[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12856-12874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 403 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1585.

                              {time}  2033


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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, with Mr. Pastor (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 110-151 by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) had been disposed of.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Ms. Woolsey.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119, 
noes 303, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 366]

                               AYES--119

     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--303

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner

[[Page 12857]]


     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castor
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baird
     Bishop (UT)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Engel
     Faleomavaega
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Nadler
     Shays
     Shuster
     Wynn

                              {time}  2042

  Mr. FARR changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Without objection, 
the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for your help to bring clarity to a 
disagreement in principle between the Department of Defense and the 
military depots over the definition of parts supply functions as they 
pertain to depot-level maintenance.
  The 2005 BRAC Commission transferred supply, storage and distribution 
management functions to the Defense Logistics Agency without fully 
understanding the critical difference between parts supply from storage 
and in-process parts supply.

                              {time}  2045

  Without this clarification, military depots could lose control of 
parts movement during hands-on depot maintenance. Depot maintenance of 
war-related equipment is a critical piece of the services' reset 
program, and this clarification would ensure reset continues without 
disruption.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, 
and I assure the gentleman from Texas that I will assist him in 
achieving clarification of what appears to be an inherent depot 
maintenance function that affects the Army's and Marine Corps' ongoing 
equipment reset efforts.
  Mr. ORTIZ. I also want to thank the chairman for joining me today in 
requesting the GAO investigate the impact on military equipment 
readiness that this ill-advised transfer of supply function could have. 
We are asking the GAO to look at the distinctions between supply from 
storage and in-process parts supply, whether the business plan 
developed by DOD could ensure a timely transferring without depot 
disruption, the impact on depot hourly rates, and the depots' ability 
to meet surge requirements if they lose this critical function.
  Mr. SKELTON. These are all important questions, and I fully support 
the gentleman's efforts to review whether it is appropriate to transfer 
what appears to be an inherent depot function.
  Mr. ORTIZ. I thank the gentleman for his support.


                Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:

     SEC. 2__. MISSILE DEFENSE FUNDING REDUCTIONS AND PROGRAM 
                   TERMINATIONS.

       The amount in section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by 
     $1,084,400,000, to be derived from amounts for the Missile 
     Defense Agency as follows:
       (1) $298,800,000 from the termination of the Airborne Laser 
     program.
       (2) $177,500,000 from the termination of the Kinetic Energy 
     Interceptor (KEI) program.
       (3) $229,100,000 from the termination of the Multiple Kill 
     Vehicle (MKV) program.
       (4) $170,000,000 from the termination of the Third 
     Interceptor Field at Ft. Greeley, Alaska.
       (5) $150,000,000 from the termination of the Third Ground-
     Based Midcourse Defense site in Europe.
       (6) $59,000,000 from the Space Tracking and Surveillance 
     System (STSS) Block 2008 work and ``follow on'' 
     constellation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chair, the amendment I and my colleague, Rush 
Holt, are offering this evening is really quite simple. It reduces the 
$8.1 billion specified by the Missile Defense Agency by approximately 
$1 billion and takes a modest but necessary step in refocusing on 
missile defense policy.
  I think we should make no mistake about it, we have spent $107 
billion since the days of the Reagan administration on missile defense. 
We have had years of unanticipated cost growth, unacceptable schedule 
delays, and unaccountable management by the Pentagon.
  It is time for a change in that policy. It is time for a change in 
how we address ballistic missile defense. We have plenty of other 
priority national security matters and more pressing homeland security 
needs to address.
  How much longer can Congress continue to acquiesce and authorize 
billions of dollars in funds for this deeply flawed system?
  The Pentagon continues to build before testing; it is a recipe for 
waste. We

[[Page 12858]]

can tell my colleagues that if the status quo continues, the 
Congressional Budget Office projects the total cost for missile defense 
will peak in the year 2016 at about $15 billion per year, excluding 
cost risk.
  If you add in cost risk, the CBO knows that the Pentagon's projected 
investment needs for missile defense might go to $18 billion. We are 
going to hear from others here that North Korea, Iran, and China have 
the potential for proliferation of missile technology, and all of that 
is not sufficient reason for opposing this amendment. The fact of the 
matter is that argument would rest on the false assumption that the 
current system could actually defend this country against those risks. 
It can't because it doesn't work. It continues to not be able to work 
because it lacks operational testing that is realistic. That hasn't 
occurred, and it does not look like it is likely to occur any time 
soon.
  We know and understand the threats confronting this country, and a $1 
billion cut in the Missile Defense Agency, the way it is done here, 
will certainly not compromise our national security. And, in fact, by 
forcing the Pentagon to test before it builds, it will actually make 
sure that we don't have false securities.
  This Congress should not continue to acquiesce in the authorization 
on this deeply flawed system. We have to come to terms with certain 
stubborn realities and have the courage to change course.
  We are not alone in thinking this way. There were seven reports 
issued last year from nonpartisan groups, the Government Accountability 
Office, the Department of Defense Inspector General, the Congressional 
Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon's 
Director of Operational, Test and Evaluation, all arrived at the same 
conclusion: ``Change in this program is imperative.''
  Our amendment will focus on high-risk, longer-term research programs 
and target those initiatives that simply do not warrant immediate 
congressional support. It reflects the views of the conferees to last 
year's defense authorization bill who wrote that they ``believe that 
the emphasis of our missile defense efforts should be on the current 
generation of missile defense capabilities.''
  I would now like yield to my colleague, Mr. Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Tierney, for his 
leadership on this issue. I have worked on nuclear proliferation and 
weapon defense issues for decades. I can assure my colleagues in this 
House that with our present or even projected technologies, the 
administration's ``neo-Star Wars'' proposal has poor odds of defeating 
a ballistic missile strike on the United States. Our missile defense 
system does not work and wishing will not overcome physics. It can be 
confused by decoys, it faces numerous testing problems. To put it 
bluntly, it is a faith-based military program, not one grounded in 
science.
  Furthermore, it is destabilizing and it is a wasteful program that 
robs us of funds that we need for truly important real-world crises 
facing our communities and our Nation and our national security.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I simply close by saying this is a 
system which has not been realistically tested in the operational 
sense. The moneys that are being cut here are not necessary for near-
term programs. They are high risk, down the road.
  It is appropriate for us to redirect those spendings on issues that 
are more immediate in terms of our national security defense at this 
point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I find myself in 
opposition to this amendment.
  A $764 million reduction has already been made in the Missile Defense 
Agency programs. An additional billion dollars would terminate or 
cancel long-term missile defense programs which I think would not be in 
the correct mode for the United States. This amendment simply goes too 
far.
  This amendment would effectively terminate most, if not all, of the 
Missile Defense Agency's longer term research and development programs. 
Given the dynamic security environment we find ourselves in today, I 
don't believe it is prudent to do this.
  I oppose this amendment because, quite frankly, the committee strikes 
the right balance in cutting the amount of $764 million, and it should 
stay as the committee recommended.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, this amendment, is perhaps well intended 
but goes much too far. This together with the $764 million that has 
already been cut from the bill provides us with a 20 percent cut in the 
missile defense program.
  Since 2001, contrary to what the proponents of this amendment just 
said, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 27 successful hit-to-
kill intercepts. That is 27 out of 36 attempts. I am very proud of 
these results.
  Let me just highlight some of them. On September 1, 2006, we 
successfully employed an operational ground-based mid-course defense 
interceptor.
  In November 2005 and in June 2006, and again in April 2007, less than 
a month ago, the SM-3 successfully intercepted both separating and 
unitary targets.
  In July 2006, January 2007, and April 6, 2007, the Terminal High 
Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System, successfully intercepted unitary 
targets.
  Finally, during this past March, we saw a successful hit in-flight 
test of the Airborne Laser Targeting System; all successes, not 
failures.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman 
of the Strategic Subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank my colleagues very much for bringing this issue up, 
although I cannot support their amendment. I appreciate not only their 
frustration, but their energy that they bring to the debate because, 
frankly, as the Chair of the subcommittee, that is the reason we did 
cut $764 million from this program.
  For a long time I think many of us have been concerned that this has 
been an agency that has been obviated from all of the normal 
conventions of responsibility and testing regimen and accountability. I 
think what we see now is that we do have components of missile defense 
that are successful. Certainly PAC-3 is successful, certainly Aegis BMD 
is successful, and many of us have very high hopes for THAAD.
  The ground-based system has not had as successful testing as many 
would like. As frustrated as my colleagues may be, as severe a cut as 
they are proposing is too detrimental to our ability to do what we try 
to do in this bill, which is to deliver in the near term the kind of 
protections that we need to have for not only the American people here 
at home, but for our warfighters deployed down range.
  These medium and short-range missile threats are real. It is 
important that we keep this funding going so we can deliver on these 
good opportunities while we restructure the program and while we hold 
the Missile Defense Agency accountable for the first time.
  I have to reluctantly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of 
the Strategic Subcommittee, Mr. Everett.
  Mr. EVERETT. Madam Chair, you know, you can attack this a number of 
ways. Basically what the proponents of this amendment say is that they 
simply don't like missile defense. I would like to go to where the 
gentleman from New Jersey and the chairman of the committee went.

[[Page 12859]]

  There have been 27 successful kills; ground-based missile defense, 5 
of 8; Aegis, 8 of 10; THAAD, 3 of 4; Predator, PAC-3, 11 of 14.
  A key theme of our bill is we should not proceed with some missile 
defense programs without robust testing, but testing and systems 
engineering are always the first to go when cuts are levied on 
programs. How can you test without money?
  I think that is a point of their amendment. They know you can't test 
without money, and they are against testing and against the missile 
defense system.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, very simply, testimony by General Bell, who 
is commander of U.S. Forces Korea, before the HASC on March 7 said: 
``I've got 800 of these missiles pointed at U.S. troops right now in 
South Korea. So I would support vigorously a robust approach to theater 
ballistic missile defense, layered defense, intercontinental ballistic. 
It's a very important part of the total approach to this very serious 
problem.''
  I would very strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


          Notice to Alter Order of Consideration of Amendments

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, pursuant to section 3 and 4 of House 
Resolution 403, and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 
1585 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of 
amendment No. 43, the following amendments be considered in the 
following order: amendment No. 7, amendment No. 1.


           Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
       Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:

     SEC. 2__. INCREASED FUNDS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE.

       (a) Increase.--The amount in section 201(4), research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby 
     increased by $764,000,000, to be available for ballistic 
     missile defense.
       (b) Offset.--The amounts in title I and title II are hereby 
     reduced by an aggregate of $764,000,000, to be derived from 
     amounts other than amounts for ballistic missile defense, as 
     determined by the Secretary of Defense.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, we currently only have a 
limited missile defense capability against limited threats. China is 
utilizing space for weapons testing, Iran is expected to have missiles 
capable of reaching the U.S. in less than 8 years, and now nuclear 
North Korea continues to defiantly test long-range missiles. 
Proliferation throughout the Middle East is rampant, and Osama bin 
Laden has stated, ``It is our religious duty to gain nuclear weapons.''
  Madam Chair, the first job of Congress is to protect this Nation, and 
because of the day in which we live, that includes an obligation on our 
part to ensure that the Department of Defense develops and deploys 
defensive capabilities that protect the American people and our 
warfighters against nuclear missiles, which remain the most dangerous 
weapons humanity has ever faced.
  This bill cuts almost $800 million in funding that would help close 
the critical gaps in our missile defense system.
  One of the programs the majority believes is not worthy of the 
investment is the Airborne Laser. Madam Chair, the Airborne Laser is 
our primary and most mature boost-phase missile defense system. ABL is 
a speed-of-light technology that defends against enemy missiles in 
their earliest phase of flight, before they can initiate sophisticated 
countermeasures, before they can release multiple warheads, and while 
they are still on enemy territory.
  The bill also takes $160 million from the Missile Defense Agency's 
$310 million request for the European site, which would defend United 
States homeland and our European allies and deployed warfighters 
against ballistic missile attacks from Iran.
  Madam Chair, they completely eliminate even the small $10 million 
budget for conceptual studies of a space test bed, which would give the 
United States the technology to defend space assets and defend against 
enemy missiles in their critical boost phase of flight.
  We must, Madam Chairman, have access to space, and we must be able to 
defend our space assets. It is astonishing to me that this has become a 
partisan issue.
  Madam Chair, if we build a truly robust, layered missile defense 
system in this country, the day may come when we will have to apologize 
to the American people for building a defensive system that proved to 
be unnecessary. But God save us from the day, Madam Chair, when we 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 Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the majority's proposal to cut 
$764 million from missile defense just as a genocidal Iran kicks into 
high gear its missile buildup and sprints toward the nuclear finish 
line. The incongruity of this proposal is perplexing. These proposed 
cuts don't make any sense.
  Iran has made its intentions clear: the liquidation of the state of 
Israel and the United States of America. Add to the mix Iran's historic 
cooperation with terror groups and we have the perfect storm on our 
hands.
  Iran, before long, will have the missiles to reach all of Europe and 
the United States. We must do all we can to ensure that we cannot be 
hit or held hostage. We must invest in a robust, layered missile 
defense that can defend America and her allies against immediate, near-
term, and long-term threats posed by Iran and other rogue regimes.
  Madam Chair, amid the dangers, how can we decrease our investment in 
missile defense? Gambling our national security on the illusion that 
our enemies won't have the resources, technology and wherewithal to 
launch that first missile into an American school, shopping mall or 
sports arena is a risk that we should not take. Failing to prepare for 
this reality could lead to catastrophe, the consequences unfathomable.
  I support the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, could I inquire as to the 
remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
his leadership.
  I was struck by something that the subcommittee chairman said during 
the debate on the last amendment regarding missile defense, which is 
the

[[Page 12860]]

concession that the threat from attacks by missile is real. I would 
submit that it is real, it is significant, and it is growing; and the 
notion that we would scale back this Nation's preparedness from rogue 
nations such as North Korea and Iran and the ever-mounting potential 
threat coming from China, all three of whom have tested ballistic 
missiles in the last year, is folly, it is reckless, and it puts U.S. 
interests and U.S. allies gravely at risk.
  It is inarguable that the risk from a missile attack is not greater 
today than it has ever been from the most dangerous and least reliable 
sources, those who are willing to trade in the terrorist black market 
of technology and weapons of mass destruction, those who have declared 
Israel's need to be wiped off the face of the Earth and those who have 
declared death to America.
  We cannot lose sight of this important, over-the-horizon danger by 
cutting back on funds, researching and developing an adequate missile 
defense for our country and our allies.
  Madam Chairman, I submit to you that there is a vital difference 
between the direction that the majority and the minority would take 
U.S. defense policy in this environment. We cannot cut back on our 
missile defenses in this country and in this environment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I rise in opposition to this. A similar amendment was offered in 
committee and was defeated by a 34-24 vote. With the cuts that were 
correct, well thought out, on the committee level, our bill still 
authorizes $9.5 billion for missile defense programs.
  This committee's reallocation is just over 8 percent of the Missile 
Defense Agency's budget or $764 million to such programs as are 
necessary.
  For too long, the missile defense program's been focused on 
developing futuristic technologies rather than near-term capabilities. 
Our bill fully funds, or actually increases, funding for key near-term 
missile defense systems, and for this reason, I do oppose this 
amendment.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, specifically 
because of some of the language that my colleagues have been using.
  What I find to be absolutely amazing is my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle who, for the last 6 years, have operated under a theory that 
there's never been too much money for missile defense without any 
accountability and without any reasonable sense that they had to have 
tests and that they had to produce for the American people. So it's not 
surprising to me that my colleagues rise and try to add back the money, 
the 8 cents on the dollar that my subcommittee, in a bipartisan way, 
trimmed from this program, as we did what the Republican bill last year 
suggested, that we redirect the focus of missile defense to near-term 
capabilities for the warfighter, for the American people and for our 
allies.
  Now, the never-too-much money for MDA crowd will try to gin up all 
kinds of threats, and I will say it again. We here on this side of the 
aisle are not confused about the threats. We believe these are real 
threats, and that is why we have diligently restructured the MDA budget 
to deal with the near-term threats so that we can actually protect the 
warfighter, the American people and make sure that we have these 
capabilities now for current threats.
  So the idea that we are doing massive cuts and that this is 
irresponsible probably makes sense to people that think that there's no 
such thing as not enough money for MDA, but from my point of view and 
for my constituents, I believe they need accountability, they need a 
testing regime operated by somebody other than themselves, and we need 
to have the modest cuts in this budget and need to oppose this 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  If you listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk 
about ballistic missile defense, you'd never know that we have spent in 
today's money at least $125 billion since the days of Spartan and 
Sprint in the 1970s. This bill continues spending, continues that trend 
at a very robust level.
  Sure, it does provide for cuts of $764 million, but it leaves in the 
bill $9.5 billion, and I would challenge the gentleman to find any 
other system in this bill which is funded at a level more robust than 
$9.5 billion. I don't think he will find it.
  This bill provides, with the $9.5 billion, for the Patriot system, a 
PAC-3 system, a theater system, a tactical system, vitally important, 
provides $1.4 billion. That's $500 million more than the current year. 
It will buy Patriot PAC-3s for two additional battalions.
  Aegis BMD, the Aegis cruiser, the adoption of the Aegis BMD by the 
Aegis cruiser, $1.1 million. That's an increase of $78 million over the 
current year over the budget request.
  The ground-based midcourse interceptor, which shows the most near-
term promise for becoming a truly ballistic missile defense intercept 
system, $2.3 billion for the GMD. It will buy 10 GMD interceptors to be 
placed either at Ft. Greeley, Vandenberg or maybe in Europe.
  The THAAD is finally achieving its promise. It's our best tactical 
theater system. The THAAD is funded at $858.2 million. That's enough to 
buy two additional THAAD firing units.
  The kinetic energy interceptor, our boost phase system, is funded at 
$177 million. It's in its earliest phases, but it looks like the most 
promising technology for boost-phase intercept.
  Multiple kill vehicles, yet they're cut by $42 million, but that 
leaves $223 million for a new technology.
  Space tracking and surveillance, they're cut, cut by $75 million, but 
that's because we are going to launch two satellites and then see what 
they can do. And if they do what they're supposed to do, if they meet 
their specifications, we will launch about seven more, but we're not 
going to buy and launch those seven more until we know what the two 
demonstrate what they can achieve.

                              {time}  2115

  That's a sensible cut, as are all of these cuts. They are very 
discriminating cuts. The airborne laser is a good example. This system 
has been cut by $250 million to $300 million. That's enough money to 
maintain the system as a technology demonstrator, which is the likely 
course that this system is going to run anyway.
  It has missed numerous milestones for development purposes. They are 
not throwing the system away. They are going to convert it from 
something that's likely to be put in the force in the near term to 
something that we can extract the technology from and then decide 
whether we want to go further with it.
  But you have to ask yourself if this system, which is missing its 
milestones and looks like it cannot attain the promises that were 
initially made for it, is costing $500 million a year, shouldn't we 
consider some small cut in it in order to place the money elsewhere?
  These are discriminating cuts. They leave the program robustly 
funded. This amendment should be defeated.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  My friend from Florida a few minutes ago talked about a threat over 
the horizon. He is right, it is a threat, and it's over the horizon. 
This bill takes, to deal with that threat, for every $100 the President 
asks for, we give them $91.50 to deal with that threat.

[[Page 12861]]

  We allocate that money in this way. We say for the technologies that 
are robust and mature and working, let's do more of it to protect us 
better and sooner. But for the technologies that are untested, let's 
test them and see if they work.
  Now, what do we do with the $8.50 per $100 that we do not put into 
these untested technologies? We find what the 9/11 Commission has 
called the grave immediate threat to the country. A grapefruit-sized 
quantity of loose nuclear material, if made into a bomb by a terrorist 
group, could create a Hiroshima-type explosion in Times Square in New 
York City, or at the Washington Mall here in this city.
  The administration is on a path to convert reactors that have that 
loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Union to get them all done 
in the next 14 years. We don't think that's good enough. So we take the 
money and speed it up so those reactors will be converted and shut down 
sooner. That threat is not over the horizon. It is here today.
  That is where we should be spending our money, and that is why this 
amendment should be defeated.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, let me just make this clear. This is a net cut in 
missile defense. This is not a matter of taking money from something 
that we don't need and moving it to something we urgently need. This is 
a net cut of $764 million.
  Now, my great friend from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) made the point 
we spent well over $100 billion on missile defense since Ronald Reagan 
reminded us that we live in the age of missiles. On the other hand, the 
strike on 9/11 probably cost us, in terms of economic destruction, $500 
billion plus.
  We can't afford not to have robust missile defense. That means you 
take down incoming missiles at all phases, in boost phase, in 
midcourse, and, lastly, in terminal phase. We need robust missile 
defense. We need to defend this country. We need to restore this money, 
and the Franks amendment is right on target.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment because we, I believe, have cuts in this bill that not only 
preserve the ability to have robust investments in missile defense, 
but, for the first time, create accountability for the Missile Defense 
Agency to deliver in the near term the kinds of capabilities necessary 
to protect our warfighters in the near term for real threats they face 
today, the American people, for real threats they face today and our 
allies and access abroad.
  That is what we decided to do last year in the defense bill. That is 
our most important priority. These are minor cuts that redirect our 
agency to do what they never did under our colleagues when they were in 
the majority, which is to have operational testing that is real, that 
has countermeasures, that deals with the real kinds of circumstances 
that we would face if we were attacked. There is great doubt out there 
about the capabilities of this system because it has never been held to 
the rigor and the robust testing necessary to make it a credible 
deterrent.
  We believe these cuts are marginal cuts. We plus up many things in 
this bill to make sure that we deliver in the near term to the 
warfighter the capabilities they need, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, might I inquire as to the 
remainder of the time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Chairman, I serve as the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. What this 
underlying bill cuts is the funding for European missile defense that 
would be situated in Poland, which would catch an attack from Iran in 
the boost phase.
  Now, the reason this is important, why are we worried about Iran in 
this, the IAEA inspectors, if you recall, this last weekend were 
shocked to find that Iran had made very fast progress on enrichment of 
uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb. They said this made it clear 
that technological advances in Iran are coming on very, very fast.
  The proposed missile defense deployments in Poland and the Czech 
Republic that this amendment supports would thus help the United States 
and Europe. It's supported by Poland, the Czech Republic, the U.K., and 
frankly to cut it right now makes no sense.
  Sixteen of the last 17 tests have been successful. This Congress, 
again, should not weaken our missile defense, especially at a time when 
we found North Korea transferring this missile technology to Iran. We 
can see this coming. Pass this amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for 
two very important reasons. First, there is a growing threat. Today's 
Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The New York Times, says that 
North Korea is developing new, long-range missiles capable of hitting 
Guam, an article from the Herald Tribune.
  The second set of reasons that I support this amendment is that while 
there is a growing threat there is a rapidly emerging U.S. missile 
defense system. Since 2001, our successes have been many. We have 
conducted 27 successful hit-to-kill intercepts. That's 27 out of 36 
attempts.
  Therefore, let me just highlight some of the most recent successes. 
On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground-
based midcourse defense interceptor.
  In November of 2005, June 2006 and, again, in April of 2007, less 
than a month ago, we successfully deployed an SM-3 interceptor, both 
separating and unitary targets.
  In July 2006, January 2007 and April 2007, the Terminal High Altitude 
Area Defense, THAAD, System successfully intercepted unitary targets.
  Finally, during the past March, we saw successful in-flight tests of 
the Airborne Laser Targeting System used for boost-phase intercept. 
Each of the near-term capabilities of PATRIOT, Aegis BMD, and GMD are 
only successful today because we provided them funding to test and 
develop them.
  Cutting the Missile Defense Agency by $764 million will have the 
exact opposite effect. Therefore, knowing that our warfighters are 
asking for additional missile defense capabilities as soon as possible 
and that we have a missile defense system that actually works, Congress 
should not reduce defense spending on missile defense in light of the 
growing and clearly demonstrated threat by our adversaries.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I urge my colleagues for this and future 
generations' sake to pass this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Mr. Sessions:

[[Page 12862]]

       In section 222, add at the end the following:
       (e) Clarification.--Subsection (a)(2) does not prohibit the 
     use of such funds to place developmental missile defense 
     systems on operational alert to respond to an immediate 
     threat posed by ballistic missiles.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, between November 2006 and January 2007, 
Iran tested its long-range ballistic missile capacities twice.
  In July 2006, North Korea also tested a number of its ballistic 
missiles, including one that has a range of 9,000 miles and could hit 
parts of the United States of America.
  In response to North Korea's test, the United States' Northern 
Command made nearly a dozen of our anti-ballistic missiles operational, 
or ready to use, to defend the United States against an imminent danger 
posed by ballistic missiles.
  North Korea's long-range missiles were detected by United States 
satellites within seconds, and, thankfully, the missile failed after 42 
seconds and after only several hundred miles of flight but North Korea 
and many of our strategic rivals and enemies continue to develop their 
missile capacities.
  Now, it is the time for America's adversaries to understand that 
America must not have an unwillingness to put its missile defense 
system on operational alert in the face of imminent threat.
  Section 222 of this legislation that we are debating tonight would 
prevent the missile defense funds authorized by this legislation from 
being used for operational and support activities.
  Specifically, the language in this bill states that the funds 
provided only be used for the research, development, test and 
evaluation of our Nation's missile defense system, and it specifically 
prevents these funds from being used for operational and support 
activities.
  My amendment would clarify that nothing in this legislation would 
prevent the United States of America from placing our missile defense 
system on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat to our 
security posed by enemy ballistic missiles.
  If this bill is adopted without my amendment, it would mean that we 
are telling countries like North Korea that they can take a free shot 
at the United States of America because we would be unwilling to stand 
up our current missile defense capacities, exactly the wrong message to 
send to our enemies.
  This makes no strategic sense, and the position of every Member of 
this body also should be on record saying that. If you want to tie the 
President's hands in defeating and defending America from ballistic 
missiles and declare to our enemies our lack of will to defend 
ourselves against ballistic missile attack, you should oppose this 
amendment.
  But if you believe that Congress should make clear that this 
legislation should not and would not prevent our defenses from being 
placed on operational alert to respond to an immediate threat posed by 
ballistic missiles, you must support this amendment.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to provide our military with the 
clearly stated flexibility that they need to defend our country.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
although I don't oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, let's just be clear. There is nothing 
in the bill that says that MDA cannot put the system on operational 
alert using RDT&E funds. They are not prohibited from doing it. In 
fact, they have done it in the past.
  What section 222 does say that if you are going to operate it, you 
should use operating and maintenance funds. That's all it says.

                              {time}  2130

  So we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment, because in fact 
there is nothing in the bill that prohibits the system from being 
flicked on, and there is nothing about what we say that is contrary to 
what the gentleman is asserting. However, we do believe that it is 
important that when you are operating a system, you should use 
operation and maintenance funds.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I appreciate her 
courtesy. And let me just say why I think you may want to consider 
supporting this amendment.
  We had a discussion and we had some confusion a couple years ago with 
respect to missile defense, the systems that we were placing in Fort 
Greely, Alaska. The question was whether money that was R&D money could 
be used for construction, basically for pouring concrete, and we had a 
tremendous tug-of-war over that. So there is some ambiguity here.
  We have got 14 missiles that could be used to intercept a couple of 
rogue incoming missiles even out of the test bed. So we could use these 
test missiles to protect our country in extreme circumstances.
  I don't think it is a bad thing to clearly lay that out and clarify 
it in light of the fact that we did have confusion over the color of 
money in the missile defense programs between R&D and MILCON.
  So would the gentlelady consider that in supporting the gentleman's 
amendment?
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Reclaiming my time, I said that very easily I would be 
happy to accept the amendment.
  Frankly, we have had a markup in the subcommittee and a markup in the 
full committee over the last 3 weeks, and any time, if the gentleman 
had come to me and said that he needed clarification for what these 
funds could be used for, I would have been happy to clarify for him. 
And I hope he now feels it has been clarified.
  It has always been operationally possible for the RDT&E money to be 
used for operational alerts. That is what they have been used for 
before.
  So I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman from 
California, and the gentleman from California also, speaking about this 
very important issue. And I do appreciate the gentlewoman accepting 
this amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time with the knowledge 
that will be done.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I am happy to take the amendment. And 
any time that the gentleman wants to work together on these issues, we 
are happy to do it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       In section 1222 of the bill, strike ``Section 1519'' and 
     insert ``(a) Continuation of Prohibition.--Section 1519''.
       In section 1222 of the bill, add at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       (b) Rule of Construction.--Congress recognizes that the 
     United States has not established any permanent military 
     installations inside or outside the United States. Nothing in 
     this Act or any other provision of law shall be construed to 
     prevent the Government of the United States from establishing 
     temporary military installations or bases by entering into a 
     basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to Resolution 403, the gentleman from

[[Page 12863]]

Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I am offering this amendment to add 
language to section 1222 of the bill. This language will clarify that 
the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq will 
not prevent the United States and Iraq from entering into military 
basing rights agreements for the establishment of temporary bases in 
Iraq.
  After I offered a similar amendment in the fiscal year 2007 Defense 
appropriations bill in the last Congress, I wrote a letter to Chairman 
Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and in that letter, I 
asked General Pace for his thoughts on the need for the U.S. to enter 
into and retain the ability to enter into military basing rights 
agreements in Iraq and with Iraq. In his response, General Pace stated 
that it is the intention of the United States military to ``work 
closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide the terms and what 
foreign military forces and bases (if any) will remain in Iraq.''
  As this statement makes clear, we must ensure that the United States 
has the ability to work with the sovereign Government of Iraq to 
determine the kind of military support that will be necessary to ensure 
the stability and security of Iraq. My amendment will reaffirm that the 
United States' ability to exercise an important diplomatic 
responsibility in dealing with a new ally in the global war on terror. 
That ally is the Government of Iraq.
  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 basing rights agreements with countries hosting American 
troops. This is being done in every country hosting U.S. troops. The 
representative Government of Iraq should be no exception. In this way, 
my amendment ensures Iraq's sovereignty will be respected.
  My amendment will simply highlight the fact that the prohibition on 
the establishment of permanent bases does not prohibit the United 
States from entering into a sensible diplomatic dialogue regarding the 
establishment of temporary military installations in Iraq. So, not to 
enter into these agreements would be to neglect the United States' 
diplomatic duties, and our security duties as well, with our partners.
  One of the things that has poisoned this debate has been the use of 
the term ``permanent base.'' It is no secret that this is a loaded 
term. However, the BRAC process has clearly demonstrated that there is 
no such thing as a permanent U.S. military base. As a reflection of 
this, military basing rights agreements can be negotiated for any 
length of time and can be renegotiated at any point in time.
  I am not proposing the terms and conditions for these discussions or 
agreements, nor am I proposing the installation of permanent bases in 
Iraq with this amendment. I am not interfering or engaging in that, I 
am simply clarifying the intent of Congress and the hope and the policy 
that the Pentagon has advocated through General Pace's letter. I am 
simply asking that we ensure the United States be allowed to pursue our 
historic necessary avenue of responsible foreign relations.

                                                       Chairman of


                                    the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                  Washington, DC, August 16, 2006.
     Hon. Steve King,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. King: Thank you for your letter concerning long-
     term basing in Iraq. U.S. military personnel in Iraq are part 
     of the multinational force helping the Iraqi people develop 
     and strengthen their own political, economic, and security 
     institutions. We are working with the new Iraqi government to 
     establish a future security relationship that is consistent 
     with our regional strategy and national interests. We will 
     also work closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide 
     the terms and what foreign military forces and bases (if any) 
     will remain in Iraq.
       Currently, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) is efficiently 
     consolidating the basing footprint in Iraq to progressively 
     reduce basing requirements to only those necessary to support 
     Coalition operations. MNF-I uses a ``conditions-based'' 
     process to synchronize basing requirements. MNF-I seeks to 
     minimize our presence in Iraq, including Coalition partners, 
     provincial reconstruction teams, transition teams, Department 
     of State activities, and other supporting units and entities. 
     This process will culminate with a transition to an 
     operational and strategic overwatch posture, leveraging and 
     maximizing support from a minimum number of strategically 
     located forward operating bases and convoy support centers.
       Foreign military presence irritates some segments of the 
     population and motivates portions to support the insurgents. 
     However, some segments of the population are thankful for our 
     presence and do not desire our withdrawal until the security 
     situation has improved. Further, our interactions with Iraqis 
     and others build understanding and trust and reduce the myths 
     our adversaries are propagating. It is a difficult balance 
     and one that must be adjusted frequently. Our discussions and 
     decisions with regard to Iraq and the War on Terrorism will 
     balance our security needs, the needs of Iraq, and of our 
     allies while remaining attuned to the cultural sensitivities 
     of the people in the region.
       Your continued support of the men and women of our Armed 
     Forces is appreciated.
           Very respectfully,
                                                       Peter Pace,
                                       General, U.S. Marine Corps.

  Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I support his 
amendment.
  As many of us on the Armed Services Committee have traveled to Iraq a 
number of times, and we utilize right now bases throughout Iraq, like 
the Balad Air Base, which was previously a fighter air base for Saddam 
Hussein's tactical aircraft, we use those bases, it makes absolute 
sense that we shouldn't somehow put Iraq in a different category than 
every other ally of the world which allows us to have a basing in their 
country. So designating that we may have temporary basing in Iraq is 
absolutely normal relations with Iraq, something that we have with 
dozens and dozens of other nations; and that will allow us in times of 
exigency to be able to use runways for resupply, for tactical air 
operations, for other operations that extend important American foreign 
policy in that region of the world.
  And so I think the gentleman has a very commonsense amendment, and I 
would support it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman from 
California, especially for his leadership on our national defense 
issues in a lot of ways. And I would just clarify the simplicity of 
this amendment.
  It simply states that the United States has not established any 
permanent military installations inside or outside the United States. 
And nothing in this act that is before us or any other provision of law 
shall be construed to prevent the Government of the United States from 
establishing temporary military installations or bases.
  That is the essence of this amendment. It is a clarifying amendment, 
because we had confusion last year and a misunderstanding last year 
that required a scramble to go to the Pentagon, to get a response from 
General Pace, to go to the conference committee, and to come back with 
language that was acceptable that secured the people of the United 
States and also protected our military that are out in the field 
protecting us. That is the essence of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Some things are hard to understand. I think this is a 
very bad idea. By adopting this amendment, we are sending a message to 
the Iraqi people that we are there forever. We are sending a message to 
the American people we are going to be in Iraq forever. And what we are 
doing there is, at the end of the day, trying to create trust among the 
Iraqi people, and this is a major step backwards.
  The President has not affirmed one way or the other on this, and I 
think

[[Page 12864]]

we in Congress should strongly say that we are not there permanently, 
that we are there to bring stability, that we are there to encourage 
the representative government that is struggling along; but we are not 
there as a permanent resident either on a base or otherwise. And this 
is a message amendment that is to the Iraqi people and to the American 
people, and it is just a downright unclear and bad idea.
  I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I oppose this amendment because I believe its provisions subvert the 
best hope for stabilizing Iraq and ending the Iraqi civil war. I 
believe that if the responsible Sunni and Shia leadership in that 
country believe that it will become their responsibility to reach a 
political settlement to the end of the civil war, they will do so. I 
believe they will never accept that responsibility if they believe that 
the presence of the United States is permanent and indefinite.
  I think, as the base bill does, that making a statement that we do 
not wish to have permanent bases in Iraq supports this theory, and will 
bring about a greater probability of stabilization of Iraq and an end 
to the Iraqi civil war.
  So I believe the amendment sends precisely the wrong message and I 
oppose it.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 1 minute to my colleague and friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I very much thank the Chair of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  I also rise in opposition to this amendment. The United States are 
liberators, we are not occupiers. And yet, our enemy is propagandizing 
to the people that they are trying to convert to their cause that we 
are there permanently to take their oil, to control their government, 
to control their actions. And if we pass this amendment, we are 
confirming what our enemy is trying to suggest in generating more 
support against the American cause.
  As I say, we have always gone in to liberate, not to occupy. And to 
suggest, which is what this amendment would do if it passed, that we 
are there permanently, with permanent bases, is exactly the opposite of 
the message that we need to send. And our military commanders have made 
it clear, we will not achieve a military victory. If we are going to be 
victorious, it has to be a political victory. And this is a key aspect 
of that political victory. So I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I stand here and listen to this 
debate, and I am wondering what kind of message the Iraqi people are 
getting. I suspect they might have read this amendment. They might know 
that this amendment clearly says, and that is what is already in the 
record, that the United States has not established permanent military 
installations anywhere, and that nothing in this act or provision shall 
be construed to prevent us from establishing temporary military 
installations or bases in those agreements in the United States or Iraq 
or anywhere.
  This amendment addresses temporary basing rights, not permanent 
basing rights. It is a clarification amendment, because we have had so 
much confusion and miscommunication. Now we have more confusion and 
miscommunication; and I would direct the attention, if I could, of the 
Members of this body back to the language that started this, which was 
the language that was amended out of the bill last year that says that 
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.

                              {time}  2145

  That reference prohibited any basing rights agreement, temporary and 
permanent. We had to go to the Pentagon to get support, which the 
administration is the voice of, in order to clarify this language last 
year, this amendment's clarifying language this year. It's a simple 
thing. It says we can enter into temporary basing rights agreements 
wherever it's prudent for us to do so, not permanent basing rights 
agreement in Iraq or anywhere else.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I only want to ask the author of the 
amendment, because I'm not sure I heard him correctly. Did he suggest 
that he thinks that the Iraqis have read this amendment?
  I'm not entirely sure you would agree that all of our colleagues have 
read this amendment. But do you really think the Iraqis have read this 
amendment?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I suspect the Iraqis will read this amendment if it 
becomes law. I suspect that my critics haven't all read this amendment. 
I hope they have, because I don't think we really disagree on the 
policy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time. My only point is that this 
is so much about the message we send, and I think the message that we 
want permanent bases is the wrong message.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, what this amendment says is this: Excuse 
me, Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi. Hey, we're here permanently. That's the message 
that this amendment sends. And I doubt if there are many households in 
Baghdad or Tikrit or anywhere else that will read this amendment. But 
they'll get the message, should this amendment pass. The message is, 
Mr. And Mrs. Iraqi, we're here forever.
  We can't do that. I oppose this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, first I'd say that perhaps I'm here 
endeavoring on the impossible dream, and that would be if we could just 
simply use this great communication skill that we all have and use it 
to communicate, so that we could exchange ideas and be able to agree 
when we agree and disagree when we disagree on the fundamental 
philosophy that's there, not because we came to the floor to disagree, 
because we don't. We're not advocating here for permanent bases. And 
there's nothing in the language of this amendment that advocates for 
permanent bases. This is a clarification that says we're not going to 
foreclose our responsibility to be able to negotiate temporary bases in 
Iraq or anywhere else. We've never had our United States military 
anywhere in the world where we didn't have some kind of temporary 
basing rights agreement. We have never had a permanent basing rights 
agreement anywhere. And we have closed many bases across Germany and 
Europe. We've done that. We'll do so, and we're doing so in Iraq. We've 
happened over a number of different bases. The last number I heard was 
33. It's probably many more than that into the hands of the Iraqis for 
their control. And so the message that needs to come from here, if 
we're concerned about the message that we're sending, we should stand 
up and say we agree. We don't intend to stay in Iraq permanently. We do 
agree that it'll require some temporary bases for us to carry out our 
operations there to protect our American troops that are there with the 
coalition and the Iraqi people. It's a prudent and a wise thing to do. 
Having a misunderstanding and a misconception is not a good thing to 
do. I think we agree on the policy. We should come together on the 
message.
  Support this amendment, Madam Chair. And if we do that that will 
better, I believe, for the people in this country, for our military, 
for the Iraqi people. And as this unfolds, where the surge tactics are, 
they'll have the confidence that we stand with our military here in a 
prudent approach.
  Madam Chair, I'd urge support for my amendment, and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

[[Page 12865]]

  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       At the end of subtitle E of title X, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 1055. A REPORT ON TRANSFERRING INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT 
                   NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the congressional defense committees a report that 
     contains a plan for the transfer of each individual presently 
     detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under the 
     control of the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, who is or has 
     ever been classified as an ``enemy combatant'' (referred to 
     in this section as a ``detainee'').
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
       (1) An identification of the number of detainees who, as of 
     December 31, 2007, the Department estimates--
       (A) will have been charged with one or more crimes and may, 
     therefore, be tried before a military commission;
       (B) will be subject of an order calling for the release or 
     transfer of the detainee from the Guantanamo Bay facility; or
       (C) will not have been charged with any crimes and will not 
     be subject to an order calling for the release or transfer of 
     the detainee from the Guantanamo Bay facility, but whom the 
     Department wishes to continue to detain.
       (2) A description of the actions required to be undertaken, 
     by the Secretary of Defense, possibly the heads of other 
     Federal agencies, and Congress, to ensure that detainees who 
     are subject to an order calling for their release or transfer 
     from the Guantanamo Bay facility have, in fact, been 
     released.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I first want to thank the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee and his superb staff for 
helping redraft portions of this language so that it might be 
considered. The final language represents a common-sense agreement that 
I think we should all reach consensus on.
  The amendment's purpose is to shed some light on what has become an 
increasingly invisible world down at Guantanamo Bay.
  The first detainees were brought to Guantanamo in 2002 to bypass the 
U.S. legal system and avoid international conventions and public 
scrutiny. Since that time the detainment facility has become a blight 
on American ideals and principles.
  We have captured, tortured and interminably held men that we call 
enemy combatants, some of whom are guilty of crimes against our Nation 
and should be punished. Others, however, are only guilty of being in 
the wrong place at the wrong time.
  We have created closed military tribunals that offer the false 
impression of justice, but they fall woefully short of what we should 
expect from our American system of justice.
  Like Abu Ghraib, we've created an unnecessary rallying cry and 
recruitment tool for al Qaeda and militant Islamists throughout the 
world. I strongly believe that the continued operation of Guantanamo 
Bay puts Americans in harm's way and threatens the safety of any of our 
captured military and civilians abroad.
  Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Rice have 
agreed that Guantanamo Bay represents a serious problem if we are to 
prevail in the global war on terror. They both advocated shuttering 
Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities. Even President Bush expressed a 
desire to see Guantanamo Bay closed.
  This amendment offers a first step in giving the President, the 
Congress and the Department of Defense policy alternatives to 
Guantanamo Bay. This amendment will require the Department to develop a 
plan to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay.
  The report must estimate how many detainees the Department will 
charge with a crime, how many will be subject to release or transfer, 
or how many will be held without being charged with a crime, but whom 
the Department feels that it must detain.
  Lastly, the report would include a description of actions required by 
the Secretary and Congress to ensure that detainees who are scheduled 
for release are, in fact, released.
  This last piece is particularly important, as the Department of 
Defense has scheduled release of 82 detainees. DOD and the State 
Department, however, face obstacles releasing these men to their home 
countries, and in some instances their home nations won't accept their 
return. In other instances, the State Department won't return detainees 
to their home nations for appropriate reasons. But we need to know what 
policy tools Congress can provide to expedite the release of innocent 
detainees.
  All of this information is absolutely necessary for Congress and the 
administration to make informed decisions about what to do about 
Guantanamo Bay.
  Whether you like it or not, whether you believe that Guantanamo Bay 
is a blight on our international standing, or whether or not you 
believe that these detainees should be held and tried in the United 
States, we should all agree that the policy options before the 
President and Congress should not be limited by a lack of information.
  To opponents of shutting down Guantanamo Bay and my colleagues who 
believe its closure is a sign of weakness, I suggest that upholding our 
American principles of justice are not incongruent with our war against 
terror.
  And in a speech before the Republican National Convention in 1992, I 
would remind my colleagues President Reagan emphasized that our 
greatest strength as a Nation comes not from our wealth or our power, 
but from our ideals.
  I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
common-sense amendment, to move forward in our battle against anti-
American sentiment, and to provide the President and Congress with real 
policy options for shutting down Guantanamo Bay.
  Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. SKELTON. I think that the gentleman should be commended and 
complimented on working with us to finally get the language that was 
the real intent of the amendment, and that what it does is requires a 
report to Congress on specific items. It does not specify detainees to 
be transferred or any change such as that.
  So seeking information, I think, is basic to what we do as a country 
and what we do as a Congress. And I thank the gentleman very much for 
working with us to clarify this amendment, and appreciate you yielding.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the chairman. I will reiterate the 
comments I made at the beginning. I thank very much the chairman's 
leadership and his superb staff for bringing us to this point. And as 
you say, this is only a matter of acquiring information.
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. My colleagues, I have a lot of respect for my friend from 
Virginia, but this amendment is a bad amendment. It's an amendment 
which goes to the very core of the Guantanamo facility, the purpose of 
the Guantanamo facility, the nature of the people who are imprisoned in 
the Guantanamo facility, and the ongoing war against terrorism.
  Now, I'm reading my friend's amendment, and it directs DOD to 
undertake

[[Page 12866]]

a plan for the transfer of each individual presently imprisoned at 
Guantanamo.
  Ladies and gentlemen, the people who are imprisoned in Guantanamo are 
largely terrorists. They include people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 
who has admitted in court that he planned the attack on 9/11 that 
destroyed thousands of American lives.
  It includes people like Abu Zubaydah, who helped smuggle now deceased 
al Qaeda leader al-Zarqawi and some 70 Arab fighters out of Kandahar, 
Afghanistan into Iran, who also tried to organize a terrorist attack in 
Israel, who was recruited by Osama Bin Laden.
  It includes Ahmed Galeni, who worked for al Qaeda's chief of external 
operations and forged or altered passports for many al Qaeda members, 
who knew and met many of the operatives involved in the attacks, 
including Fahid Masala, who was asked to help the group purchase TNT 
for trucks and gas cylinders that would later be used to construct a 
car bomb, requests which he fulfilled.
  Ladies and gentlemen, these are people who understand how to kill 
large numbers of people. The last thing you want to do is to take 
people from an extremely secure facility that has been designed to 
ensure that they don't escape, that they're not able to spread their 
understanding of car bombs and other destructive devices to other 
terrorists or prisoners.
  Now, the gentleman's initial amendment that was filed on this went a 
bit further. It talked about moving the detainees to places in the 
United States. And if you think it through, that's where we would 
probably have to transfer them. If it orders DOD to put together a 
transfer plan, the logical recipients of that transfer plan will be 
bases and facilities in the United States.
  Now, that means that unless you isolate these terrorists, these 
people that know how to make car bombs, you're going to put them in 
facilities in the U.S. with American criminals, and they are presumably 
going to teach these people how to make things like car bombs and other 
destructive devices. In this case, you have to keep them isolated.
  And I would say to my colleague, you know, we have had, under the 
tribunals that we have put together to determine whether people are 
just farmers in the field or whether they really were terrorist 
combatants, we've released a number of people who have gone back to 
Afghanistan and gone back to their home countries. A few of them have 
actually shown up on battlefields around the world fighting us again, 
which shows that our standard for releasing them has in some cases been 
too liberal, not too conservative.

                              {time}  2200

  But the idea of taking people who know how to kill large numbers of 
people with destructive devices and moving them, spreading them around 
to other institutions where they may give that knowledge to other 
people, other criminals who have hurt Americans, who might be inclined 
to hurt more Americans, is not a good idea. We need to keep them 
isolated.
  And I would say to my colleague I have been down to Guantanamo. I am 
sure he has also. We feed those people well. They have a better medical 
system than most HMO systems in America. Not one person has been 
murdered in Guantanamo. And none of us can say about our State prisons 
nobody has ever been murdered in our State prison. Every single Member 
of this body has State prisons in their districts or their State in 
which more murders have taken place than in Guantanamo. Nobody is 
making a suggestion that we close our State prisons because they have a 
bad reputation nationally or internationally.
  So I would respectfully urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this 
amendment. I think it is a bad amendment. I respect the author, but I 
think it takes us in the wrong direction.
  Let's keep these people collected. Let's keep them isolated. Let's 
keep the rest of the world safe.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  First of all, I agree with you the people you described, Khalid 
Shaikh Mohammed and the like, appear to be very dangerous people. These 
people, however, who were just transferred to Guantanamo, I think when 
Secretary Gates and the President spoke about Guantanamo, they were 
referring to the 772 that had been there over the period of 4 years 
now, rather than new arrivals.
  But the point is, this is only a report; this does not mandate any 
action. It just presents information to the Congress. If the Congress 
was to transfer it, what would be the implication? So it is only a 
report, I would again remind the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Altmire). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. HOLT. 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. 32 offered by Mr. Holt:
       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 1055. REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEOTAPING RECORDINGS OF 
                   STRATEGIC INTERROGATIONS AND OTHER PERTINENT 
                   INTERACTIONS AMONG DETAINEES OR PRISONERS IN 
                   THE CUSTODY OF OR UNDER THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL 
                   OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES, INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES OF THE UNITED 
                   STATES, AND CONTRACTORS OF THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the Geneva Conventions 
     of 1949, the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
     Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, 
     Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and 
     prohibitions against any cruel, unusual, and inhuman 
     treatment or punishment under the Fifth, Eighth, and 
     Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United 
     States, the President shall take such actions as are 
     necessary to ensure that any strategic interrogation or other 
     pertinent interaction between an individual who is a detainee 
     or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of 
     the Armed Forces pursuant to a strategic interrogation, or 
     other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering 
     intelligence and a member of the Armed Forces, an 
     intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor 
     of the United States, is videotaped.
       (b) Commencement of Requirement.--The videotaping 
     requirement under subsection (a) shall be applicable to any 
     strategic interrogation of an individual that takes place on 
     or after the earlier of--
       (1) the day on which the individual is confined in a 
     facility owned, operated or controlled, in whole or in part, 
     by the United States, or any of its representatives, 
     agencies, or agents; or
       (2) 7 days after the day on which the individual is taken 
     into custody by the United States or any of its 
     representatives, agencies, or agents.
       (c) Classification of Information.--The President shall 
     provide for the appropriate classification to protect United 
     States national security and the privacy of detainees or 
     prisoners held by the United States, of video tapes referred 
     to in subsection (a). Videotapes shall be made available, 
     under seal if appropriate, to both prosecution and defense to 
     the extent they are material to any military or civilian 
     criminal proceeding.
       (d) Strategic Interrogation Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``strategic interrogation'' means an 
     interrogation of a detainee or prisoner at--
       (1) a corps or theater-level detention facility, as defined 
     in the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector 
     Operations (FM 2-22.3, September 2006); or   
       (2) a detention facility outside of the area of operations 
     (AOR) where the detainee or prisoner was initially captured, 
     including--
       (A) a detention facility owned, operated, borrowed, or 
     leased by the United States Government; and
       (B) a detention facility of a foreign government at which 
     United States Government

[[Page 12867]]

     personnel, including contractors, are permitted to conduct 
     interrogations by the foreign government in question.
       (e) Access to Prisoners and Detainees of the United States 
     to Ensure Independent Monitoring and Transparent 
     Investigations.--Consistent with the obligations of the 
     United States under international law and related protocols 
     to which the United States is a party, the President shall 
     take such actions as are necessary to ensure that 
     representatives of the following organizations are granted 
     access to detainees or prisoners in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Armed Forces:
       (1) The International Federation of the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
       (2) The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
       (3) The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.
       (f) Guidelines for Videotape Recordings.--
       (1) Development of guidelines.--The Judge Advocates General 
     (as defined in section 801(1) of title 10, United States 
     Code, (Article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)) 
     shall jointly develop uniform guidelines designed to ensure 
     that the videotaping required under subsection (a) is 
     sufficiently expansive to prevent any abuse of detainees and 
     prisoners referred to in subsection (a) and violations of law 
     binding on the United States, including treaties specified in 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Submittal to congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the 
     guidelines developed under paragraph (1).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me begin by thanking Chairman Skelton for his consideration in 
support of this amendment.
  Some time back I was asking U.S. servicemen about interrogation of 
some detainees. Suppose you and your translator are not familiar with 
the dialect of the detainees, I said, how would you make a tape 
available to a good linguist for review?
  What tape, they said.
  Later in other circumstances I learned about charges of mistreatment 
of detainees. But the only record of our treatment of detainees were 
the shameful recreational photos of Abu Ghraib. An official recording 
would have helped the situation, perhaps even have prevented the 
problems.
  Hundreds of law enforcement organizations in all 50 States and the 
District of Columbia employ recording of interrogations and that is 
becoming the standard for interrogations around the United States. It 
improves the ability to get the best information, and it protects all 
parties involved, the interrogators and the detainees. I believe the 
lessons of those law enforcement organizations can be applied to our 
current detainee policies.
  For years, police officers around the country resisted the idea of 
putting video cameras in their cars and interrogation rooms. Now those 
cameras, the dashboard camera, for example, is one of the cops' best 
friends. Today, such tools are widely used by law enforcement 
organizations around the country because of the protections and the 
investigative value they provide.
  My amendment has three provisions: to require video recording of 
interrogations and other pertinent interactions between U.S. military 
personnel, or contractors, and detainees arrested and held. The video 
records would be kept at the appropriate level of classification and be 
available for review by intelligence personnel to help maximize the 
intelligence benefits of such interrogations. It would require the 
Judge Advocate General, pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, to develop guidelines designated to ensure that the video 
recording sufficiently prevents abuses of rights of detainees and 
prisoners.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. This is just 
downright good law enforcement.
  You must understand that so many jurisdictions, so many States have 
videotaping of interrogations for the very reasons that you stated, to 
make sure that their rights were preserved, to make sure that they said 
what was said to have been said, and there is a taping that cannot be 
refuted.
  And you must remember that everyone is a potential defendant before a 
military commission. And what better evidence is there to present 
before a military commission, either for the defense or for the 
prosecution, than what was actually taped during interrogation? I think 
that we are just trying to catch up with other States that do this and 
require this. It is just good law enforcement.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the Chair for his 
comments.
  Indeed, this is becoming the standard of interrogation. The video 
recording is inexpensive, easy to use, and it helps.
  My amendment would also afford access to prisoners by the 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the U.N. High Commissioner 
for Human Rights, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture.
  The electronic recording of interrogations is a concept that has been 
endorsed by multiple domestic and international organizations. In 1998, 
the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations strongly recommended 
that interrogation of suspects in police custody and substitute prison 
be strictly monitored and recorded by electronic means. In 2004, the 
American Bar Association urged all law enforcement agencies to 
videotape the entirety of custodial interrogations of crime suspects. 
Hundreds of DAs and prosecutors use these techniques.
  Today, the ACLU noted in their endorsement letter of this amendment 
that it would increase the accountability for compliance with the 
McCain antitorture amendment. Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch 
expressed similar statements in their endorsement letters, and I will 
include in the Record these letters of endorsement from Human Rights 
First, Human Rights Watch, and the ACLU.

                                           Human Rights First,

                                           New York, May 16, 2007.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: I write to express the support of 
     Human Rights First for a proposed amendment to the FY2008 
     National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1585) introduced by 
     Representative Rush Holt. The amendment would require the 
     videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent 
     interactions between detainees in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the U.S. Armed Forces and relevant U.S. 
     officials, consistent with a recommendation made by the Army 
     Inspector General in July 2004. The amendment would also 
     require that the International Committee of the Red Cross 
     (ICRC), the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the 
     United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture are provided 
     access to detainees in U.S. custody.
       These provisions are intended to ensure that the treatment 
     of detainees in the custody of the United States Armed Forces 
     is consistent with longstanding U.S. obligations under 
     domestic and international law, including existing rules 
     concerning ICRC access to prisoners. These commitments are 
     contained in binding military regulations and field manuals 
     and reflect the judgment that upholding the principle of 
     providing access to captured prisoners is strongly in the 
     interest of the U.S. military.
       Because it advances both the interests of the United States 
     and its values, we urge you to support Representative Holt's 
     amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Elisa Massimino,
     Washington Director.
                                  ____



                                           Human Rights Watch,

                                           New York, May 16, 2007.
     Hon. Rush Holt,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Holt: Human Rights Watch writes to 
     express our strong support for your amendment to the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Bill, to ensure 
     independent monitoring of detainee treatment and to require 
     videotaping interrogations of prisoners in the custody of the 
     U.S. Armed Forces.
       Revelations about the use of torture from Abu Ghraib and 
     detention facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
     locations from around the world have undermined the United 
     States' moral authority and its ability to defeat terrorism 
     in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. As General Petraeus, the

[[Page 12868]]

     commander of US forces in Iraq, recently wrote to all of the 
     troops serving there: ``This fight depends on securing the 
     population, which must understand that we--not our enemies--
     occupy the moral high ground.'' Torture and abuse do not 
     produce reliable intelligence, warned the General, and they 
     undercut one of the most effective weapons in the fight 
     against terrorism--the support and cooperation of the local 
     population.
       Last September the Department of Defense issued a new Army 
     Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector 
     Operations, which rejects abusive interrogation and specifies 
     a range of permitted interrogation techniques. Routine 
     videotaping of interrogations can be one of the simplest and 
     most effective means of ensuring compliance with these new 
     rules and preventing abuse. When interrogators and guards 
     know that their interactions with detainees are being 
     recorded by their supervisors, they are more likely to play 
     by the rules, and less likely to treat prisoners inhumanely. 
     Videotaping also protects law-abiding interrogators and 
     guards against unfair allegations of abuse. Moreover, your 
     amendment ensures these videotapes can be classified to 
     protect against the dissemination of information that could 
     harm US national security.
       Notably, the US Army Inspector General's July 21, 2004 
     report on Detainee Operations concluded: ``All facilitates 
     conducting interrogations would benefit from routine use of 
     video recording equipment.'' The Defense Department has 
     failed to heed this recommendation, and it now falls to 
     Congress to require it.
       Allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross 
     (ICRC), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
     Rights, and the United National Special Rapporteur for 
     Torture to visit detainees in Department of Defense custody--
     as your amendment would do--would show the world that the 
     United States no longer has anything to hide in its detention 
     facilities. It would also allow the United States to insist 
     credibly that independent monitors such as the ICRC be given 
     access to any of its soldiers or citizens when they are 
     detained abroad. As you well know, ICRC access to captured US 
     soldiers has saved lives and provided perhaps the only source 
     of relief to loved ones worried about their missing 
     relatives.
       Videotaping interrogations and allowing independent 
     monitoring of detainees in US custody are two critical steps 
     for preventing abuse and ensuring that the actions of those 
     who violate the law do not taint the reputation of America's 
     armed forces at home and abroad.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Malinowski,
       Washington Advocacy Director,
     Jennifer Daskal,
       Advocacy Director, US Program.
                                  ____



                                                         ACLU,

                                     Washington, DC, May 16, 2007,
     Re The Holt Amendment to the Defense Department authorization 
         bill will increase accountability for compliance with the 
         McCain anti-torture amendment.

       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to support the amendment that Congressman 
     Rush Holt will offer this afternoon during consideration of 
     the Defense Department authorization bill. The bill would 
     make two important--and extraordinarily practical--changes to 
     Defense Department interrogation and detention practices. It 
     would (i) require the videotaping of interrogations of DOD 
     detainees and (ii) allow access to DOD detainees for top 
     human rights offices. Both provisions would increase 
     accountability for compliance with the McCain anti-torture 
     amendment.
       During consideration of the Defense Department 
     authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2006, an overwhelming 
     bipartisan majority of the House of Representatives voted to 
     support the McCain anti-torture amendment. As passed by 
     Congress and signed by President Bush, the McCain Amendment 
     requires the Defense Department to comply with the Army Field 
     Manual on Interrogations, and reinforces the long-standing 
     ban on the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading 
     treatment across the entire government. The McCain Amendment 
     was an important step to returning the rule of law to the 
     federal government's interrogation and detention policies.
       The McCain Amendment, combined with an important Supreme 
     Court case last spring and regulatory changes made by the 
     Defense Department, has led to an improvement in the Defense 
     Department's policies on interrogations. The Holt Amendment 
     builds on these important developments by requiring an 
     additional layer of accountability.
       The Holt Amendment is important for two reasons:
       First, it requires videotaping of all interrogations by DOD 
     personnel and contractors. While these videotapes could be 
     classified for the protection of national security or 
     privacy, consistent use of videotaping will be a strong 
     deterrent against abuse. It will provide an additional reason 
     for interrogators to ensure that they remain in compliance 
     with the McCain Amendment, including the Army Field Manual on 
     Interrogations. Of course, videotaping will also have the 
     additional benefit to Defense Department personnel of 
     protecting against any false accusations of misconduct and it 
     creates an improved record of intelligence for the 
     government. This very practical provision benefits everyone 
     during interrogations.
       Second, the Holt Amendment requires access to all DOD 
     detainees for the International Committee of the Red Cross, 
     the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the U.N. 
     Special Rapporteur on Torture. This provision largely 
     codifies current DOD policy on ICRC access, as modified after 
     the Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo detainees last 
     spring. The Defense Department policy now provides access to 
     International Committee of the Red Cross personnel to DOD 
     detainees. Providing access to the additional two human 
     rights offices of the U.N. will help ensure additional 
     accountability.
       We strongly urge you to bolster accountability for 
     compliance with the McCain anti-torture amendment, including 
     the Army Field Manual on Interrogations by voting ``YES'' on 
     the Holt Amendment today. Please do not hesitate to call us 
     if you have any questions regarding this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Caroline Fredrickson,
       Director.
     Christopher E. Anders,
       Legislative Counsel.

  Mr. Chairman, today the House has the opportunity both to strengthen 
existing safeguards and to improve our intelligence collection efforts 
during interrogations. I ask that my colleagues vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment to H.R. 1585.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Interrogations by military personnel are conducted under the Army 
Field Manual, which complies with the Detainee Treatment Act passed by 
this Congress. And, in essence, this amendment says, we don't trust our 
military to follow the law; as a matter of fact, we have to videotape 
them because, as a matter of law, we don't ever trust that they will 
comply with the law as set forth in the Army Field Manual.
  And I would remind my colleagues that the military has chosen for its 
own reasons to use closed-circuit monitoring of interrogations at 
Guantanamo Bay, in part for the safety of the interrogators, but under 
this amendment that is not enough. Whether a military unit at 
Guantanamo or elsewhere chooses to use videotaping or closed-circuit 
monitoring is not enough under this amendment because we don't trust 
the military anywhere to conduct interrogations under the law pursuant 
to this amendment.
  I would say, secondly, the military has told us that this amendment 
would materially interfere with DOD operations, and I heard clearly 
what the distinguished chairman of the committee and the gentleman from 
New Jersey said; they said, this is good police work. But I would 
remind them that our military are not policemen and that our military, 
in operations all over the world, facing very dangerous terrorists in 
all sorts of conditions, should have to comply with all of the same 
standards that a policeman in Missouri or New Jersey or elsewhere ought 
to have to comply with. This amendment forces upon them a legalistic, 
bureaucratic regulation on the very people we are counting on most to 
keep us safe from the most dangerous terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also say that this amendment specifically says 
that the videotapes have to be given to the prosecution and defense in 
any civilian or military proceedings. Now, we have already had trouble 
in this country in having sensitive information from interrogations 
that has been presented to the parties leak out and get back to people 
we don't want it to get to. But I would suggest that this amendment 
runs an unreasonable risk of having sensitive national security 
information get back to the very terrorist networks that we are 
fighting, and the military are going to be faced with a choice of 
either allowing that to happen or not

[[Page 12869]]

conducting the interrogations at all, which means we don't get the 
information.
  Everyone from George Tenet to the current leadership of our national 
security organizations say the most valuable information we have gotten 
since 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks has come from detainee 
interrogations. This amendment makes it harder, if not impossible, to 
get that information. This amendment says we don't trust the troops to 
follow the law and it will interfere with military operations. I would 
suggest that it would be a mistake and increase the dangers to this 
country and should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 printed in House 
Report 110-151.


            Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Skelton

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

       Amendments en bloc consisting of amendments numbered 4, 19, 
     28, 34, 35, 40 and 42 printed in House Report 110-151 offered 
     by Mr. Skelton:


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Reyes

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 1022. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL 
                   SUPPORT FOR COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       Subsection (b) of section 1033 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 
     111 Stat. 1881), as amended by section 1021 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 
     108-136, 117 Stat. 1593) and section 1022 of the John Warner 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
     (Public Law 109-364; 120 Stat. 2382), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(17) The Government of Mexico.
       ``(18) The Government of the Dominican Republic.''.

           Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Title II, add at the end the following:

     SEC. 2__. MODELING, ANALYSIS, AND SIMULATION OF MILITARY AND 
                   NON-MILITARY OPERATIONS IN COMPLEX URBAN 
                   ENVIRONMENTS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation Technology has 
     become an essential component in ensuring that we meet the 
     defense challenges of the 21st century. It allows us to build 
     and develop models of complex systems, effectively sharpen 
     the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address 
     difficult problems, and determine how certain actions will 
     effect the end result before implementing the plan in real 
     life, thereby providing strategic, tactical and financial 
     benefits. Every effort should be made to include Modeling, 
     Analysis and Simulation Technology in the training and 
     planning doctrines of the Department of Defense.
       (2) Current and future military operations, and emergency 
     management of natural and man-made disasters, do and will 
     continue to involve operations in highly complex, urban 
     environments. These environments include complex 
     geographical, communications, transportation, informational, 
     social, political, and public support subsystems. The 
     interdependence of these subsystems and the cascading effects 
     of warfare or disasters imposed upon them should be modeled 
     in a computer simulation environment. It is important for the 
     security and safety of the Department of Defense to study and 
     understand the effects of warfare and disasters on the 
     resiliency of urban environments and to develop a computer 
     modeling and simulation decision-making tool for emergency 
     consequence management of military, natural and man-made 
     disasters in complex urban environments.

                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Allen

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VII, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 713. REPORT AND STUDY ON MULTIPLE VACCINATIONS OF 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives a report on the Department's 
     policies for administering and evaluating the vaccination of 
     members of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the Department's policies governing 
     the administration of multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour 
     period, including the procedures providing for a full review 
     of an individual's medical history prior to the 
     administration of multiple vaccinations, and whether such 
     policies and procedures differ for members of the Armed 
     Forces on active duty and members of reserve components.
       (2) An assessment of how the Department's policies on 
     multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period conform to current 
     regulations of the Food and Drug Administration and research 
     performed or being performed by the Centers for Disease 
     Control, other non-military Federal agencies, and non-federal 
     institutions on multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period.
       (3) An assessment of the Department's procedures for 
     initiating investigations of deaths of members of the Armed 
     Forces in which vaccinations may have played a role, 
     including whether such investigations can be requested by 
     family members of the deceased individuals.
       (4) The number of deaths of members of the Armed Forces 
     since January 1, 2000, that the Department has investigated 
     for the potential role of vaccine administration, including 
     both the number of deaths investigated that was alleged to 
     have involved more than one vaccine administered in a given 
     24-hour period and the number of deaths investigated that was 
     determined to have involved more than one vaccine 
     administered in a given 24-hour period.
       (5) An assessment of the procedures for providing the 
     Adjutants General of the various States and territories with 
     up-to-date information on the effectiveness and potential 
     allergic reactions and side effects of vaccines required to 
     be taken by National Guard members.
       (6) An assessment of whether procedures are in place to 
     provide that the Adjutants General of the various States and 
     territories retain updated medical records of each National 
     Guard member called up for active duty.
       (c) Study Required.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a 
     study, in consultation with the Food and Drug Administration 
     and the Centers for Disease Control, examining the safety and 
     efficacy of administering multiple vaccinations within a 24-
     hour period to members of the Armed Forces.
       (2) Deadline.--The study required by paragraph (1) shall be 
     completed not later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall be submitted to the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.

                 Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Inslee

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title X, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents, accordingly):

     SEC. 1055. STUDY AND REPORT ON USE OF POWER MANAGEMENT 
                   SOFTWARE.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study 
     on the use of power management software by civilian and 
     military personnel and facilities of the Department of 
     Defense to reduce the use of electricity in computer monitors 
     and personal computers. This study shall include 
     recommendations for baseline electric power use, for ensuring 
     robust monitoring and verification of power use requirements 
     on a continuing basis, and for potential technological 
     solutions or best practices for achieving these efficiency 
     objectives.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report containing the results of the study under subsection 
     (a), including a description of the recommendations developed 
     under the study.

                 Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Terry

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Title II, subtitle C, add at the end the following:

     SEC. 2__. INCREASED FUNDS FOR X LAB BATTLESPACE LABORATORY.

       (a) Increase.--The amount in section 201(4), research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby 
     increased by $10,000,000, to be available for the X Lab 
     battlespace laboratory, program element 0603175C.
       (b) Offset.--The amount in section 201(2), research, 
     development, test, and evaluation, Navy, is hereby reduced by 
     $10,000,000, to be derived from Littoral Combat System 
     Mission Modules.

[[Page 12870]]




                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Matheson

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title XXXIV, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3402. REMEDIAL ACTION AT MOAB URANIUM MILLING SITE.

       Section 3405(i) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 
     10 U.S.C. 7420 note) by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Not later than October 1, 2019, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall complete remediation at the Moab site and 
     removal of the tailings to the Crescent Junction site in 
     Utah.''.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. McCotter

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 1034. REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROCEDURES TO 
                   CLASSIFY EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE 
                   SERVICES WITH MILITARY TECHNOLOGY COMPONENTS.

       (a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall conduct a 
     thorough review of the procedures by which the Department of 
     Defense classifies defense articles and defense services with 
     military technology components as excess to the needs of the 
     Department to identify the extent to which, and the manner in 
     which, existing classification procedures have failed to 
     prevent the transfer of defense articles and defense services 
     with military technology components to terrorists, state 
     sponsors of terrorism, and other unfriendly countries or 
     groups.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, with the 
     concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall submit to 
     Congress a report that contains--
       (1) the results of the review of the existing 
     classification procedures conducted under subsection (a); and
       (2) the measures to be implemented by the Department of 
     Defense to rectify the deficiencies of the existing 
     classification procedures, including recommendations for any 
     legislative changes that may be necessary to implement the 
     measures.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term 
     ``defense articles and defense services with military 
     technology components'' means those defense articles and 
     defense services designated by the President pursuant to 
     section 38(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 
     2778(a)(1)), commonly known as the United States Munitions 
     List.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, as part of this group of en bloc 
amendments, it includes an amendment I have offered. It has to do with 
the uranium tailings pile on the banks of the Colorado River in Moab, 
Utah.
  Now, that may sound like an interesting issue to have in a Defense 
authorization bill. It is not the first time it has been in a Defense 
authorization bill. The last time we dealt with this was when Congress 
was in session in the year 2000, and at that time Congress directed the 
Department urging them to move this uranium tailings pile.
  Make no mistake. This is right on the banks of a major river, and the 
environmental impact statement that looked at this pile indicated that 
it is a near certainty that at some point, if it is not moved, it is 
going to be flushed into the river. And there are 25 million users 
living downstream of this site.
  Now, this mill tailings site was part of our military efforts in the 
1950s and 1960s when it came to our nuclear weapons efforts, and quite 
frankly, while Congress has voiced in the past on this very bill 7 
years ago that it should be moved, the Department of Energy has 
exhibited tremendous inaction. They have not provided information for 
why there has been a delay. They have completed a longstanding 
environmental impact statement that resulted in a record of a decision 
saying they wanted to move it. In that, they said it could be done in 7 
to 10 years.

                              {time}  2215

  And yet, the Secretary of Energy said just this year it's not going 
to be until 2028 when this moves. This is an agency that has 
consistently underperformed, underpromised, has not answered questions 
about the progress of this project, and that's why I offer this 
amendment today, so that once again Congress can make its will known, 
as it has done in the past, in indicating that this pile ought to be 
moved.
  I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton, for his 
cooperation on this issue.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he 
might like to Mr. McCotter.
  Mr. McCOTTER. My amendment that I've offered is very simple and 
straightforward. It requests that the Secretary of Defense, in 
concurrence with the Secretary of State, issue to Congress a review of 
declassification procedures that are in place to guarantee that 
materiel does not fall into the hands of terrorists, does not fall into 
the hands of state sponsors of terrorists, does not fall into the hands 
of groups hostile to the United States, or any similar reprobates in 
general. By classification procedures I mean Defense Reutilization and 
Marketing Service procedures to classify something as excess and also 
as eligible for sale. We believe this should not engender any 
opposition. We have worked very well with the majority staff of both 
the committee in question, and the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding, and I thank him for including my amendment in 
the en bloc amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, the defense authorization bill is a tremendous 
undertaking and I would like to commend Chairman Skelton and his 
Committee for their hard work. My amendment would simply insert 
findings that Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology is an 
important tool that ought to be utilized to the utmost by the 
Department of Defense.
  Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring 
that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st 
century. It allows us to build and develop models of complex systems--
whether it be a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a 
major city's evacuation plan. By doing this, we can easily and 
effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to 
address difficult and complex problems. Determining how certain actions 
will affect the end result before implementing the plan in real life 
provides strategic, tactical and financial benefits. These simulations 
help us develop better and practical analogies of real world 
situations.
  With the growing international challenges of the 21st century, this 
technology is vital to the defense of our great Nation. The practical 
uses of Modeling, Analysis and Simulation technology as a training tool 
are boundless. Military and airline pilots have been using this 
technology for decades. Now, simulating battlefield conditions will 
sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed 
forces. And it is my firm belief that Congress should be interested in 
using this technology for defense, homeland security, disaster 
preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public. Every effort should 
be made to include Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology in the 
training and planning doctrines of the Department of Defense. This 
amendment is a step in that direction.
  The power of modeling, analysis and simulation technology can be 
particularly useful in urban areas. The fact is that current and future 
military operations, and emergency management of natural and manmade 
disasters, do and will continue to involve operations in highly 
complex, urban environments; we are no longer engaging in traditional 
battlefield operations. These urban environments include complex 
geographical, communications, transportation, informational, social, 
political, and public support subsystems. The interdependence of these 
subsystems and the cascading effects of warfare or disasters imposed 
upon them should be modeled in a computer simulation environment. This 
will help us prepare for emergency consequence management of military, 
natural and manmade disasters in complex urban environments.
  Using modeling, analysis, and simulation technology in the fields of 
national defense, science, homeland security and disaster planning will 
better the lives of all Americans,

[[Page 12871]]

make our Nation safer and save time and money in the process. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Chairman Ortiz for 
including my bill providing for reimbursement for superior helmet 
liners to protect soldiers with severe head injuries and for adjusting 
the testing criteria for helmet pad systems.
  Thankfully, this bill calls for another round of testing and 
evaluation on all qualified combat helmet pad systems to be conducted 
by an independent test laboratory outside the government. I just want 
to thank you for doing that, for again protecting our soldiers.
  I rise today to ask for your help to expand the reintegration 
programs for members of the National Guard included in this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  In Oregon, our Adjutant General has put together a program that helps 
to ease returning Guard members through the transition back to civilian 
life. The Yellow Ribbon National Guard Reintegration Program provides 
for 5 days of reintegration activities after demobilization. I would 
ask that the program be expanded to keep returning servicemembers on 
active duty for up to 15 days after demobilization. Not all need or 
want the full 15 days, but commanders should have the flexibility to 
provide extra time to those who need it.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlewoman for raising this important 
issue. I assure her that we will make sure that the Reserve Component 
Reintegration Working Group as well as the Yellow Ribbon National Guard 
Reintegration Program consider all options to include expanding the 
current program from 5 to 15 days during their deliberations.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I also want to thank the Chair for including report 
language that acknowledges the success of the Oregon National Guard 
Reintegration Program. I believe that the program can be a model for 
other States developing their own programs.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly agree. And we look forward to the findings 
of the Reserve Component Reintegration Working Group and the Yellow 
Ribbon National Guard Reintegration Program.
  Ms. HOOLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chair, for all that you do for our 
soldiers.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today seeks to bring 
hope from tragedy.
  CAP Patrick Damon, who lived in Falmouth, ME, with his wife and two 
children, was a loyal public servant, both in State government and in 
the Maine National Guard.
  In early 2006, Captain Damon was deployed with the Maine Guard's 
240th Engineer Group to Afghanistan. On June 15 of that year, Patrick 
collapsed in his bunk after a run. Initial reports were that he died of 
a heart attack, even though he had no previous or family history of 
heart problems.
  Captain Damon's mother, Barbara Damon-Day, has been persistent in 
seeking to get more information from the Army about the cause of her 
son's death. The Army lists the death as ``sudden unexpected,'' and the 
exact cause remains inconclusive.
  Based on her own investigation, Ms. Damon-Day believes her son's 
death was brought about by an adverse reaction to multiple vaccinations 
in a 24-hour period. Her investigation has revealed a lack of clarity 
in the Defense Department's guidelines and regulations on administering 
multiple vaccinations in a 24-hour period.
  My amendment seeks to focus needed attention on this issue. It 
requires the Defense Department to report to Congress on its policies 
on administering and evaluating multiple vaccinations within a 24-hour 
period to members of the Armed Forces, including the Guard and Reserve. 
It requires information on whether the department's policies conform to 
the regulations and guidelines of federal health agencies.
  The amendment also requests data on the number of deaths that have 
been investigated for vaccines-related causes, and information on how 
medical records are shared with the Adjutant General of the states.
  Finally, the amendment requires the Department to perform a study on 
the safety and effectiveness of administering multiple vaccines with a 
24-hour period to service personnel.
  Since her son's death in June 2006, Mrs. Damon-Day has worked 
tirelessly to improve the Defense Department's medical screening of 
Armed Forces prior to their deployment overseas. The Maine Legislature 
is currently considering legislation to create a commission to improve 
medical screening of Maine Guard personnel before they go overseas.
  Barbara Damon-Day has honored her son's memory by making it her 
mission to improve the health screenings given our military, and to 
improve the information they receive, before they leave to serve on our 
behalf in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the globe. We owe her our 
gratitude for her efforts and our support to help advance her cause. I 
hope that my amendment can play a part in that mission.
  I urge support for the Allen amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The amendments en bloc were agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 2853. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING USE 
                   OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO MEET AT LEAST 25 PERCENT 
                   OF DEPARTMENT ELECTRICITY NEEDS.

       Subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Use of Renewable Energy to Meet Electricity Needs.--
     (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department 
     of Defense--
       ``(A) produces or procures, from renewable energy sources, 
     not less than 25 percent of the total quantity of electric 
     energy it consumes within its facilities and in its 
     activities during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter; and
       ``(B) produces or procures electric energy from renewable 
     energy sources whenever the use of such renewable energy 
     sources is consistent with the energy performance goals and 
     energy performance plan for the Department and supported by 
     the special considerations specified in subsection (c).
       ``(2) In order to achieve the 25-percent requirement 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall establish annual incremental goals 
     for the production or procurement of electric energy from 
     renewable energy sources for the electric energy needs of the 
     Department. The annual reports on the energy management 
     implementation plan and the annual energy management report 
     shall include information regarding the progress made towards 
     meeting the annual incremental goals and 25-percent 
     requirement.
       ``(3) The imposition of the 25-percent requirement 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025 and the 
     requirement to establish annual incremental goals under 
     paragraph (2) does not authorize the Secretary of a military 
     department or a Defense agency to use energy saving 
     performance contracts, enhanced used leases, utility energy 
     service contracts, utilities revitalization authority, and 
     related contractual mechanisms to a greater extent than would 
     be the case in the absence of the 25-percent requirement.
       ``(4) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements 
     of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) if the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) determines that the waiver is in the best interests 
     of the Department of Defense; and
       ``(B) notifies the congressional defense committees of the 
     waiver, including the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(5) In this subsection, the term `renewable energy 
     sources' has the meaning given that term in section 203(b) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.


         Modification to Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a modification to my amendment at 
the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered 
in accordance with the modification.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Modification to amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Andrews:


[[Page 12872]]

       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle E of title XXVIII, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 2853. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING USE 
                   OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO MEET AT LEAST 25 PERCENT 
                   OF DEPARTMENT ELECTRICITY NEEDS.

       Subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Use of Renewable Energy to Meet Electricity Needs.--
     (1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Department 
     of Defense--
       ``(A) produces or procures, from renewable energy sources, 
     not less than 25 percent of the total quantity of electric 
     energy it consumes within its facilities and in its 
     activities during fiscal year 2025 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter; and
       ``(B) produces or procures electric energy from renewable 
     energy sources whenever the use of such renewable energy 
     sources is consistent with the energy performance goals and 
     energy performance plan for the Department and supported by 
     the special considerations specified in subsection (c).
       ``(2) In order to achieve the 25-percent requirement 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A) by fiscal year 2025, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall establish annual incremental goals 
     for the production or procurement of electric energy from 
     renewable energy sources for the electric energy needs of the 
     Department. The annual reports on the energy management 
     implementation plan and the annual energy management report 
     shall include information regarding the progress made towards 
     meeting the annual incremental goals and 25-percent 
     requirement.
       ``(3) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military 
     department, or a Defense agency may not use any means of 
     third-party financing, including energy savings performance 
     contracts, enhanced use leases, utility energy service 
     contracts, utility privatization agreements, or other related 
     contractual mechanisms, to achieve the 25-percent requirement 
     specified in paragraph (1)(A). Renewable energy produced 
     through any means of third-party financing will not count 
     towards the achievement of the 25-percent requirement.
       ``(4) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements 
     of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) if the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) determines that the waiver is in the best interests 
     of the Department of Defense; and
       ``(B) notifies the congressional defense committees of the 
     waiver, including the reasons for the waiver.
       ``(5) In this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `renewable energy sources' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 203(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 
     2005 (42 U.S.C. 15852(b)).
       ``(B) The term `energy savings performance contract' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 804(3) of the National 
     Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287c).
       ``(C) The term `enhanced use lease' means a lease under 
     section 2667 of this title.
       ``(D) The term `utility energy service contract' means a 
     contract under section 2913 of this title.
       ``(E) The term `utility privatization authority' means the 
     authority provided under section 2668 of this title.''.

  Mr. ANDREWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One of the key determinants of the country's economic prosperity in 
the future and our ability to become less dependent upon imported fuel 
from around the world is our ability to develop alternative renewable 
fuels.
  One of the most powerful tools at our disposal is the purchasing 
power of the Department of Defense. Presently, the Department of 
Defense spends in excess of $3 billion a year to buy electricity.
  The purpose of this amendment is to codify a practice that the 
Secretary of Defense has already initiated, which is to increase the 
percentage of electricity purchased by the Department of Defense from 
the 9 percent, which it presently is, up to 25 percent by the year 
2025. In order to do this, we believe that the Secretary of Defense 
should have flexibility. So the amendment provides that if the 
Secretary in his or her judgment believes that defense and security 
goals of the country would be in some way impaired by meeting this 
target, then the Secretary is authorized to waive this target.
  We believe that with the adoption of this amendment and of these 
goals, we would generate a $15 billion market in the purchase of 
electricity generated by renewable fuels. We further believe that the 
entrepreneurial capacity of American scientists and entrepreneurs would 
generate products that would help fill this need. Once those products 
are available, they would then be widely available to the commercial 
and nonprofit and public sectors to help us greatly reduce our 
dependence upon nonrenewable fuels generally, and imported nonrenewable 
fuels specifically.
  I would ask that the amendment be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed, but I would like to take 
the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. I just want to say to my friend that I certainly share 
his goal of renewable energies being used in the Department of Defense. 
And I have a colloquy I would like to enter into with the gentleman 
because I know he had to go to some lengths to be able to make sure 
that his amendment was in order under our rules, particularly our 
offset rules.
  At this time, I would like to ask my friend from New Jersey to 
clarify part of his amendment that I have found troubling. And that is, 
Mr. Andrews, if I understand your amendment correctly, the Secretary of 
Defense would be prohibited from using third-party financing options, 
such as energy saving performance contracts, known as ESPCs, and 
enhanced use leases, EULs, in meeting your requirement for them to 
purchase 25 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 
2025; is that correct?
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HUNTER. I will yield.
  Mr. ANDREWS. That is correct. The amendment, as I would have wanted 
it drafted, would not have had that restriction in it. However, I was 
required to include it to avoid a point of order for direct spending.
  Mr. HUNTER. So if I understand you correctly, it is not your intent 
to limit the Department's use of third-party financing while they work 
to achieve the 25 percent requirement that your amendment lays out.
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman will further yield, that is certainly 
correct.
  I know just how beneficial these authorities are to the Department, 
and I do not want my amendment to prevent the Secretary of Defense from 
using these tools to continue to improve energy efficiency and 
renewable energy use in the Department of Defense. My intent is simply 
to set firm requirements from what I believe is a responsible energy 
policy for the Department of Defense.
  Mr. HUNTER. With that clarification, would you be willing to work 
with us to further refine this as we move to conference?
  Mr. ANDREWS. If the gentleman would yield, I would gladly work with 
the gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to the gentleman who is going 
to make all of this work, and that is the chairman of the committee, my 
good friend, Mr. Skelton.
  I happily support Mr. Andrews' amendment. And I hope that you will 
work with us here as we move down the line toward conference to ensure 
that these tools that have been available for increasing efficiency and 
energy use will be available under Mr. Andrews' amendment.
  I would yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank my friend for yielding. And without going into 
great detail, I am appreciative of the fact that Mr. Andrews and you, 
Mr. Hunter, have worked hard on achieving a balanced solution to this 
amendment as it is in final form here this evening. I think it's very 
commendable, and I am very much in favor of it. I thank Mr. Andrews for 
raising it, and I thank you, Mr. Hunter.

[[Page 12873]]


  Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I very strongly support this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I want to thank the 
ranking member of the committee for his great cooperation on this, and 
obviously our chairman for his help, and extraordinarily fine staff 
work by the majority staff and the minority staff for which I am very 
grateful, and also the men and women at the CBO, and my own office, Mr. 
Luke Ballman, for his hard work on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), as modified.
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Skelton

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. SKELTON. 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. Skelton:
       In section 122(a), strike ``enter into multiyear contracts, 
     beginning with the fiscal year 2008 program year'' and insert 
     ``enter into a multiyear contract, beginning with the fiscal 
     year 2009 program year''.
       In section 301(10), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$5,847,609,000''.
       In section 301(11), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$5,042,565,000''.
       In section 576, strike subsection (i) and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (i) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated 
     pursuant to section 301(5) for Defense-wide activities, 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for deposit in the Fund for 
     fiscal year 2008.
       In section 944(b)(2) ( page 444, lines 13 and 14), strike 
     ``Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)'' and insert 
     ``Director of the Office of Program Analysis and 
     Evaluation''.
       In title XIII, add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 1307. CLARIFICATION OF AMOUNTS FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT 
                   REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

       The amount in section 1302(a)(9), and the corresponding 
     amounts in section 1302(a) (in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)) and in section 301(19), are hereby increased by $48,000, 
     all of which is to expand staff capacity, capabilities, and 
     resources necessary for activities related to new Cooperative 
     Threat Reduction initiatives.
       In section 1508, add at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       (11) For the Strategic Readiness Fund, $1,000,000,000.
       Redesignate section 1517 as section 1518 and insert after 
     section 1516 the following new section (and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1517. NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

        Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2008 to the Department of Energy for the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation in the amount of $50,000,000.
       In section 2104(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike the dollar amount and insert ``$5,133,817,000''.
       In section 2104(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$3,089,400,000''.
       In section 2204(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike the dollar amount and insert ``$2,757,249,000''.
       In section 2204(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$1,496,532,000''.
       In section 2204(a)(2), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$293,858,000''.
       In section 2304(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$710,173,000''.
       In section 2404(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
     strike the dollar amount and insert ``$10,253,464,000''.
       In section 2404(a)(1), strike the dollar amount and insert 
     ``$898,483,000''.
       Title XXXI, subtitle A, add at the end the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 3105. OTHER ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Energy for fiscal year 2008 for energy security 
     and assurance programs necessary for national security in the 
     amount of $6,000,000.
       Make the following technical amendments:
       (1) Page 302, lines 13 to 20, move the margins 2 ems to the 
     right.
       (2) Page 332, line 20, insert ``in'' before ``subparagraph 
     (B)''.
       (3) Page 478, lines 12 to 15, move the margins 2 ems to the 
     right.
       (4) Page 513, line 22, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       (5) Page 514, line 20, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       (6) Page 623, line 19, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       (7) Page 669, line 16, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       (8) Page 734, line 10, strike ``redesignation'' and insert 
     ``redesignating''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 403, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my manager's amendment which is before us 
this moment makes a series of technical and conforming changes, all of 
which have been set forth for the Members throughout the day, and I ask 
all the Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my chairman, Mr. 
Skelton, the gentleman from Missouri, for such a wonderful job on this 
bill. We are totally in agreement with the manager's amendment and 
support it.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
my friend (Mr. Tim Murphy).
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for your help in this colloquy to 
identify an alternative that will allow the commissary and exchange 
stores to remain open at the Army's Charles E. Kelly support facility 
in Oakdale, Pennsylvania.
  Although this installation will close as a result of the base 
realignment and closure process, there will remain a strong demand for 
these stores that are so critical to the vitality and welfare of any 
military community.
  In the case of the Kelly support facility, the population of activity 
duty, reservists and retirees in western Pennsylvania, and the adjacent 
areas of Ohio and West Virginia, is estimated to be nearly 70,000, with 
another 100,000 family members. I would hope that a way can be found to 
project this critical benefit for these great Americans who have 
faithfully served our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman for a response.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important 
issue. I assure the gentleman from Pennsylvania that I will assist him 
in pursuing new options for protecting these important benefits at the 
Kelly support facility.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank 
the gentleman for including report language including the development 
of a new model for a combined commissary and exchange store. I believe 
a new strategy for combining these stores can be a valuable tool in 
protecting these benefits.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I agree. A combined commissary and 
exchange store may be the key to the future military resale activities 
at installations such as at the Kelly Support Facility.
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I thank you 
for your support. I would also like to thank Chairman Murtha for his 
help and commitment and my Pittsburgh colleague and friend, Mike Doyle, 
and also Mr. Altmire for help on this project. I am pleased to be 
working with all of my colleagues on this important issue and look 
forward to continuing our work together.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 
printed in House Report 110-151.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time, we are nearing the end of 
all the debate. We have finished all the amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, my heart is filled with gratitude for the other 
Members, for

[[Page 12874]]

our ranking member, Mr. Hunter, and to our amazing staff. The American 
people should know what a wonderful staff we have in putting together 
this defense bill. So many of them have stayed up late at night, early 
in the morning, all night long to write and make sure that we have the 
t's crossed and the i's dotted, to make sure that the young men and 
young women, as well as those who lead the young men and young women, 
have the tools with which to keep our country safe and, of course, 
free. We have a great deal of gratitude for all of them, and I just 
can't thank them enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I just want 
to join with our chairman, Ike Skelton, in thanking all of our staff, 
who have done a wonderful job in bringing together hundreds of issues 
at the subcommittee level, at the full committee level, and now on the 
House floor, and in these difficult times.
  In these partisan times, when we all have to wear our partisan hat at 
times, this committee, which I think is the most bipartisan committee 
in the House of Representatives, has done a good job. We have provided 
good tools, good equipment, good resources for the people that wear the 
uniform of the United States, and a lot of that should be credited to 
our chairman, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton.
  Many thanks, Ike, for your great work on this bill. I am sure we will 
have a great vote on it tomorrow, after we present you with an 
irresistible motion to recommit. I look forward to closing out the bill 
with you tomorrow. I know you will drive it successfully through the 
conference.
  Thank you for everything that you have done in stitching this thing 
together. It is important for our troops, and I think we have done a 
pretty effective job today of moving it down the line. Many thanks.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the gentleman's comments 
and grateful for his work.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Braley of Iowa) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Acting Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________