opportunity for expansion.
  And the truth is, the reason that the Speaker asked for this kind of 
set-aside is because it helps all of us in Illinois. It creates not 
only opportunities in central Illinois but all over the State, and it 
does give hope and opportunity to people that there are going to be 
innovative approaches and people can think outside the box and they can 
collaborate.
  I yield to the gentleman if he has a question; or if he would like to 
withdraw the amendment, I would certainly entertain that.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would not like to withdraw the amendment. I would simply 
say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, this is the private 
sector. I would submit that companies in Phoenix and in St. Louis and 
in a number of cities and centers around the country are facing 
difficulties and are having drawdowns, or technology is shifting. The 
world economy is shifting.
  But we can't simply at any time like this say, all right, we are 
going to give an earmark to that industry or to that region. If we do 
that, there is simply not enough money in the Federal budget. There is 
not enough money in the Federal budget to do what we are doing. We are 
in a deficit.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I agree with that, Mr. Flake. And that is the reason that 
this opportunity exists.
  It is not a significant amount of money. When you look at the overall 
defense budget, this is an insignificant amount of money in terms of 
what it does in terms of the expansion of jobs, the expansion of ideas, 
the expansion of technology, and it does create hope and opportunity 
for people who really want to do business with the Federal Government 
and have opportunities for creating new opportunities for people.
  And listen to me, this is a no-brainer. And I hope that we can get 
the House, when we come back in to vote on this amendment, to vote down 
this amendment. This is a very, very good technology center and it has 
created lots of opportunities for many, many people. And I urge the 
House to vote against the Flake amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for any contract with the communications and 
     public relations firm known as the Lincoln Group.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, late last year a number of American news 
agencies blew the cover off a covert propaganda operation pursued by 
the Department of Defense in Iraq. Through this operation, members of 
our Armed Forces write articles and have them planted in Iraqi 
newspapers. They also engage with private contractors to do that as 
well.

[[Page 11956]]

  DOD works with a contractor, the Lincoln Group, who actually pays off 
Iraqi journalists and publications to get their words printed in Iraqi 
newspapers and other media.
  According to a November 30 Los Angeles Times report, many of the 
articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts 
written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet 
the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-
led efforts to rebuild the country.
  By December 2005, the Lincoln Group had paid to plant upwards of 
1,000 of these articles in the Iraqi and Arab media. I was shocked by 
this revelation, which is completely antithetical to what we should 
really be doing in Iraq. In fact, it is completely antithetical to what 
other U.S. agencies are doing in Iraq.
  With one hand we are trying to develop a free, fair and independent 
news media in that country. But with the other, we are manipulating 
that media and breeding distrust among Iraqis of their democratic 
institutions and our efforts at reconstruction. That distrust is a 
direct threat to our troops in Iraq and a direct impediment to efforts 
to end our involvement in Iraq.
  This revelation shocked a lot of people across our country. Both 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush were reported as being 
concerned about the effort. In fact, National Security Advisor Steven 
Hadley predicted that the program would soon end.
  A USA Today-CNN Gallup poll taken immediately after the program was 
exposed showed that nearly 75 percent of Americans thought it was wrong 
for the Pentagon to pay Iraqi newspapers for made-up articles.
  In early March, General Casey announced that an internal review 
conducted by DOD had concluded that its own activities were legitimate 
and would continue.
  Mr. Chairman, these efforts need reconsideration and careful 
scrutiny.

                              {time}  2000

  With the Internet and the round-the-clock news reporting, as well as 
the unfortunate development of media consolidation, the boundaries 
between international and domestic news are increasingly fuzzy. There 
is no guarantee that articles sold by the Lincoln Group to the Iraqi 
press will exist alone, in a bubble, ignored by other media outlets. 
There is an ever-increasing likelihood that these stories will make 
their way into our media, which directly contradicts our own laws.
  These reports are strangely similar to stories that we were seeing 
here in the United States last year about the administration's 
developing packaged news articles that they paid to have placed in our 
own news outlets. I want to know if the Lincoln Group effort is a 
continuation of that behavior, which was strongly condemned by this 
House.
  The program appears to violate a directive that was signed by 
Secretary Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, which restricts psychological 
operations, or PSYOPS, from targeting American audiences, military 
personnel, and news agencies or outlets. DOD's decision to continue 
this effort in one country could easily lead to a decision to expand 
the effort to other countries, a wholly inappropriate idea that is very 
plausible in the current environment. That needs to be stopped.
  And DOD is conducting this program with a company called the Lincoln 
Group, whose beginnings, current activities, and partnerships are 
cloaked in confusion and deception. This amendment prevents the 
Department of Defense from spending any of the money it receives in 
this bill on contracts with the Lincoln Group, its coconspirator in 
this inappropriate and damaging program.
  I believe this amendment will send a clear signal to the Department 
of Defense that Congress and the American public do not agree with this 
administration's continued efforts to manipulate the media, especially 
when those efforts jeopardize the safety of our troops and the always 
shaky trust that we are fighting to maintain with the Iraqi people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of the Hinchey-Kucinich amendment, which would 
prohibit funds from being used in this bill to fund Pentagon contracts 
with the Lincoln Group.
  The Lincoln Group is a controversial PR firm that has been awarded 
major Pentagon contracts, worth over $100 million, to help the Pentagon 
covertly place dozens of pro-U.S. stories, written by U.S. military 
``information operations'' troops in Iraqi news outlets. Lincoln would 
help write and translate these stories and then have them placed in 
Iraqi newspapers, without revealing the Pentagon's role. Staff for the 
Lincoln Group would even at times pose as freelance reporters or 
advertising executives when delivering propaganda stories to Iraqi 
media outlets. That is according to the L.A. Times of November 30, 
2005.
  There has been much controversy over the Pentagon's dissemination of 
propaganda to foreign media outlets. We appear hypocritical when on one 
hand we advocate democracy and freedom in Iraq, including freedom of 
the press, and on the other hand, we manipulate the Iraqi press to 
achieve our own aims. This hypocrisy not only damages the United 
States' reputation abroad, but it places our soldiers in greater harm's 
way when we come to believe our own propaganda.
  Yet the contract with Lincoln also goes beyond this controversy and 
is symptomatic of the familiar problems with the Pentagon's use of 
private contractors in the war: waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The Lincoln Group earned its Pentagon contracts partially by 
misrepresenting its contacts to the Pentagon. The group has claimed to 
have partnerships with major media and advertising companies, former 
government officials and former military officers. According to the New 
York Times, some of those companies and individuals say their 
associations were fleeting or even nonexistent. For example, Lincoln 
Group said that it worked with the ad conglomerate Omnicom Group, but 
Omnicom has no knowledge of such a relationship.
  The Lincoln Group has also run into problems delivering on work for 
the Pentagon. After earning a contract in 2004 to get Iraqi 
publications to run articles written by the U.S. military, Lincoln 
admitted to the Pentagon that it had not yet fully staffed and had not 
yet acquired necessary media monitoring software.
  According to a former strategic adviser for the Lincoln Group, they, 
and this is a quote, ``The Lincoln Group appear very professional on 
the surface; then you dig a little deeper and you find that they are 
pretty amateurish.''
  Well, not only has this amateurish work come to this country, it has 
come at a not-so-amateurish price of $100 million. It is also likely 
that the Lincoln Group's contract is in violation of a Pentagon 
directive and maybe even in violation of U.S. law.
  A recently classified Pentagon directive, signed by Secretary 
Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, prohibited U.S. troops from conducting 
psychological operations targeting the news media. According to one 
senior Pentagon official, based on the language of the 2003 directive, 
the Lincoln Group operation seemed to violate Pentagon policy. That 
from the L.A. Times, January 7, 2006.
  While the Pentagon has initiated two investigations into the Lincoln 
Group's work in relation to this directive, the group's contract, get 
this, has not even been temporarily suspended. Moreover, if the 
Pentagon's dissemination of propaganda for Iraqi media is picked up by 
other foreign news organizations, like Reuters, for example, it could 
then easily be picked up by American news organizations. Yet U.S. law 
has banned the Pentagon from propaganda activities in the United States 
since the mid-1970s. The Lincoln Group's work could be in violation of 
this law.
  Now, this is a question of tens of million of dollars being misspent. 
It is also a question of official deception, of a real effort to try to 
fool the American people, to try to fool the people of Iraq, to try to 
fool the foreign press.

[[Page 11957]]

  Our soldiers know what is going on in Iraq. They know when they read 
these stories or the stories come to them of a totally different 
situation than what they are living with. They know it is a lie.
  We should make our decisions in this Congress based on the truth, not 
on fiction written by individuals who never have to deal with the real 
reality. Think of how unconscionable this is. They reveal a garden in 
the Iraqi media while our soldiers are in a desert of hell. How wrong 
that is.
  That is why the Hinchey-Kucinich amendment is important. That is why 
we must prohibit funds in this bill from going to the Lincoln Group.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a good amendment at all. Earlier in the 
debate earlier in the day, I said we should not be tying our hands 
behind our back with a specific amendment. This amendment would disarm 
part of our arsenal against the enemy.
  If you do not like the Lincoln Group, I do not care about that 
because I have no idea who they are. And maybe they are amateurish, as 
my friend from Ohio suggested. If that is the case, maybe we ought to 
fire the Lincoln Group. But let us not stop the ability of the United 
States and our story to be told to the Arab world.
  You have a hard time turning on television and news stories around 
here that you do not see some of the propaganda from al Jazeera put out 
by Zarqawi, the former Zarqawi, and his cohorts. Those messages get 
spread all over the world.
  In war, psychological war is very important. Is anybody here old 
enough to remember Tokyo Rose? Mr. Hastings says he is, and so am I. 
Tokyo Rose, who broadcast radio propaganda to our troops, trying to 
demoralize them every day, 24 hours a day. Well, are you going to just 
ignore that kind of warfare, or are you going to fight back?
  We have a story to tell. Mr. Kucinich talked about the soldiers. Let 
me tell you something. I have seen and talked with a lot of wounded 
soldiers and marines in our hospitals right out here north of the city, 
and many of them complain, Why isn't our story getting told? They do 
not believe that our story is getting told. They hear the trash that 
comes out of al Qaeda on al Jazeera that spreads out to all of the Arab 
worlds and finds its way back here to America, as the gentleman 
conceded. Are we just going to sit back and take those blows, just sit 
back and let the enemy throw all of the lies and all of the trash that 
they want to at us without fighting back? Not me. Not me.
  Do not take away one of the tools in our arsenal: the ability to 
fight back in a psychological way, because fighting for the minds of 
the people involved are a big part of our issue.
  If you want to fire the Lincoln Group, do it. If this amendment 
should pass, and I hope that it does not, and the Lincoln Group doesn't 
get funded, what is to say that they do not hire some other firm to do 
the same thing? Specifying a particular company is not what we do in 
appropriations bills. We do not specify companies for contracts or 
projects. We just do not do that. If you want to fire the Lincoln 
Group, put in an amendment that says fire the Lincoln Group, but do not 
take away one of the tools in our arsenal of fighting the battles that 
we have to fight.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As I noted earlier today, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, who is 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is not here today due to an 
important personal commitment, and he asked me to state his opposition 
to this amendment.
  The issue of authorization and funding for public affairs and 
information operations in Iraq has been monitored and discussed by the 
Armed Services Committee to some length. Information operations are 
vital, as our good chairman from Florida just pointed out. In Iraq the 
United States faces a determined enemy that attempts to manipulate the 
media, often with the purpose of further endangering U.S. forces. 
Chairman Hunter, in fact, has pledged to hold hearings on this matter.
  But let me just point out, as Chairman Young just so eloquently 
stated, information dissemination on the battlefield and in the 
countries that are affected in a direct way by warfare such as Iraq is 
extremely important. Earlier today we had that in mind when Chairman 
Young led us in opposition to an amendment proposed by another Member 
because of the message it sent. Messages in Iraq and other countries 
torn by war are extremely important. As a matter of fact, we devote a 
great deal of time, effort, and money to train members of our military 
forces in operations called psychological operations. As a matter of 
fact, we used them extensively during the invasion of Iraq, not through 
the contractor that is in question here, but through our military 
personnel who are trained to do just that. The use of broadcast has 
traditionally been an important part of information operations as well.
  So Chairman Hunter and the rest of us on the Armed Services Committee 
and the Defense Appropriations Committee have paid a lot of attention 
to this matter for many reasons. I am sure the committee will continue 
to do so if necessary. And Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England 
has informed us on the Armed Services Committee that he is reviewing 
this matter very closely. In the meantime, General Casey in Iraq and 
the Department of Defense inspector general are both investigating the 
use of funds by the Lincoln Group and by the Rendon Group. The results 
of the Casey investigation are expected to be released in the near 
future.
  I could only say on behalf of Chairman Hunter that the Armed Services 
Committee will continue to monitor closely and will take appropriate 
action as needed.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  2015


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the 
bill from being used for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, which 
receives $2.5 million in this defense bill.
  What is the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative? Where is the money 
going? To the northwest of what? Of the United States? Of Arizona? Of 
Washington, DC?
  There is no description of this project in the committee report. It 
strikes me again, why can't Members get more information on these 
projects beforehand? We made calls to the Department of Defense, which 
funds this earmark. They knew nothing. They didn't get back to us with 
anything. Calls were unanswered. We asked the Appropriations Committee 
as well, and we couldn't get anything from the Appropriations Committee 
before we filed the amendment to be offered here. It was only after the 
amendment was filed that those who are sponsoring the earmark called to 
tell us what the amendment is about.
  It is the Northwest portion of the United States, I come to 
understand, and it is a manufacturing initiative, but we don't know 
much else about it. A few of the Members have been kind enough to share 
with me today what they are seeking to do. My understanding is that 
businesses in the

[[Page 11958]]

Northwest, particularly those that contract with the United States 
Government, the Department of Defense and others, some are having 
difficulty, as they are in many parts of the country.
  My question is, why in the defense bill are we offering help to 
manufacturing companies in the Northwest? What about the Southeast or 
the Southwest? What about companies in Arizona or California or 
Colorado? Why don't they get similar treatment? How does the Federal 
Government decide, all right, we are going to help manufacturing 
companies there, but not here? Again, we are picking winners and losers 
here. It is not the job and should not be the job of the Federal 
Government.
  I appreciate the fact there are Members here willing to defend this 
amendment. My good friend Mr. Blumenauer is here to do so and others, 
and I appreciate that. In this way we can actually have a dialogue.
  Again, sometimes this is the only oversight, the only explanation. 
This is it. This is all we get on some of these earmarks. I feel it is 
important when we are spending taxpayer dollars, particularly $2.5 
million in the defense bill, that it is important to know what it is 
going for. So I am glad the authors of the amendment are here, and I 
look forward to the explanation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman's opportunity to engage in 
what, in fact, the proposal is about, because there was a rather 
detailed proposal that was extended to the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee. It is cosponsored by the entire House delegation, 10 
Northwest Representatives and Senators, a bipartisan effort, and it is 
dealing with the need to be able to have a bistate program to help 
support a strong defense industrial base.
  It contributes directly to our national defense. We have outlined how 
it helps in terms of providing research and development on the 
reliability, cost-effectiveness and environmental performance of 
products designed specifically for the defense marketplace. It 
increases the ability to deal with workforce, to provide the products, 
to expand the reach of high-performance manufacturing techniques, and 
create more efficient and competitive companies in the defense sector, 
and to build the capacity of small and medium-sized companies to 
participate in this marketplace.
  This is precisely the sort of thing that I think we would want to 
have to help the defense opportunities, not just in the Pacific 
Northwest, but to be able to scale it and take it in other parts of the 
country.
  I could go on at great length. I will not, because I have been 
admonished that time is short and because others from the Northwest who 
are part of this are here.
  But let me just say that I have been struck by, and one of the 
reasons I have been working on this for some time is the ability of 
small companies that I work with to make a difference, and that we have 
great difficulty in terms of scaling and being able to help them 
perform in this arena.
  In my district we have Danner Boots, which far exceeds the capacity 
of the specifications that the Department of Defense requests. Our 
soldiers would be safer. In fact, that is the boot of choice for people 
who have young men and women going to Iraq.
  We have had the same consortium develop HemCon Bandages, which have 
an amazing capacity to accelerate the clotting. In fact, it is the 
consensus that our troops should all be provided with this when they go 
overseas.
  We have got small companies that are dealing with technology that 
others are going to speak to that I won't go into that are all a part 
of this consortium.
  Last but not least, the notion here is having skin in the game. Well, 
this is matched by a 50 percent match by local sources. It is a public-
private partnership where we are not looking for something that has 
dropped out of the sky, but is matched by the Federal Government. I 
think anybody who reviews this proposal will find that it is cost-
effective, that it is important for the Defense Department, that it 
builds on proven technologies and opportunities and speaks to gaps that 
need to be filled, and will have application not just for the 
Department of Defense, but for others that work to serve it.
  So, in the interest of time, I will conclude on that point and invite 
anybody to look at this proposal that has been offered by my colleagues 
from the Northwest. I think they will be satisfied that there will be 
full value offered, and it is worthy of support.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arizona to strike the funding for the Northwest 
Manufacturing Initiative.
  The Northwest Manufacturing Initiative encompasses Oregon and 
southwest Washington. The initiative is organized as a regional 
coalition, and its purpose is to make the Northwest region's diverse 
manufacturing sector a stronger contributor to the Nation's defense and 
national security.
  The initiative seeks to provide to the Defense Department a 
coordinated, regional resource for assessing products and services 
being offered by the private sector that meets our Nation's future 
defense needs. A key goal of the initiative is to increase the 
contribution of the Northwest coast to the Nation's industrial 
preparedness and security. A focus of this project is to assist small 
and medium-sized manufacturers to become providers of products to 
defense contractors.
  My colleague talked about HemCon; he talked about another company, 
Danner Boots. I could name several companies. There is another company, 
Hydration, which allows you with a membrane to fill water into this 
CamelBak and give you clean drinking water from the filthiest water you 
can find. Those are the kind of companies. These are small, innovative 
companies. This is where we get our innovation.
  The Oregon Manufacturing Initiative is a key component of the Oregon 
business plan and economic development plans in communities across 
Oregon and southwest Washington. Local, regional and State funding has 
been used to plan and develop the initiative.
  As manufacturing has declined in many parts of the Nation, it has 
become more urgent that small to medium-sized companies are mobilized 
to provide the necessary goods demanded by a modern military and the 
Nation's security. Through the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, the 
Defense Department will have a one-stop resource when it needs 
information on what companies are providing to meet defense needs or 
when it seeks critical manufacturing research and development.
  The Northwest Manufacturing Initiative is a regional model designed 
to create efficiencies and cost savings. While I appreciate the 
intentions of the gentleman from Arizona, I must urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment and ask they support this worthwhile project.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Arizona, 
but I rise to join my colleagues in explaining why this is so 
important.
  We have talked about boots, we have talked about hydration systems. 
This same coalition is involved with making some of the finest combat 
knives in the world; laser sights, laser devices that can help protect 
aviation or even possibly one day shoot down missiles; adhesive armor, 
to up-armor Humvees in 4 hours to save our soldiers' lives.
  The gentleman from Arizona said we don't pick winners and losers. In 
fact, we do. If you vote against this provision and for your amendment, 
you will pick our soldiers as losers. This is about providing resources 
to help small businesses and medium-sized businesses get state-of-the-
art equipment to our soldiers.
  I don't know if you have had the occasion to meet with a midsized 
growing business that makes this kind of equipment, but talking to them 
and the challenges they face in working with defense procurement 
proposals, defense procurement procedures and other needs are very 
difficult challenges. I think it is entirely appropriate that

[[Page 11959]]

the Federal Government participate in this, along with the match that 
was described earlier, because this is a program that could well be a 
model for the country, that will produce more effective business 
results and better products for our soldiers.
  One final statement I would just make: We talk in this body a lot 
about dynamic scoring of tax cuts. There is also dynamic scoring of 
expenditures. I would submit to the gentleman from Arizona and to all 
my colleagues that for a small amount of money, we are going to 
stimulate manufacturing of state-of-the-art devices and equipment that 
will save our soldiers' lives and save this government money over the 
long run.
  This is a good proposal, an innovative proposal, and good products 
that will save the lives of our soldiers will result from it. I urge a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this is about public-private partnerships. It is 
about cost-effective and innovative production. The large defense 
manufacturers are not exactly known as paragons of innovation or cost-
effectiveness, so diversifying into the small and midsized businesses 
in the Pacific Northwest is a great investment for the Federal 
taxpayers, and we are providing vital products to our troops. Hydration 
technologies was already mentioned, based in my district. Body armor is 
produced in my district. We have a stealth boat manufacturer, missile 
silos up in Darlene's district. These are all members of the coalition. 
Night vision goggles, critical to our troops.
  So if you support cost-effective, innovative and effective equipment 
for our troops, you will oppose this amendment and support the 
initiative.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona seeking to cut all $2.5 million 
for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, NMI.
  I, along with all members of Oregon's bipartisan House and Senate 
delegation as well as House and Senate members from Washington, asked 
for funding for NMI because of its goal to improve the Department of 
Defense's industrial base by strengthening the Northwest's diverse, 
value-added manufacturing sector.
  Through research and development to enhance the reliability, cost 
effectiveness and performance of defense related products and through 
increasing our ability to train and deliver work-ready employees to 
defense related manufacturing companies, NMI will increase and improve 
the contributions of Northwest companies to the nation's industrial 
preparedness and security.
  We have seen what innovative and cutting edge technologies can come 
out of the Northwest to benefit our military:
  HemCon, located in my Congressional district, has developed a new 
bandage technology that has already saved the lives of dozens of U.S. 
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the Army Surgeon General has 
requested that every soldier deployed to a combat zone carry a HemCon 
Bandage in their first-aid kit.
  Similarly, through work being done at iSense in my district, military 
doctors will have the technology to quickly detect severe blood loss or 
internal bleeding. There is no doubt in my mind that these technologies 
have and will save the lives of Americans at home and abroad.
  Another company, InSport, is ensuring that our service members have 
the best products available in combat. InSport has developed base layer 
t-shirts for our military that resist the build up of bacteria that 
adversely affects performance on the battlefield.
  Yet, despite these innovative companies, challenges remain. Many 
small defense companies, especially those in manufacturing, have 
trouble finding skilled workers.
  The NMI will help train manufacturing workers and increase 
participation of innovative companies. It will allow an entire region's 
companies to learn from each other, and more Oregonians to learn to 
earn.
  More importantly, it will save the Department of Defense, DOD, time 
and money by making these manufacturers more efficient and competitive 
and, consequently, able to provide better and less expensive products.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 1001.
     None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
     enter into or carry out a contract for the performance by a 
     contractor of any base operation support service at Walter 
     Reed Army Medical Hospital pursuant to the public-private 
     competition conducted under Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 that was initiated on June 13, 2000, and that 
     has the solicitation number DADA 10-03-R-0001.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the Walter Reed 
Army Medical Hospital.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no 
problem with the amendment on our side.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the 
amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for accepting my 
amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Lewis Center for Education Research.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding 
from going to the Lewis Center for Educational Research in Apple 
Valley, California.
  Mr. Chairman, the Lewis Center has hosted more than 100,000 students, 
teachers, and parents participating in educational activities. The 
center's Web site contains a wish list for funding for three log cabins 
for third graders, an amphitheater, a schoolhouse shed, a large water 
wheel for panning gold during the gold rush educational fourth grade 
outreach program, and similar activities to that.
  Mr. Chairman, these are undoubtedly worthy educational tools. My 
question is this: Why are Federal tax dollars intended for our national 
defense being used to fund this type of institution? It seems that 
corporate sponsors of the center abound, including corporations like 
JPL, Allied Signal, Boeing, Verizon, Lucent Technologies, Lomac 
Information System, Mitsubishi, RFG, Rockwell Rocketdyne Aerospace. 
Surely these donations can keep the center in good stead.
  The center has already received $3 million in earmarked funds in 
fiscal year 2004 and an additional $2.5 million in 2005. It looks as if 
the center is back for more in this bill to the tune of $4 million.
  The description of the earmark in this bill provides no detail on how 
the $4 million is to be spent on the Lewis Center. If there is a 
defense angle for this earmark, I am simply not seeing it. Again, it 
seems as if we are debating the Labor-HHS bill at this point or some 
other education bill and not the defense bill. These may well be worthy 
programs, but should we be funding them with defense dollars?
  I would like to hear justification for the Federal defense function 
in this case. Again, why are we doing this in the defense bill? These 
are clearly educational functions. Why should we be taking money that 
could be spent for the troops and for the operations in the military 
for things like this?

[[Page 11960]]


  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening Mr. Lewis 
talked extensively in support of projects and made I think the 
relationship between education for our youngsters in math and science 
and the work of the U.S. Department of Defense, and I believe that his 
comments are on the record and I would like to resubmit them in case 
they are not.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to 
inform my colleagues on the excellent programs put together by the 
Center for Education Research in Apple Valley, California.
  First, it is important to remember that the 21st Century Department 
of Defense is much more than weapons programs and soldiers in barracks. 
Tens of thousands of our dedicated men and women in uniform have made a 
life-long career of defending their nation. They now have families, and 
it has become our responsibility to provide for those families as they 
move about our nation to meet the needs of our military.
  Many schools that serve the children of military families have 
developed high standards of excellence. But not all schools in all 
places have met these standards in the past. As the DoD worked to 
translate these high standards to other schools, the Center for 
Education Research came forward with a proposed discipline for science 
nearly a decade ago.
  The heart of this program is the Goldstone-Apple Valley Radio 
Telescope curriculum, which allows 10,000 students around the world to 
take part in NASA research projects by way of the Internet. This 
program now reaches students and teachers in 27 states, 14 countries 
and three territories.
  I want to emphasize that the support of these students is valued and 
sought out by NASA researchers. In fact, the students' efforts have in 
many cases saved millions of dollars for Federal science programs by 
freeing top researchers from process work and allowing them to do more 
analysis.
  The Center for Excellence was asked last year to create a 
comprehensive Internet-based science curriculum and train 500 teachers 
by the Department of Defense Education Activity program, which is the 
primary agency helping our DoD schools achieve high levels of 
excellence. The Stars and Stripes newspaper, and even DoDEA itself, 
have featured this program in stories that highlight what we are trying 
to do for our military families.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again want to point out that not 
all good ideas come through the bureaucracies that oversee spending for 
our federal government. Often those bureaucracies hold back ideas that 
could quickly and dramatically advance the quality of services we 
provide to our constituents--and in this case--the families of those 
who defend us.
  When this happens, these programs need an advocate who can get the 
agency to engage, and see the value of these ideas. I am proud to be an 
advocate for a program that continues to help tens of thousands of kids 
whose parents devote their lives to protecting our nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response 
     Training Program (ALERRT).

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from 
going to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program, 
or ALERRT program, at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas.
  The ALERRT program, as it is called, provides training for first 
responders and police officer. It would appear that this is not the 
first earmark appropriated to Texas State University for the ALERRT 
program. Evidently, the program has received $300,000 in the past; now 
it needs another $1 million.
  I am all for the training of our police officers, although it is 
primarily a function of State and local governments. However, I 
understand the Federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security 
grants go toward law enforcement agencies. In the defense 
appropriations bill why is this a vehicle for funding for law 
enforcement training? Are we not adequately training our military 
troops at our Defense Department facilities? Do we now need to send 
them to this law enforcement training center? If this is the case, I 
would submit that we ought to hold some hearings on the subject. I 
should note that the President did not request this money.
  I would submit that it is time for Congress to be a little more 
attentive to how we are spending and earmarking valuable defense 
dollars. Again, we have other appropriations bills, and homeland 
security certainly comes up here. This is a function of training local 
police officers or others for a local police function. We have scarce 
defense dollars, and we shouldn't be spending them in this way. I hope 
that we will vote for this amendment and keep the funding for defense 
in defense.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The type of warfare that we are involved in now is different than 
army-against-army or squad-against-squad and actually is an urban type 
of warfare street-by-street, and seeking out individuals who may be in 
hiding. Law enforcement does this extremely well. The FBI or the local 
police or these folks, they do a really good job at this because that 
is what they do, seek out criminals. It is probably a pretty good idea 
that we give our military troops some training from experts who really 
know something about how to do this street-by-street seeking out 
terrorists who are in hiding. So I think it does have a military 
application and I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And 
to clarify Ms. Norton's amendment, I should have added to it besides we 
were pleased to accept her amendment, and the committee looks forward 
to working with her and the Armed Services Committee towards its 
objective.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Let me say that I started out this debate when I raised the question 
regarding the compensation of our soldiers with my appreciation for 
both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young. I continue that appreciation because 
this is a very difficult challenge to appropriate funds for a myriad of 
issues on the Defense Department, including addressing questions of 
humanity, if you will, personnel issues, issues dealing with combat 
stress, medical issues dealing with the research on prosthetics.
  I rise today to discuss an issue that is enormously important to me. 
It might be that I am a child of the Vietnam War and many of my fellow 
contemporaries, my friends, male friends, went off to this war. Some 
did not come back. And I am reminded of the simple honor that was given 
the families as these fallen soldiers came home to the American soil.
  I am reminded also of the visit that President Ronald Reagan made 
when he went to Dover Air Force Base to receive the fallen soldiers 
from the explosion in Lebanon. What a moving expression to see that. As 
they first touched American soil, we were there to say thank you. So I 
rise to discuss an amendment that simply would have allowed the option 
of arrival ceremonies to be presented for our deceased military 
personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein Air Force Base or 
Dover Air Force Base. In particular, I think the focus would be for 
those coming to Dover Air Force Base where many families come to greet 
their loved ones.

[[Page 11961]]

  My amendment does not in any way or the amendment would not in any 
way have banned or eliminated the ban on media coverage of arrival 
ceremonies at this time on any returning individuals fallen who have 
come from overseas. By continuing the ban on media, I believe it 
appropriately addressed the question and the sensitive question of the 
privacy of families.
  But I do note that many come with the resolve that their fallen 
soldier is truly a hero. And because of that, they deserve an arrival 
ceremony with America acknowledging that that fallen soldier is truly a 
hero and it is all together fitting and proper that there be a pause 
and a remembrance when the remains of an American freedom fighter are 
returned to the land they gave their bodies to defend.
  As I mentioned, I am forever reminded of that fateful day that 
President Reagan went on behalf of a grateful Nation to Dover Air Force 
Base to welcome the marines who had fallen and who had been killed in 
Lebanon.
  Perhaps you recall also that President Jimmy Carter attended arrival 
ceremonies held at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware when the brave 
Americans who lost their lives in the Iran hostage rescue attempt were 
returned home.
  Similarly, the first President George H.W. Bush, the first President, 
participated in the arrival ceremony held for soldiers killed in Panama 
and Lebanon.
  To most Americans welcoming home, it is a fitting ceremony that the 
men and women who willingly risked all and sadly gave all that they had 
for this country, it is a simple statement of justice. And so I had 
hoped to be able to offer an amendment to be able to give guidance to 
the Defense Department on behalf of the families of the fallen and the 
families of the United States military using the degree of sensitivity 
that I think would be appropriate, keeping in place the media issue 
that we would be concerned about. I am hoping that as we move this bill 
that we will have the opportunity to be able to address this question.
  Before I yield to the gentleman, might I just cite, and I will yield 
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania quickly, that it was 
Abraham Lincoln who said the loss is doubly great to the families of 
the fallen for they have laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of 
freedom. I am hoping that we will have the opportunity to have these 
arrival ceremonies.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I explain my 
amendment, let me express my deep appreciation and gratitude to 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work on this 
bill and for all the good work they have performed for so long on 
behalf of the Nation's soldiers, sailors, marines, air forces, and all 
who work to keep our Nation safe and free.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and easy to understand. The 
amendment simply defunds that part of the Department of Defense policy 
that bars arrival ceremonies for deceased military personnel returning 
to Dover Air Force Base. My amendment does not--I repeat does not--lift 
the Defense Department ban on media coverage of arrival ceremonies or 
of any returning or departing deceased military personnel. By 
continuing the ban on media coverage but permitting arrival ceremonies 
my amendment accommodates and balances the interests of those families 
who wish to have their privacy respected and the Nation's interest in 
paying fitting tribute to their fallen heroes who have given the last 
full measure of devotion on foreign soil.
  It is altogether fitting and proper that there be a pause and a 
remembrance when the remains of American freedom fighters are returned 
to the land they gave their lives to defend.
  I remember when President Reagan, on behalf of a grateful Nation, 
traveled to Dover Air Force Base in 1983 to welcome home the fallen 
marines who had been killed in Lebanon. Perhaps you recall also that 
President Jimmy Carter attended arrival ceremonies held at Dover Air 
Force Base in Delaware when the brave Americans who lost their lives in 
the Iran hostage rescue attempt were returned home. Similarly, the 
first President Bush, George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, 
participated in the arrival ceremony held for the soldiers killed in 
Panama and Lebanon. To most Americans, welcoming home in a fitting 
ceremony the men and women who willingly risked all and, sadly, gave 
their all is only right. It is a matter of simple justice.
  I was then quite shocked to realize that there is now a policy 
guidance from the Defense Department that directs this government not 
to honor our soldiers when they come, having fallen in battle, back to 
the soil of the United States of America.
  Might I share with you the language. ``There will be no arrival 
ceremonies for or media coverage of deceased military personnel 
returning to or departing from Ramstein AB or Dover Air Force Base.'' 
What a shocking statement to make to the Nation, that when our soldiers 
fall in battle or when they lose their lives as members of the United 
States military, there is a blanket order, an across-the-board policy, 
affirmed by the administration in March 2003, not to pay honor and 
tribute to the fallen when they return.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking of disrespecting family members who 
desire no such formal ceremonies. What I am suggesting is it should be 
an option and that there should be no blanket barrier that would, in 
fact, stop the honoring of these soldiers.
  I remind you of the words of Abe Lincoln, who said the loss is doubly 
great to the families of the fallen. For they have laid ``so costly a 
sacrifice on the altar of freedom.'' We owe them the respect of this 
honor, and a grateful Nation should be permitted to show its gratitude. 
But with this blanket order that suggests that there can be no arrival 
ceremony, I believe we denigrate, we deny the opportunity for honor.
  My colleagues will say that there are individual ceremonies and 
funerals and memorials. And they may be right. But I ask you as 
Americans and colleagues, how many times have we been able to mourn as 
a Nation the soldiers who are in the war on terror, fighting in places 
around the world? In these recent years, we have seen none. We have not 
honored any publicly.
  Yes, in just 2 weeks from now will be Independence Day, but yet we 
are denied the right to be able to show our gratitude. My amendment is 
intended to comfort the widow and the orphan as President Lincoln 
enjoined us to do. I believe many of them will find comfort in their 
hour of loss by the certain knowledge that a grateful Nation remembers. 
My amendment is on behalf of Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that in reading this language, I 
struggled with the reason and the premise. Why can't we join together 
as patriots, respecting and recognizing the young lives that have been 
sacrificed, by the Reservists, the National Guard and all the service 
branches on behalf of this Nation? Why would you have this kind of 
prohibition with no basis, no premise, particularly when we saw flag-
draped coffins being utilized after the tragedy of 9/11? Why would you 
not allow us as Americans to embrace the widows and orphans and be able 
to say to them, thank you.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

 Amendment #4 to H.R. 5631, as Reported (Defense Appropriations, 2007) 
                  Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
following:

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec.  . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to implement the provision in Paragraph 4.F of ``Public 
     Affairs Guidance On Casualty and Mortuary Affairs in Military 
     Operations,'' (R 311900Z) March 2003, as it relates to 
     barring arrival ceremonies for deceased military personnel.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be delighted to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. I appreciate what the gentlewoman from Texas said, and I 
hope we can work something out. It is always a delicate situation where 
one family, maybe more than one soldier or service person comes in at 
the same time. But I hope we can work something out in line with what 
she is talking about if the family is interested in doing this. I 
appreciate what she is saying and the statement and sentiment behind 
what she is trying to do.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

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

                 TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used for the Leonard Wood Research Institute.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before I address this amendment, let me 
simply

[[Page 11962]]

say that I spoke earlier today with Representative Cuellar. He would 
have liked to be here to offer a defense of the last earmark, the 
Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training program. He offered a 
spirited defense to me today. I still don't happen to agree with him 
about the amendment, but I know he would have liked to be here to offer 
that. And I have enjoyed the opportunity to hear about these amendments 
and to hear them defended today as Members have known that they are 
going to be challenged on the floor, and that is what this process is 
all about.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds from the 
Leonard Wood Institute at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. As many of you 
know, Major General Wood led the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American 
war. The Leonard Wood Institute develops, promotes, and manages 
worldwide collaborations that are related to the Department of Defense.
  I am all for seeing the Missouri business sector grow as I would 
other States' business sectors as well, particularly Arizona. But it 
seems to me that American taxpayers are being asked to spend Federal 
defense dollars on promoting Missouri businesses rather than on the war 
on terror. Again, we are picking winners and losers here. I know that 
there are institutions in Arizona, business sectors everywhere else, 
that would like to get this kind of funding, $20 million, in the 
defense bill.

                              {time}  2045

  So why are we choosing one State? Why are we picking the businesses 
of that one State as the winners here?
  I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee or the sponsor of the 
amendment to explain to the taxpayers and every other State outside of 
Missouri why we should support this earmark. Frankly, dollars in the 
defense bill should go to the war on terror. They ought to go to the 
troops. They ought to go for body armor. They ought to go for vehicles, 
for ammunition, for everything else we spend on defense. I do not 
believe they ought to go to support businesses that are simply looking 
for defense contracts or looking to promote business in one particular 
State.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this, it is my understanding, would be the last 
amendment to be considered on this bill today, and I wanted to just a 
minute to thank everyone who participated in the debate. It has been a 
lively debate all day. A lot of good arguments were made on both sides 
of the various issues, but it is a good example of how intense this 
bill really is. It is a very large bill. It includes an lawful lot of 
important material for the security of our Nation, to provide our 
troops with the best equipment possible, to provide them with the best 
training possible, to provide them with the best protective gear 
possible.
  It is a bipartisan bill, one that was put together with the 
cooperation of all of the Members of both parties on the subcommittee. 
It was approved unanimously by the full committee. I want to compliment 
all the Members, especially of the subcommittee, who worked so hard to 
make this a good bill.
  I want to thank the staff who was led on our side by John Shank and 
on Mr. Murtha's side by David Morrison, and the staff that worked with 
them. They are 24/7 workers, and they are extremely well-qualified and 
dedicated to the job that they do.
  So thank you for a good day, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to especially 
compliment you on the excellent way that you have conducted the affairs 
of the committee this afternoon.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York regarding Iran.
  Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York regarding the Lincoln Group.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Northwest Manufacturing Initiative.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Lewis Center.
  Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Leonard Wood Institute.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 262, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--262

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey

[[Page 11963]]


     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     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
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bilbray
     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Hunter
     Issa
     Marshall
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Spratt

                              {time}  2112

  Mr. HEFLEY and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FATTAH, Mr. GILCHRESt, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Messrs. 
SERRANO, GARRETT of New Jersey, BARTLETT of Maryland, COSTELLO, and 
MOORE of Kansas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Chocola). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey) regarding the Lincoln Group 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 268, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 301]

                               AYES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Hunter
     Issa
     Keller
     Marshall
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oxley


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2117

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Northwest Manufacturing Initiative on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 11964]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56, 
noes 369, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 302]

                                AYES--56

     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Linder
     Miller (FL)
     Moore (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Udall (NM)
     Waxman
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--369

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     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 (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oxley


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2122

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Lewis Center on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 50, 
noes 373, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 303]

                                AYES--50

     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Linder
     Matheson
     Moore (KS)
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Udall (NM)
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--373

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)

[[Page 11965]]


     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     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
     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
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     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)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gilchrest
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2126

  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Leonard Wood Research Institute on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 62, 
noes 363, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 304]

                                AYES--62

     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Leach
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Matheson
     McHenry
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle
     Oxley


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2131

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

[[Page 11966]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last 2 lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2007''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with 
the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, 
as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp of Michigan, 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. 
5631) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had 
directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 877, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407, 
nays 19, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               YEAS--407

     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
     Bilbray
     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)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     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 (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
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     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
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     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
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--19

     Baldwin
     Conyers
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Moore (WI)
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Hunter
     Napolitano
     Nussle

                              {time}  2150

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

                          ____________________