[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12643-12649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1585, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 403

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 2008, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
        (b) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report (except as specified in section 4 of this resolution), 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes 
     after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a 
     designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 6. During consideration in the House of H.R. 1585 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 403 provides for consideration of 
H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 90 minutes of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all 
points of order against the bill's consideration, except those arising 
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order and provides 
appropriate waivers for 50 amendments. The rule also permits the Chair 
of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments 
not earlier disposed of en bloc and debated for 20 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee. The Chair of the Armed Services Committee also may 
request that amendments printed and ordered in the Rules Committee 
report be offered out of that order with appropriate notice on the 
floor.
  Madam Speaker, today the new Congress, under Democratic leadership, 
will chart a new direction for a stronger and safer America through the 
adoption of the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, and this rule. 
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to 
report that our committee, under the leadership of Chairman Ike 
Skelton, passed the bill out of committee unanimously in a bipartisan 
way, 58-0.
  The Defense bill provides $648.6 billion to support our brave 
American men and women in uniform, but it does much more. The 
provisions in the bill would repair the damage done to America's 
national security by this White House by improving the readiness of our 
Armed Forces, requiring accountability from the White House in its Iraq 
policy and making more strategic investments for the protection of the 
American people and our interests across the globe.
  On readiness, we are going to take care of our troops and their 
families. We are going to fully fund the needs of our armed services. 
We are going to strengthen the National Guard and Reserves.
  Here are a few details. We have authorized $1.2 billion for body 
armor; $2.5 billion for up-armored Humvees; $1.2 billion for vehicle 
add-on armor; and $509 million for the armored security vehicles. We 
are going to increase the end-strength of our armed services with 
36,000 new soldiers in the Army, 9,000 new troops in the Marine Corps 
and 1,300 troops in the Army National Guard.

[[Page 12644]]

  This bill authorizes $4.5 billion to fund the anti-IED, improvised 
explosive device, efforts of the Joint Improved Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization.
  In addition, Madam Speaker, although the President called for only a 
3 percent pay raise for our brave men and women in uniform, we have 
gone far beyond that because we recognize the sacrifice that they are 
providing for the benefit of the American people, and we have provided 
a pay raise in this bill for our troops of 3.5 percent.
  Inexplicably, in this time of conflict and war the Bush 
administration also proposed increases in health insurance premiums for 
our military retirees and troops under TRICARE and proposed cuts to 
active military medical services. We have blocked that measure. It is 
the wrong time for the White House to propose health insurance premium 
increases, when we are asking so much of our brave American men and 
women in uniform.
  Madam Speaker, in this bill we have also included provisions that we 
passed last month, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, because we 
remain committed to seeing that our wounded servicemembers receive the 
best health care possible. Indeed, Madam Speaker, under that Wounded 
Warrior Assistance Act, we are answering the call of the American 
people. This new Congress is demanding, through this rule and through 
this legislation, that the executive branch move beyond the rhetoric of 
``support our troops'' to concrete actions that sustain our brave men 
and women in uniform and their families by providing the quality health 
care they deserve when they return from the battlefield.
  Supporting our troops does not mean that you simply salute and send 
them off to war, ask them to serve and sacrifice for our great country. 
But it also means that they are supported when they return home, their 
families are respected and our wounded warriors receive superior health 
care for their physical injuries and mental health care.
  We are going to improve the health care-mental health care for our 
wounded warriors in this bill. We are going to tackle the bureaucracy 
that has blocked their access to health care. We are going to require 
expedited action, provide medical advocates, improve support services 
for families and really tackle the traumatic brain injuries and aid the 
polytrauma centers and VA hospitals across this country that are 
serving the most crucially wounded.
  Madam Speaker, this bill also calls for greater accountability from 
the White House. In this bill, we are requiring more in-depth reports 
on operations in Iraq. We want to know what is truly happening on the 
ground with the Iraqi security forces.
  There has been so much waste and fraud in contracting in Iraq and 
under this White House that we are not going to put up with it any 
longer. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, USAID, must 
have additional oversight of the multibillion dollar contracts that 
have been approved during this war in Iraq. We require reports on the 
proficiencies of the Iraqi Army, the police, and all security forces 
there.
  To the credit of this Armed Services Committee, we have not forgotten 
about Afghanistan. In fact, in this bill, as an additional 
accountability measure, we have established an Inspector General for 
Afghanistan Reconstruction, as we cannot sanction the waste and fraud 
that has accompanied the administration's Iraq reconstruction.
  Madam Speaker, we are also going to be more strategic in the defense 
of our national security. Like I said, Afghanistan cannot be the 
forgotten war. In fact, in this bill we direct more attention to 
operations there, in addition to the Inspector General that will 
oversee the reconstruction efforts. This bill contains a detailed plan 
to achieve long-term stability in what has been an unstable country in 
Afghanistan for many years.
  Madam Speaker, we will hear debate today about missile defense. Now, 
this bill provides great investment in the protection and missile 
defense of this country. It also reinvigorates the nonproliferation and 
threat reduction initiatives that have suffered under the Bush 
administration. We are going to refocus our efforts strategically on 
terrorism and the true threats to our national security.
  I am very proud to say that the headquarters of Special Operations 
Command is located in my district in Tampa, Florida, at the McDill Air 
Force Base. This Defense bill, under Democratic leadership, not only 
fully funds our Special Operations Forces, but it went beyond the Bush 
administration's budget request, and we have funded their five unfunded 
needs under the Bush proposal.
  We have also authorized a 25 percent increase in Special Forces by 
the year 2013, because we recognize that we cannot rely solely any 
longer on the conventional threats to our country. We have got to be 
smarter, we have to be more strategic, and the Democratic Defense bill 
authorizes the increase in Special Forces and also a new emphasis on 
indirect action.
  Oftentimes, to win the hearts and minds, you don't go in with guns 
blazing. In fact, you institute a smarter policy where you work with 
folks on the ground to prevent any terrorist initiative from ever 
developing. And this bill does that.
  We have reinvested additional resources to improve education and 
analytical intelligence surveillance. We harness the science and 
technology innovation in this country by investing in information 
technology and other technologies to make sure that our troops on the 
ground have the best technology available across the globe.
  Yes, Madam Speaker, this Defense bill charts a new direction for true 
readiness, accountability and more strategic investments to protect our 
national security.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 contains provisions that are important to our troops serving 
abroad, to our national security and to my constituents in central 
Washington. It authorizes more funding for force protection, including 
over $4 billion for vehicles designed to protect our troops from 
improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, in Iraq.
  This legislation includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which passed the 
House earlier this year, that would help address the challenges that 
face our recovering servicemembers and families. This bill also extends 
the language enacted last year to prevent TRICARE copay increases.
  In addition to providing the authorization levels that our 
servicemembers need, I am pleased that the language was included that 
emphasizes congressional support for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration's role in the 300 Area transition at the Hanford Nuclear 
Reservation in my district and specifically at the Pacific Northwest 
National Laboratory.
  The National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of 
Energy Office of Science and the Department of Homeland Security all 
signed a memorandum of understanding last year agreeing to funding 
commitments for this very important transition.

                              {time}  1045

  The committee has been helpful on this issue in the past, and I 
appreciate its continued support in Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory's 300 Area transition. A successful transition at the lab 
will make it possible for nearly 1,000 scientists to continue their 
work and allow key national security related missions to continue.
  Another issue that is an issue of great importance is the ongoing 
cleanup of the Department of Energy's Hanford nuclear site, which is a 
legacy going back to World War II. I am pleased this committee, like in 
recent years, has supported my request to authorize the full $690 
million needed for the waste treatment plant next year.
  Construction of the waste treatment plan is a critical effort to 
clean up

[[Page 12645]]

some of our Nation's most dangerous legacy nuclear waste. I am pleased 
this legislation recognizes the importance of this project.
  In addition to authorizing the funding needed for cleanup at Hanford, 
I am pleased that we are working to address the concerns of Department 
of Energy nuclear site workers who suffered health effects from their 
work at government sites. This bill includes language similar to a bill 
I recently cosponsored that extends and increases the scope of the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Ombudsman's 
Office so that it is still better to assist workers seeking 
compensation.
  The Ombudsman's Office assists workers who have filed for 
compensation under this compensation program. These workers, Madam 
Speaker, played a vital role in our Nation's defense during the hot war 
and the Cold War. If it is found that their illness has been caused by 
their work, they deserve just and prompt compensation.
  I am also pleased that funding is authorized to upgrade and expand 
the training range at the Yakima Training Center in my district. $29 
million will be used to increase the size of the training space, allow 
for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by 
today's Stryker forces. The new range is expected to be completed by 
August 2009, and will provide critical training for our active duty and 
Reserve Army soldiers.
  Madam Speaker, while H.R. 1585 is a good bill, it is not a perfect 
bill. This bill cuts nearly $800 million in funding for a robust, 
layered ballistic missile defense system capable of intercepting 
missiles at all stages of flight. Despite recent missile tests in North 
Korea and the intelligence community's belief that within the next 
decade Iran will have missiles capable of reaching the United States, 
the Democrat majority of the House Armed Services Committee rejected a 
proposal to restore more than $764 million to the Missile Defense 
Agency's budget. I don't believe now is the time to slow down the 
development of a strong missile defense system. As ballistic missile 
threats increase, we must be able to develop the capabilities necessary 
to protect ourselves.
  This bill also cuts $867 million from the Army's modernization 
program, the Future Combat Systems, which helps keep our Armed Forces 
prepared for future combat scenarios. It is important to find new 
technologies to optimize information flow and combat systems in the 
future, but the severe cuts in this bill puts the modernization of the 
Army in jeopardy. This 1-year cut is greater than cuts in the last 3 
years combined.
  Congressman Todd Akin from Missouri, the ranking Republican on the 
House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, put 
forward an amendment to the Rules Committee last night to restore $134 
million for Future Combat Systems. But sadly, his amendment was 
rejected on a party-line vote by the Democrat-controlled Rules 
Committee.
  Madam Speaker, a total of 135 amendments were allowed to be submitted 
to the Rules Committee for consideration, and this rule allows for 
consideration of 50 amendments on the floor today. I am deeply troubled 
that for the first time, the first time during my tenure in Congress 
and tenure on the Rules Committee, Members of Congress reported that 
they were actually prohibited, prohibited from submitting an amendment 
to the committee after the deadline.
  Specifically, Congressman Akin from Missouri and Congressman Gingrey 
from Georgia attempted to offer second-degree amendments to an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) concerning 
the morning-after pill.
  These types of amendments by definition cannot be drafted until the 
text of the original amendment has been seen, and therefore, it was 
after the announced amendment deadline that each of those two Members, 
Akin and Gingrey, attempted to submit their amendments. But the 
submission, the submission itself was denied by the Democrat majority.
  While amendments to amendments are not the norm of the House, Members 
certainly have had the ability to offer such amendments to the Rules 
Committee, or at least they did, Madam Speaker, until this week.
  So let me be clear. The Democrat leadership actually denied Members 
of Congress the opportunity to have their amendments presented and then 
denied by the committee because typically amendments that are offered 
late are denied. But they didn't even have the opportunity to submit 
them late.
  All Members of Congress are elected to this body and they have the 
duty to represent their constituents through the legislative process. 
The manner in which these Members of Congress were treated was 
unnecessary. Madam Speaker, I certainly hope it never happens again.
  I am also disappointed that the Democrat majority has chosen to go 
out of its way to be inconsistent and change the rules and definitions, 
leaving Members of Congress questioning what rules and norms they 
should follow. Democrats on the Rules Committee have chosen to strictly 
enforce the amendment deadline on some occasions, but on others they 
have made amendments in order that were submitted past the deadline. 
They have changed the definition of rules, and for the first time in at 
least a decade they have outright rejected Members of Congress from 
submitting amendments to the Rules Committee for consideration.
  Last year, the Speaker and Members of the current majority pledged 
that this Congress would be the most open Congress in history. However, 
on several occasions now the Rules Committee has literally closed the 
door on Members and denied them the opportunity to submit an amendment 
to the committee.
  Madam Speaker, I remain optimistic. I tend to have that in my nature. 
But so far, I must say the new Democrat majority, so far their actions 
have spoken much, much louder than their words.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Rules Committee, I 
think the record should reflect the true reality.
  On this Defense bill, over 130 amendments were filed and reviewed in 
committee, and a record-breaking number of 50 amendments have been 
allowed on this bill today.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would ask the gentlewoman, how many of 
those 135 amendments were second-degree amendments?
  Ms. CASTOR. None.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. None. That is precisely my point.
  My point is how can a Member offer a second-degree amendment until an 
amendment has been offered to which a Member could respond to.
  So the gentlelady talks about 135 amendments. That tends to be 
somewhere near the norm for Defense authorization bills in the past. So 
there is nothing outside that norm. I thank the gentlelady for making 
the point. None of the 135 were second-degree amendments, and my 
remarks were specifically addressed to second-degree amendments.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee because he 
is aware, and anyone who attended that committee meeting would be 
aware, that certain second-degree amendments were in fact offered by 
the other side of the aisle and were debated and voted upon in 
committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. It is true we, the minority members of 
the Rules Committee, offered secondary amendments, but they are 
secondary amendments, and we had asked unanimous consent of the full 
committee to break the order because they were denied to be submitted 
on regular order.
  So while, yes, we offered them and they were defeated on a party-line

[[Page 12646]]

vote, had they been offered, they would have had a notation that they 
were late and they probably would have been rejected.
  My point is you broke from tradition. You broke from tradition by not 
allowing a Member to submit an amendment late. That is my whole point. 
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  The fact remains over 135 amendments were submitted on time to the 
Rules Committee, and a record-breaking number of 50 amendments are 
being allowed and made in order on this Defense bill.
  I think it is also important to respond to the claims that missile 
defense is not funded through this bill. Indeed, that is incorrect. The 
record should reflect that only in Washington can a program be provided 
and funded with billions and billions of dollars for numerous decades; 
and then say, oh, we are suffering. In fact, that is not the case.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding me this time, and acknowledge her leadership on this rule, as 
well as the leadership of the gentleman from Washington, for having the 
kind of debate we should have on the floor of the House.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the bill. I 
want to applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding the bill 
to the floor today, and also acknowledge Ranking Member Hunter and our 
expert staff on the committee.
  I want to particularly acknowledge the way in which Chairman Skelton 
worked with me on important items for Colorado, including limits on how 
the Army can pursue possible expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver 
Site.
  Others include funding a new squadron operations facility for the 
Colorado Air National Guard; promoting an agreement between the Air 
Force and the City of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo 
airport; urging the Defense Department to use on-site disposal of 
chemical weapons stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot; asking the 
Army to track pilots who train at the High Altitude Aviation Training 
School in Eagle, Colorado; and naming a housing facility at Fort Carson 
in honor of our former colleague, Joel Hefley.
  I am also pleased that the committee adopted two of my amendments, 
including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it 
easier for the President to federalize the National Guard for domestic 
law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my 
amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this 
subject.
  Madam Speaker, the bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness 
needs. After 5 years at war, both the active duty and the Reserve 
forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what is 
needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund and 
additional funds for National Guard equipment and training.
  It enlarges the Army and the Marine Corps, consistent with the 
Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress, and it will 
provide a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for servicemembers, 
boost funding for the Defense Health Program, prohibit increasing 
TRICARE and pharmacy user fees, and establish a Traumatic Brain Injury 
Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for 
funding.
  Madam Speaker, this is an excellent bill, a carefully drafted and 
bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I was 
surprised and chagrined when I looked over the long list of 50 
amendments and saw missing from that list the Troops on the Border 
amendment which had been made in order for the 10 past years.
  As you may recall, Troops on the Border would authorize our Armed 
Forces to combat illegal immigration, drug smugglers and potential 
terrorists. It would be optional for the troops to be used, but it 
would be a message to illegal aliens, those involved in the illegal 
drug trade, and those who would wreak harm on our country that we would 
use those troops where necessary to defend our borders.
  Let me tell you just a minute about the history of this amendment. 
Between 1997 and 2001, it was offered five times by a Democrat and 
adopted by this body. I have had the honor for the past 5 years to 
offer the amendment, and it was adopted by the body each of those 5 
years.
  This bill would be much stronger and would send a message that we are 
serious about border security if this amendment had been made in order. 
I hope we will reject the rule for its failure to stand up for the 
integrity of our border.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for yielding me this time, and also for your effective 
leadership on the House Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1100

  Also, let me just acknowledge and thank our chairman of the House 
Armed Services Committee, Chairman Skelton, for his dedication to the 
brave men and women who are serving in the Armed Forces and also to our 
national security.
  I believe in this bill, Madam Speaker, that we should be taking 
meaningful steps to end the occupation of Iraq and to bring our troops 
home. Iraq is in a civil war, and our occupation only inflames the 
insurgency and puts our troops in harm's way. The facts on the ground 
betray the administration's empty rhetoric.
  A majority of the American people support withdrawal from Iraq, and 
here we have a chance to press the issue further. We need enforceable 
timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, and we must hold this 
administration accountable.
  Also, I am disappointed that the amendment which Congresswoman 
Woolsey and I offered was not made in order. Our amendment basically 
would have just simply required the President to present a plan for 
withdrawal and execute complete withdrawal within 6 months. It 
recognizes that there is no military solution to this civil war.
  The bottom line is that we must continue to demand that the President 
end the occupation and bring our troops home, and we must do so at 
every opportunity.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, since mankind took up arms 
against his fellow human beings, every offensive weapon has been 
countered by a defensive weapon. The spear brought the shield. The 
sword spawned the suit of armor. Bullets brought heavier armor, and 
each succeeding advancement in offensive weapons has brought a 
defensive response wherein mankind hopes to buy a little more time.
  Yet, today, when we are 60 years into the nuclear age and mankind 
faces the most dangerous weapons in the history of humanity, there is 
in this moment a debate in the United States Congress as to whether or 
not the United States of America should fully pursue defending its 
citizens against nuclear missiles.
  Madam Speaker, the Rumsfeld Commission report stated that North Korea 
has developed a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, ``placing at 
risk western U.S. territory in an arc extending northwest from Phoenix, 
Arizona, to Madison, Wisconsin.''
  In this Defense authorization bill, the Democrats cut nearly $800 
million from missile defense. This prompted me to offer six amendments 
before the Rules Committee last night, but under this rule, Madam 
Speaker, only one has been made in order; and whether or not it will be 
adopted still remains to be seen. However, under the rule, one Democrat 
amendment that was made

[[Page 12647]]

in order was one to cut missile defense another $1 billion.
  Madam Speaker, if we truly build a layered missile defense system 
that may one day call on us to apologize to the American people for 
building a defensive system that proved unnecessary, that I can go home 
and live with. But God save us from the day when we will have to 
apologize to the American people for failing to build a system that 
could have protected them from the unspeakable nightmare of missiles 
turning American cities into nuclear flames.
  Madam Speaker, if we build it, maybe they will not come.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We did have a debate over missile defense in the Armed Services 
Committee, but at the end of the day, recall we had a unanimous vote, 
58-0, bipartisan vote, to send this bill to the floor.
  I would offer, there is no debate. We must protect this great country 
from nuclear threats, missile threats; and in fact, this bill does 
that.
  We have provided $1.4 billion for Patriot PAC-3 and MEADS. These 
funds will be used to purchase additional interceptors, upgrade 
remaining firing units' configuration, continue the development of the 
MEADS program and purchase equipment for two additional Patriot 
battalions.
  The committee also authorized $1.1 billion for Aegis BMD, an increase 
of $78 million above the budget request from the White House. These 
funds will be used to continue and expand the fielding of Standard 
Missile-3, improve the discrimination capabilities of the Aegis SPY1 
radar, and continue the joint development with Japan of the SM-3 Block 
IIA missile.
  We have authorized $2.3 billion for ground-based missile defense.
  The committee supports THAAD and authorizes $858 million to continue 
the purchase of two THAAD firing units. So to come to the floor and say 
that missile defense is not provided for in this bill is incorrect.
  What we are facing, though, is because of this war in Iraq, we have 
growing needs for the troops on the ground. So our committee made the 
decision that the troops on the ground come first; that they will have 
the body armor, they will have the MRAP vehicles, the mine-resistant 
vehicles, because that is the priority today. Tough decisions, but our 
troops come first on the ground.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Madam Speaker, the Department of Energy and the 
Department of Defense have been proposing the development of a new 
nuclear warhead under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, and 
they are also proposing an ambitious nuclear weapons complex 
modernization proposal called Complex 2030. And the bill we are going 
to be voting on today provides funding for those activities.
  This is a multibillion dollar agenda, and it's being proposed, in my 
opinion, in a policy vacuum without any administration statement on the 
national security environment that the future nuclear deterrent is 
designed to address.
  The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment defining 
the agenda of future nuclear stockpiles makes it impossible for 
Congress to weigh the relative merits of investing the billions of 
taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production activities when the 
United States is facing the other challenge of having too large a 
stockpile as a legacy from the Cold War.
  Now, the argument for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program 
started out with a concern that was most frequently expressed, at least 
was about, the expected lifetimes of the plutonium pits, which are the 
nuclear core of our existing nuclear weapons. At the time, their 
projected life span was 45-60 years, and with some of our arsenal 
having entered the force in the 1970s and 1980s, there would be a cause 
for concern.
  However, just a few months ago, we received a new study performed by 
the independent JASON panel, a highly respected body often consulted on 
technical issues. That study, using data compiled by the nuclear 
weapons labs, shows that all the plutonium pits in our existing weapons 
have life spans of at least 85 years, and most are good for 100 years 
or more. The labs themselves agree with the studies. So, it seems there 
isn't a threat to the reliability of our current nuclear warheads.
  So I think we need to be careful. This bill, while funding was 
reduced somewhat on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, I think 
we need to be careful about going down a path that we may not need to 
go down.
  In conclusion, we should be careful not to hurry down a path when the 
reliable plutonium pit is no longer an issue. Should we be in a hurry 
to go down a path when the history of the Department of Energy includes 
a long list of cancelled and over-budget projects that were started 
before the objective was thoroughly thought through and understood? We 
should not make that mistake with the Nation's nuclear weapons complex 
or the decisions to begin building new nuclear weapons.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), a member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering does not 
allow a very critical amendment which we voted on in committee. Several 
of the votes that were most important in committee were not done in a 
bipartisan way. They were strict party-line votes. This was one of 
those. One was missile defense; the other is the modernization program 
for the Army.
  The modernization program for the Army that I am talking about was 
cut by 25 percent, a massive slash in that particular program. What 
that program does is, it provides the first major modernization program 
in the last 40 years for the Army. What the program does is, it 
provides real-time online information, networking, a whole group of 
different sensors, satellites and individuals on the field, tanks, 
unmanned aerial vehicles, pulling all that information together to give 
us accurate and timely information in the battlefield.
  Now, anybody who's studied military warfare will tell you that if you 
just had this piece of information or that piece of information, the 
tide of battle would have shifted, and so this whole system is designed 
to provide that information for our warfighters. It has been slashed 25 
percent. It is called Future Combat Systems.
  Why is that important? First of all, it means you've got to go all 
the way back to the drawing board with this program, changing all the 
time schedules. It is tremendously complex.
  The second thing is that this program really is the forerunner for 
things that will be used by the Marines and the Navy. The Navy calls it 
more network centric warfare, but the concept, the software, will be 
the same.
  Now, we are denied an opportunity to try to restore some funding to 
the Army's first major modernization program in 40 years. The result is 
that our sons and daughters will have to pay the price. My own sons 
will have to pay the price because we have not gotten the information 
that is absolutely critical to our warfighter there at the time that we 
need to do it.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is also very important for the record to reflect that the 
Army is fully funded in its needs. Indeed, $13.6 billion are authorized 
through this Defense bill to fully address the equipment reset of the 
Army.
  What has happened, because of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and 
we all know this, but readiness of our Armed Forces has suffered. 
Indeed, the Army Chief of Staff testified before the Armed Services 
Committee that the escalation of the war creates a terrible strategic 
risk for this country.
  If there was any other threat from across the globe that threatened 
our national security, it would be very difficult for us to respond 
because all of the equipment, all of the trucks, the Humvees, are there 
in Iraq. When the units are deployed and go over to Iraq,

[[Page 12648]]

they are not able to bring the equipment back.
  This was highlighted recently in the State of Kansas with these 
terrible tornados, when the governor of Kansas told us directly that 
they were not able to respond as quickly. I'll tell you, coming from 
the State of Florida, at the beginning of the hurricane season, this is 
an issue.
  We have also had to make these tough decisions about equipping our 
warriors on the ground with the equipment that they need.
  The Army came forward during their budget discussion in Armed 
Services and said our most critical need are these mine-resistant 
ambush vehicles that have the armor to withstand the IEDs that has 
caused so much death and destruction. The Bush administration did not 
have a funding plan for those MRAP vehicles. So what do we do?
  We have got to provide the troops on the ground with the equipment 
they need to stay safe and survive. Does that mean that some other 
programs that aren't as tested and aren't as proven get a slight cut? 
Yes, it does. Yes, it does, because that is a priority, protecting the 
troops on the ground today.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, being the gentleman from Kansas here, I 
would like to address the mention of the Kansas National Guard.
  I was in Greensburg, Kansas, where the tornado occurred, four times 
since it has occurred and on Saturday the day after the tornado 
occurred, General Tod Bunning, the Adjutant General of Kansas, said he 
had all the equipment needed to respond to emergencies in Kansas. This 
was restated by him again on Monday and again Wednesday when the 
President visited.
  So the Army National Guard in Kansas has plenty of equipment to 
respond to emergencies, and to reference that it does not have the 
equipment would be a mischaracterization of the facts in Kansas.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and before I reserve 
the balance of my time, on the future combat systems, so the record is 
clear, only in Washington can you provide $2.8 billion to a program and 
then say that's not enough.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the ranking member 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I am coming to the floor deeply disappointed that the Rules Committee 
has denied two amendments that would have protected veterans. We in the 
VA maintain a national formulary based on a system of deep discounts on 
prescription drugs through a system of price controls, and we maintain 
this national formulary. We're able to do that because we are able to 
purchase drugs at 76 percent of the non-Federal average manufacturing 
price.

                              {time}  1115

  It is a price control. But what is happening? The onslaught of the 
Democrat majority against pharmaceutical manufacturers continues. They 
want now to extend the price controls, VA pricing, now into DOD.
  All I asked for was an amendment. The amendment would have asked for 
a certification from the Secretary of Defense to this Congress that 
their ambition to do this would not increase prices on our veterans.
  The VA national formulary amounts to about 1 percent of the 
pharmaceutical marketplace. The more we extend these price controls, 
whether it goes into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy, they even want to extend 
it into Medicare. As you do that, we continue to cost shift.
  I am deeply disappointed that the Democrat majority would make this 
onslaught, not just against pharmaceutical manufacturers, that gets 
their political juices going, but in the meantime they are going to 
smack veterans right in the face. It is very disappointing. Now, it is 
a simple amendment, and they should have made it in order.
  There was a second amendment. The second amendment that I asked to be 
in order, that was also denied, was that I asked that with regard to 
this provision, whereby the Secretary of Defense may now be able to 
deny a drug being placed on the TRICARE formulary, if they do not offer 
the Federal pricing schedule, I asked that, with regard to this 
provision the Secretary shall not be able to exclude from the pharmacy 
benefits program any pharmaceutical agent that the Pharmacy and 
Therapeutics Committee determines to be clinically effective or that 
the patient or the provider demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee that it is clinically necessary. 
That's denied also.
  I am stunned. I am stunned. But let's be very clear, America, what is 
happening. This is a socialist policy. You say oh, my gosh, Steve, 
don't use the word ``socialist.'' No, this is a socialist policy. A 
socialist policy is one of price controls. Why do we say we do that 
with regard to veterans? Because we say in the VA there is no greater 
classification of people in our society that we should be able to give 
these deep discounts to than our disabled veterans.
  But then what does the Democrat majority want to do? They want to 
take these deep discounts then and give them into TRICARE, give them 
into the Medicare prescription drug program. They want to continue to 
use price controls.
  What happens when you do that? Not only do you cost shift, but you 
also have a dulling effect on research and development that hurts, that 
hurts this country. I am deeply disappointed that these amendments were 
denied.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Ms. Giffords of Arizona.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight a very 
important issue facing our Nation that is addressed in this 
legislation, mental health care for our troops. The mental health 
implications of extended and repeated combat tours in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are now only beginning to be understood.
  Among Vietnam-era veterans, the lifetime rate of PTSD, sometimes 
taking decades to appear, is 30 percent. According to the VA, the 
current rate for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is already 20 percent. 
The mental health needs of the generation of combat veterans that we 
are creating will face this country for decades to come.
  We must realize that the nature and scope of warfare has changed, 
bringing a new level of stress to combat deployments that is 
fundamentally new. Even in the Green Zone of Baghdad soldiers are 
repeatedly attacked and regularly attacked.
  The troops must cope with ongoing severe stress for months to come. 
Experts tell us that extended periods of stress like this, with no way 
to alleviate it, create the conditions where PTSD is most likely to 
develop.
  According to a recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine, 
95 percent of troops in Army and Marine units report having been shot 
at during their deployment, and 95 percent report seeing dead bodies, 
89 percent report being ambushed or attacked. One in five is currently 
suffering from depression, anxiety or stress while deployed. Twenty 
percent are now facing marital problems, including divorce or legal 
separation from their spouse. The after-effect of these extended and 
highly stressful combat deployments will continue to affect their 
families, the military and our communities for many, many years to 
come.
  I believe that we need to shift towards preventive care. What we know 
from our experience is that PTSD not being treated can start a downward 
tragic cycle of addiction, isolation and despair. This bill improves a 
mental

[[Page 12649]]

health training for military case managers working with outpatient 
facilities like Walter Reed so they can identify problems early.
  This way we can help provide treatment before returning servicemen 
are discharged and left to fend for themselves. This bill also creates 
critical new funding to best identify practices. Mental health is 
critical for our troops, and I am very interested in passing this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight a very important issue 
facing this country that is addressed in this legislation: mental 
health care for our troops. The mental health implications of extended, 
and repeated combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are now only 
beginning to be understood.
  Among Vietnam-era veterans, the lifetime rate of Post-Traumatic 
Stress Disorder, sometimes taking decades to appear, is about 30 
percent. According to the VA, the current rate for Iraq and Afghanistan 
veterans is already 20 percent.
  The mental health needs of the generation of combat veterans that we 
are creating will face this country for decades to come. We must 
realize that the nature and scope of warfare has changed, bringing a 
level of stress to combat deployments that is fundamentally new.
  Even the Green Zone in Baghdad is attacked regularly, and the lives 
of troops stationed there are literally at risk every single day of 
their deployments. The troops must cope with ongoing, severe stress for 
months on end. Experts tell us that extended periods of stress like 
this, with no way to alleviate it, create the conditions where PTSD is 
most likely to develop.
  According to a recent report in the New England Journal of Medicine, 
95 percent of troops in Army and Marine units report having been shot 
at during their deployment, and 95 percent report seeing dead bodies. 
Eighty-nine percent reported being ambushed or attacked.
  One in five is suffering from depression, anxiety or stress while 
deployed. Twenty percent face marital problems including divorce or 
legal separation from their spouse.
  The after-effect of extended and highly stressful combat deployments 
continues to affect military communities and families long after the 
service member has returned home.
  I believe the most important shift is to move toward preventative 
care. What we know from decades of experience is that PTSD, left 
untreated, can begin a tragic downward spiral of addiction, isolation 
and despair.
  This bill improves the mental health training for military case 
managers working with outpatients at facilities like Walter Reed, so 
they can identify potential problems early. This way, we can help 
provide treatment before returning servicemen are discharged and left 
to fend for themselves.
  It authorizes critical new funding to identify best practices and 
build up our clinical knowledge of PTSD and how best to treat it. And 
it creates a mechanism to improve the transition from the DoD health 
system into the VA system, so that service members will not fall 
through the cracks.
  Not every American chooses to wear the uniform and serve this 
country. Not every family stays up lonely nights and waits for a 
father, husband, mother, wife, or child to come home. Not everyone 
hears the call of their country and says `send me.' But for those who 
do, we owe it to be there for them when they get back.
  I will be proud to vote for this legislation that supports our troops 
and brings a new focus on critical mental health issues.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Speaker, the Democrat leadership has 
blocked several important amendments on this bill, and I will oppose 
this rule. But there is one that they block that makes absolutely no 
sense, and it really calls into question the priorities of the majority 
on the Rules Committee.
  There are 2 million women in this country's history who have served 
in uniform. All of them have been volunteers, and I was one of them. I 
am the only woman veteran serving in the United States Congress.
  One in seven Americans serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are women, and 
the challenges that they face when they come home are often different 
than their male counterparts, particularly when accessing health care 
from both DOD facilities and VA facilities. Many women veterans don't 
even call themselves veterans and don't know that they are eligible for 
care, and care is not always available that is appropriate for women in 
the VA system.
  I offered an amendment that was noncontroversial, and it wasn't even 
particularly aggressive. All it said was that we should have a 
bipartisan commission to make some recommendations to us to get a group 
of people together, including women veterans, to make recommendations 
to this House on how we can make this system better for women veterans 
so they can get the health care that they need, and all of us have seen 
the problems that women veterans are facing.
  The amendment wasn't made in order.
  Now, I know, like everyone else, that time on the floor is limited, 
and we can't do everything. But I would note that an amendment was made 
in order for a study in Ms. Slaughter's district, the chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee, for a plan for Niagara Air Reserve Base in her 
district. So we have got time on the floor to have an amendment for a 
study for Ms. Slaughter, but 2 million women veterans don't count as 
much.
  So I would ask my colleague here from Florida, who is here defending 
the decision of the Rules Committee, why did you, in your committee, 
think it was more important to allow an amendment for a study of 
Niagara Air Reserve Base in Ms. Slaughter's district and to turn your 
back on 2 million women veterans?
  I yield 30 seconds to get an answer from the Rules Committee. Why is 
the Niagara Air Reserve Base study more important than helping 2 
million women veterans get their health care? You didn't rule my 
amendment in order. What's your excuse?
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  We did have, in over 5 months of the Armed Services Committee, many 
opportunities to hear from Members across the aisle. I question why 
this wasn't brought up before the committee at that time.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I am not, as the gentlewoman knows, I am 
not a member of the Armed Services Committee. This is my opportunity to 
offer the amendment, and you have set your priorities.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I am so upset that the Democrat majority 
has denied my amendments. I am trying to protect America's veterans.

                          ____________________