22 June 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Congressional Record: June 20, 2006 (House)]
[Page H4253-H4313]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20jn06-99]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed
[[Page H4254]]
in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments
will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5631
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, for military functions
administered by the Department of Defense and for other
purposes, namely:
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active
duty, (except members of reserve components provided for
elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant
to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C.
402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $25,259,649,000.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his leadership and for the very hard work that he consistently does
for the security of our Nation.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an issue that is of great
importance, and that is ensuring that our Federal dollars are not used
to support groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow
democratically elected governments.
Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, we would not need to have to
explicitly stipulate this, but events in Haiti in 2004 and in Venezuela
have led me to believe that we need to codify this straightforward
nonpartisan position.
As we know, the administration has committed its second term to
spreading democracy around the world, and this should not be a partisan
issue. It is at the core of our Nation's values; and quite simply put,
it is fundamental to who we are as a people and what we stand for as a
Nation.
However, Mr. Chairman, we need to be sure that this administration,
or equally any future administration, that if they do not agree with
certain democratically elected governments, that it does not use the
Department of Defense funds to overthrow those democratically elected
governments. Such actions fly in the face of our own fundamental
democratic principles. So I would just like to ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) if he could comment on this and what his
views are with regard to the ideas that we are presenting today.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from
California I agree, we certainly should not overthrow a democratically
elected government. I appreciate the gentlewoman's long concern and
attention to raising this issue. And I want to assure her that as this
bill moves forward we will be mindful to work with her and her staff to
do everything we can to help.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, thank you, again, to the
gentleman for his attention to this issue and to so many issues that
are important to our Nation. He is truly a courageous hero to many of
our minds and many of our views, and we look forward to continuing to
work with him and the entire House in standing up for democracy
throughout the world.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for a
colloquy. She has an amendment, but I hope we can discuss this.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of
entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young)
and Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania.
As indicated, I have an amendment that I was prepared to offer that
asks for the same increase, 2.7 percent, that the Federal employees
were getting for military personnel, which is now at 2.2 percent for
the military.
{time} 1445
One of the few issues on which all Members of Congress agree is that
our military personnel are cherished defenders of our Nation, that we
value them highly, that we are proud of them. Every day they stand
between the status quo and an ideal for a better future and put their
lives on the line to realize this goal.
The current pay increase for military personnel in this
appropriations bill is 2.2 percent. This is a total of $84.9 billion
for military personnel accounts, which is $1.9 billion greater than in
fiscal year 2006, but it is $1.2 billion less than necessary, I
believe, to help us get to 2.7 percent.
We just passed the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriation bill,
which provided a 2.7 percent pay increase for civilian Federal workers,
as well as targeted pay increases for a variety of enlisted personnel
and officer grades. We need to make the strong statement that we value
our Armed Forces just as much as we do our civilian public servants. My
amendment simply increases military personnel pay by 2.7 percent over
fiscal year 2006.
Every day we are reminded of the sacrifice our children and our
neighbors are making. Over 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq, and over
19,000 have been injured. Several years ago military personnel were
paid 13 percent less than comparable civilian pay. This gap, however,
has narrowed within the past few years to 6.5 percent in fiscal year
2005. And it is my goal to ensure that we will continue to narrow even
more in the coming years.
According to the fiscal year 2006 pay charts, after 4 months of
service, newly enlisted individuals earn less than $2,000 per month
even if they have completed ROTC courses or 2-year or 4-year college
programs. Mr. Chairman, I know we can do better.
I want to thank both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young of Florida for being
steadfast warriors on the battlefield of benefits for our military and
for increasing the benefits to their families and to them. I would hope
with the increases in experience and education and commission that we
are seeing in our young military that we will close the civilian gap so
that our young military, our reservists, National Guard, and others
will not suffer this, if you will, incompatibility with their needs.
Finally, a May 2004 survey of reservists from the Department of
Defense found that 51 percent reported an earning loss, including 44
percent who reported a drop of 10 percent or more, and 21 percent
reported an income loss of 20 percent or more. Although this may be due
to differences in taxes and other factors, we need to make sure that
those in Active Duty are not punished for serving. I hope, as we move
through this process, the voices that will be heard will be Members
like the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, that we must
do more for our young men and women on the frontlines, our reservists,
and our National Guard.
I ask the gentlemen here today with me do they share my concerns to
increase the salaries? And as well, I would hope that they would work
with all of us to find a way to properly compensate and reward our
brave men and women in uniform wherever they might be.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from Texas
that both the chairman and I have done everything we can to make sure
that the pay is comparable with the civilian sector. In the past it was
usually opposite.
And what we are concerned about in the amendment you were going to
offer was where it came from. So we are going to work something out. If
there is an increase in the civilian pay, you can be assured that the
Defense Department will get the same increase.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for her question.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
This is an amendment that I would have offered, and I am delighted to
not have to be able to offer it. And I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and thank the gentleman from Florida. And in noting all of
their work, we have worked together, and I am very appreciative and
hopeful that we will be able to work together on this increase in
salaries and compensation for our brave men and women.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H4255]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. The reason I asked you to yield, Mr.
Chairman, is that it strikes me that the entire membership should know
that already Mr. Murtha and you together have lost out to the
legislative branch subcommittee. It is a very unusual thing. I think
maybe Mr. Murtha has lost control.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response
to the gentlewoman's question, as Mr. Murtha suggested, we look for
every way that we can to enhance the quality of life for the members of
our military, to get as many pay increases and as many benefits as we
can, because we recognize how important that these heroes are, these
warriors are, to the security of our Nation.
I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this issue, but I would say
Mr. Murtha and I have looked for every opportunity we can to make
things better for those who serve in our military.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active
duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere),
midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve
Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to
section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402
note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement
Fund, $19,049,454,000.
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on
active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for
elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of
Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to
the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$7,932,749,000.
Military Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence,
interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station
travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational
movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between
permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on
active duty (except members of reserve components provided
for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of
the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments
pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42
U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund, $19,676,481,000.
Reserve Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$3,034,500,000.
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy
Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $1,485,548,000.
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine
Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10,
United States Code, or while serving on active duty under
section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and
for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and
expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United
States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense
Military Retirement Fund, $498,556,000.
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force
Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038
of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active
duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent
duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131
of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund,
$1,246,320,000.
National Guard Personnel, Army
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army
National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or
12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States
Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of
title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code,
in connection with performing duty specified in section
12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,693,595,000.
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities,
travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air
National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402
of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code,
or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10
or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in
connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a)
of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing
training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or
other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title
10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of
Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,038,097,000.
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law;
and not to exceed $11,478,000 can be used for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be
made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $22,292,965,000: Provided, That of funds
made available under this heading, $2,499,000 shall be
available for Fort Baker, in accordance with the terms and
conditions as provided under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army'', in Public Law 107-117.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps,
as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,129,000 can be
used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be
expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the
Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of
necessity for confidential military purposes,
$29,853,676,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized
by law, $3,351,121,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by
law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies
and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may
be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential
military purposes, $29,089,688,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the
Department of Defense (other than the military departments),
as authorized by law, $19,883,790,000: Provided, That not
more than $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander
Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10,
United States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed
$40,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary
expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the
Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his
certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes:
Provided further, That of the funds made available under this
heading, $6,300,000 is available for contractor support to
coordinate a wind test demonstration project on an Air Force
installation using wind turbines manufactured in the United
States that are new to the United States market and to
execute the renewable energy purchasing plan: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement
the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison
office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office
of the Secretary of a military department, or the service
headquarters of one
[[Page H4256]]
of the Armed Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative
liaison office: Provided further, That $4,000,000, to remain
available until expended, is available only for expenses
relating to certain classified activities, and may be
transferred as necessary by the Secretary to operation and
maintenance appropriations or research, development, test and
evaluation appropriations, to be merged with and to be
available for the same time period as the appropriations to
which transferred: Provided further, That any ceiling on the
investment item unit cost of items that may be purchased with
operation and maintenance funds shall not apply to the funds
described in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That
the transfer authority provided under this heading is in
addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere
in this Act.
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$2,064,512,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities
and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and
transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of
services, supplies, and equipment; and communications,
$1,223,628,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $202,732,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
operation and maintenance, including training, organization,
and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of
facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting;
procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and
communications, $2,659,951,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National
Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as
authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army
National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army
National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair,
modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and
equipment (including aircraft), $4,436,839,000.
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the
Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment
and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance,
operation, and repairs to structures and facilities;
transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles;
supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized
by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and
issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished
from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department
of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same
basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel
on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders
while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard
Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief,
National Guard Bureau, $5,035,310,000.
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $11,721,000, of which
not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation
purposes.
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian,
Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense
(consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402,
404, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code),
$63,204,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account
For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union,
including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for
facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure
transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other
weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the
proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
related technology and expertise; for programs relating to
the training and support of defense and military personnel
for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons
components and weapons technology and expertise, and for
defense and military contacts, $372,128,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$3,529,983,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $27,375,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve: Provided, That
$19,200,000 of the funds provided in this paragraph are
available only for the purpose of acquiring one (1) HH-60L
medical evacuation Variant Blackhawk helicopter only for the
Army Reserve.
Missile Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance,
ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories
therefor; specialized equipment and training devices;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,350,898,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $110,000,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including
ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for
the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein,
may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the
foregoing purposes, $2,047,804,000, to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2009, of which $218,481,000
shall be available for the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,710,475,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $197,181,000 shall be available
for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Other Procurement, Army
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked
combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; communications and electronic equipment;
other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and
accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training
devices; expansion of public and private plants, including
the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$7,005,338,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of
[[Page H4257]]
which $534,360,000 shall be available for the Army National
Guard and Army Reserve.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment;
expansion of public and private plants, including the land
necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may
be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; and procurement and installation of
equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and
private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
owned equipment layaway, $10,590,934,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2009, of which
$154,800,000 shall be available for the Navy Reserve and
Marine Corps Reserve.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For construction, procurement, production, modification,
and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and
related support equipment including spare parts, and
accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants,
including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and
procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and
machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and
Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$2,533,920,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$775,893,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $19,600,000 shall be available
for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition,
or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including
armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and
machine tools and installation thereof in public and private
plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned
equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime
components and designs for vessels to be constructed or
converted in the future; and expansion of public and private
plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $784,143,000;
NSSN, $1,775,472,000;
NSSN (AP), $676,582,000;
CVN Refuelings, $954,495,000;
CVN Refuelings (AP), $117,139,000;
SSN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $22,078,000;
SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls, $189,022,000;
SSBN Engineered Refueling Overhauls (AP), $37,154,000;
One DD(X) Destroyer, $2,568,111,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer, $355,849,000;
DDG-51 Destroyer Modernization, $50,000,000;
Littoral Combat Ship, $520,670,000;
LPD-17 (AP), $297,492,000;
LHA-R, $1,135,917,000;
Special Purpose Craft, $4,500,000;
Service Craft, $45,245,000;
LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $110,692,000;
Prior year shipbuilding costs, $436,449,000; and
For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first
destination transportation, $410,643,000.
In all: $10,491,653,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2011: Provided, That additional
obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2011, for
engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such
budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of
ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading for the construction or
conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards
in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities
for the construction of major components of such vessel:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this
heading shall be used for the construction of any naval
vessel in foreign shipyards.
Other Procurement, Navy
For procurement, production, and modernization of support
equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy
ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and
ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only; expansion of public and
private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and
such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway,
$5,022,005,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $23,000,000 shall be available
for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Procurement, Marine Corps
For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture,
and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment,
spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment,
appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in
public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine
Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants,
including land necessary therefor, and such lands and
interests therein, may be acquired, and construction
prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title,
$1,191,113,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft
and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized
ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts,
and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$11,852,467,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $470,300,000 shall be available
for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For construction, procurement, and modification of
missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment,
including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground
handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public
and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing
purposes including rents and transportation of things,
$3,746,636,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009.
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
For construction, procurement, production, and modification
of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized
equipment and training devices; expansion of public and
private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized
by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land
necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title;
and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances,
and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant
and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and
other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes,
$1,079,249,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009, of which $163,800,000 shall be available
for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Other Procurement, Air Force
For procurement and modification of equipment (including
ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground
electronic and communication equipment), and supplies,
materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided
for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of
public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and
installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures,
and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such
lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and
construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title;
reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment
layaway, $15,423,536,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2009, of which $145,600,000 shall be
available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary
for procurement, production, and modification of equipment,
supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise
provided for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement only; expansion of public and private plants,
equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection
of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing
purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be
acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to
approval of title; reserve plant and Government and
contractor-owned equipment layaway,
[[Page H4258]]
$2,890,531,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement
for the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $500,000,000,
to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard
components shall, not later than 30 days after the enactment
of this Act, individually submit to the congressional defense
committees the modernization priority assessment for their
respective Reserve or National Guard component.
Defense Production Act Purchases
For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to
sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act
of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093),
$39,384,000, to remain available until expended.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $11,834,882,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2008.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Murtha
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha:
On page 27, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount,
the following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by
$5,000,000)''.
Mr. MURTHA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to restore funding for
an important national program known as PASIS, Perpetually Available and
Secure Information Systems program.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the
gentleman that, as he knows, this is something we had intended to do in
the committee, and it is important that we do it at this point; so we
accept this amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. I appreciate it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $17,654,518,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2008: Provided,
That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available
for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational
requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided
further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be
available for the Cobra Judy program.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific
research, development, test and evaluation, including
maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of
facilities and equipment, $24,457,062,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2008.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department
of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary
for basic and applied scientific research, development, test
and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be
designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense,
pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and
operation of facilities and equipment, $21,208,264,000, to
remain available for obligation until September 30, 2008.
{time} 1500
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Page 28, line 23, before the period, insert the following:
``: Provided, That not less than $10,000,000 of the funds
appropriated in this paragraph shall be used for prosthetic
research''.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In the best of all worlds, Mr. Chairman, I
would hope that the point of order could be waived; but at the same
time as I discuss this amendment, I will acknowledge the leadership of
the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee.
Living near a veterans hospital, having the pleasure of having
represented the veterans hospital in Houston, Texas, and living in the
State of Texas and recognizing the facilities that we have dealing with
the rehabilitation of injured persons including injured soldiers, I
would say that this is one of the more important funding areas that
this bill has an ability to address. Why? Because we realize that some
19,000 of the U.S. military and the number is growing have been
injured.
As we know, both Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha have steadily provided
insight as they visited the troops in many of our military hospitals,
including Bethesda and Walter Reed; and as I have had the opportunity
to visit those hospitals, as well as the veterans hospital in Houston,
the Michael DeBakey Hospital, which I had the pleasure of naming in
honor of Dr. Michael DeBakey, one of the world's renowned heart
surgeons, but also a veteran of World War II.
This idea of funding more prosthetics research is recognizing the
cherished defenders of our Nation. It is giving them a second chance at
life. This amendment would add additional funding of $4 million in that
area. We know that every day they stand between the status quo and an
ideal for a better future.
Might I just say that we have seen some of the more heinous injuries
coming from the IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops injured in
Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars.
Bulletproof Kevlar vests protect soldiers' bodies, but not their limbs.
I am exhilarated that the rate of death is the lowest of any war we
have fought in our history, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in
that. Yet we must continue the responsibility of rehabilitation.
The good news is that prosthetic research by the military has
generated their finest quality of prosthetic limbs, and we have seen
and I have seen young men and women experience the joy of being able to
walk again or to use their arms again. They, of course, must now
readjust to life at home, they must relearn how to move, how to eat,
how to walk, how to go grocery shopping, how to cook and how to adapt
to the rest of their lives.
The importance of prosthetic research is increasing in light of the
ongoing hostilities in Iraq and the growing sophistication of the
improvised explosive devices used against our troops.
I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital, we met a number of wounded
soldiers, many of whom were badly scarred physically, and needed to
have the knowledge that the prosthetic devices would be available for
them.
So this amendment is simple. It attempts to place special emphasis on
work that is ongoing and the importance of continuing both the research
and the funding regarding prosthetic research. This will help the
encreased utilization of prosthetics for our soldiers. Someone out
there is listening, I hope, in order to know that we are concerned
about the many issues that impacts these soldiers' lives; and one of
those issues is to have the opportunity to walk again.
Point of Order
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida insist upon his
point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order,
reluctantly, I might say, against the amendment because it provides an
appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause
2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may
not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously
authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an
earmark that is not authorized. The
[[Page H4259]]
amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to speak on the point of
order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would. I would like to yield to the
distinguished ranking member to ask about his belief and concern about
the importance of prosthetic research funding and continue to have the
opportunity to work with him and Mr. Young on this issue.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not yield, but the Chair
will hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, nobody has worked harder than Bill Young,
his wife and myself in taking care of these troops at all the
hospitals, all over the country. Just last year we put in money to
start a new center for rehabilitation of people that had lost their
limbs and so forth.
We appreciate your recommendation. We hope you withdraw the
amendment, and we will continue to work toward full funding, as much as
we think is absolutely necessary for all these hospitals.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will take the time to
discuss the point of order and not discuss it, simply to say this
amendment's intention was to further highlight both the work already
done by the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, but also to
express the need in my particular locality in Houston, Texas, where a
number of these veterans are coming back needing prosthetics.
Let me thank the ranking member and the chairman for the work already
done and ask at this time, as the moneys will be continue to be
emphasized and the need already known, I will look forward to working
with both of them as these funds continue to increase to help the need
that is existing for those needing prosthetics coming back from the
front line.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 73, line 5 be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 73, line 5 is as follows:
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational
test and evaluation, including initial operational test and
evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of,
production decisions; joint operational testing and
evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection
therewith, $181,520,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2008.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,345,998,000.
National Defense Sealift Fund
For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and
activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve
Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship
Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the
necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $1,071,932,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this
paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides
for the acquisition of any of the following major components
unless such components are manufactured in the United States:
auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard
services; propulsion system components (that is; engines,
reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and
spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the
exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the
obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be
considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the military department
responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions
in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes.
Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund
For the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund,
$18,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the
destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions, to include construction of facilities,
in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of the
Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C.
1521), and for the destruction of other chemical warfare
materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile,
$1,277,304,000, of which $1,046,290,000 shall be for
Operation and maintenance; $231,014,000 shall be for
Research, development, test and evaluation, of which
$215,944,000 shall only be for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives (ACWA) program, to remain available until
September 30, 2008; and no less than $111,283,000 shall be
for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program to
remain available until September 30, 2008.
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
(including transfer of funds)
For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations
available to the Department of Defense for military personnel
of the reserve components serving under the provisions of
title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and
maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development,
test and evaluation, $936,990,000: Provided, That the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for
obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose
as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That upon a determination that all or part of the funds
transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the
purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred
back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the
transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition
to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this
Act.
Office of the Inspector General
For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $216,297,000, of which
$214,897,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which
not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and
extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or
authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made
on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for
confidential military purposes; and of which $1,400,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2009, shall be for
Procurement.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding
level for continuing the operation of the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System,
$256,400,000.
Intelligence Community Management Account
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community
Management Account, $597,111,000, of which $27,454,000 for
the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of the
funds appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 shall be
transferred to the Department of Justice for the National
Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of
Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of
the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain
available until September 30, 2009 and $1,000,000 for
Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided further, That
the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the
personnel and technical resources to provide timely support
to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community
by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials
collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement
activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and
national security investigations and operations.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of
law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment
of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall
[[Page H4260]]
not apply to personnel of the Department of Defense:
Provided, That salary increases granted to direct and
indirect hire foreign national employees of the Department of
Defense funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess
of the percentage increase authorized by law for civilian
employees of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed
under the provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code, or at a rate in excess of the percentage
increase provided by the appropriate host nation to its own
employees, whichever is higher: Provided further, That this
section shall not apply to Department of Defense foreign
service national employees serving at United States
diplomatic missions whose pay is set by the Department of
State under the Foreign Service Act of 1980: Provided
further, That the limitations of this provision shall not
apply to foreign national employees of the Department of
Defense in the Republic of Turkey.
Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in
this Act which are limited for obligation during the current
fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of
the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve
components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers'
Training Corps.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense
that such action is necessary in the national interest, he
may, with the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget, transfer not to exceed $4,750,000,000 of working
capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military functions (except military construction) between
such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to
be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and
for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to
which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer
may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on
unforeseen military requirements, than those for which
originally appropriated and in no case where the item for
which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this
authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided
further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be
available to prepare or present a request to the Committees
on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for
higher priority items, based on unforeseen military
requirements, than those for which originally appropriated
and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is
requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further,
That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using
authority provided in this section must be made prior to June
30, 2007: Provided further, That transfers among military
personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for
purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be
transferred under this section.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in
working capital funds of the Department of Defense
established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United
States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are
necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from
such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such
funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between
working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and
Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may
be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval
of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such
transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has
notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in
amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital
funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a
working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war
reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense
has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used
to initiate a special access program without prior
notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional
defense committees.
Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs
economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000
in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded
contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a
contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear
contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in
excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional
defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no
part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be
available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the
economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at
least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided
further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement
contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value
of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless
specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no
multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
day prior notification to the congressional defense
committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear
authority shall require the use of a present value analysis
to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act
may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date
of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such
contract--
(1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a
budget request for full funding of units to be procured
through the contract and, in the case of a contract for
procurement of aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit
to be procured through the contract for which procurement
funds are requested in that budget request for production
beyond advance procurement activities in the fiscal year
covered by the budget, full funding of procurement of such
unit in that fiscal year;
(2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include
consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the
contractor associated with the production of unfunded units
to be delivered under the contract;
(3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor
under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred
costs on funded units; and
(4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment
based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for
a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
C-17 Globemaster; MH-60R Helicopters; MH-60R Helicopter
mission equipment; and V-22 Osprey.
Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation
and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby
appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United
States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs
under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds
may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance
costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to
authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10,
United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported
as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States
Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and
maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and
similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust
Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated
states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free
Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided
further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the
Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical
education programs conducted at Army medical facilities
located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize
the provision of medical services at such facilities and
transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable
basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2007, the civilian
personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on
the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such
personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any
constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the
number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day
of such fiscal year.
(b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of
Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were
effective with regard to fiscal year 2007.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to
military (civilian) technicians.
Sec. 8011. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to
influence congressional action on any legislation or
appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
Sec. 8012. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member
of the Army participating as a full-time student and
receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when
time spent as a full-time student is credited toward
completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this
section shall not apply to those members who have reenlisted
with this option prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further,
That this section applies only to active components of the
Army.
Sec. 8013. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor
Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be available to convert to contractor performance an
activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by
more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees
unless--
(1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
private competition that includes a
[[Page H4261]]
most efficient and cost effective organization plan developed
by such activity or function;
(2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over
all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers
for performance of the activity or function, the cost of
performance of the activity or function by a contractor would
be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that
equals or exceeds the lesser of--
(A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's
personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or
function by Federal employees; or
(B) $10,000,000; and
(3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a
proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of
Defense by--
(A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan
available to the workers who are to be employed in the
performance of that activity or function under the contract;
or
(B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health
benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less
towards the premium or subscription share than the amount
that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits
for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection
(a) of this section or subsections (a), (b), or (c) of
section 2461 of title 10, United States Code, and
notwithstanding any administrative regulation, requirement,
or policy to the contrary shall have full authority to enter
into a contract for the performance of any commercial or
industrial type function of the Department of Defense that--
(A) is included on the procurement list established
pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41
U.S.C. 47);
(B) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified
nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals
in accordance with that Act; or
(C) is planned to be converted to performance by a
qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an
Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in
section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(a)(15)).
(2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or
contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469
and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Treatment of Conversion.--The conversion of any
activity or function of the Department of Defense under the
authority provided by this section shall be credited toward
any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement
that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and
is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in
compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10,
United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of
commercial activities.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 8014. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for
the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be
transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act
solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege
Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to
section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note),
as amended, under the authority of this provision or any
other transfer authority contained in this Act.
Sec. 8015. None of the funds in this Act may be available
for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its
departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and
mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the
anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United
States from components which are substantially manufactured
in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating,
quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the
forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That
for the purpose of this section substantially all of the
components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to
be produced or manufactured in the United States if the
aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in
the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the
components produced or manufactured outside the United
States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service
responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on
a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the
Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be
made in order to acquire capability for national security
purposes.
Sec. 8016. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1
Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles,
.30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
Sec. 8017. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated
or made available in this Act shall be used during a single
fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization,
unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into
or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional
defense committees that such a relocation is required in the
best interest of the Government.
Sec. 8018. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in
this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive
payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing
Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime
contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a
subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined
in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code or a small
business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals
defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code
shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of being
allowed additional compensation under section 504 of the
Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever the
prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and
involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act
making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with
respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 430 of title 41, United States Code,
this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense
acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract
and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial
items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any
subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title
25, United States Code or a small business owned and
controlled by an individual or individuals defined under
section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code: Provided
further, That, during the current fiscal year and hereafter,
businesses certified as 8(a) by the Small Business
Administration pursuant to section 8(a)(15) of Public Law 85-
536, as amended, shall have the same status as other program
participants under section 602 of Public Law 100-656, 102
Stat. 3825 (Business Opportunity Development Reform Act of
1988) for purposes of contracting with agencies of the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 8019. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the
provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed
exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study
with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after
initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
Sec. 8020. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American
Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national
or international political or psychological activities.
Sec. 8021. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to
exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section
2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of
receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait,
under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such
contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited
to the appropriations or fund which incurred such
obligations.
Sec. 8022. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not
less than $36,188,000 shall be available for the Civil Air
Patrol Corporation, of which--
(1) $25,087,000 shall be available from ``Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol
Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug
activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving
youth programs;
(2) $10,193,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force''; and
(3) $908,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement,
Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive
reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for
counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and
local government agencies.
Sec. 8023. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
are available to establish a new Department of Defense
(department) federally funded research and development center
(FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity
administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or
as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a
consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
(b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers,
Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or
any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant
to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical
advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services
as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more
than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of
any such entity referred to previously in this subsection
shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized
under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in
the performance of membership duties.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds available to the department from any source during
fiscal year 2007 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a
fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new
buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by
Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or
for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee
participation in community service and/or development.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
funds available to the department during fiscal year 2007,
not more than 5,417 staff years of technical effort (staff
years)
[[Page H4262]]
may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That this
subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in the
National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military
Intelligence Program (MIP).
(e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of
the department's fiscal year 2008 budget request, submit a
report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of
technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC
during that fiscal year.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs is hereby
reduced by $25,000,000.
Sec. 8024. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or
property under the control of the Department of Defense which
were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada:
Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to
any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor
steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the
military department responsible for the procurement may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions
shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 8025. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services
Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services
Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
Sec. 8026. During the current fiscal year, the Department
of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance
and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the
production of components and other Defense-related articles,
through competition between Department of Defense depot
maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the
Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or
Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall
certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of
all direct and indirect costs for both public and private
bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under
this section.
Sec. 8027. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the United States Trade Representative,
determines that a foreign country which is party to an
agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms
of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of
products produced in the United States that are covered by
the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the
Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with
respect to such types of products produced in that foreign
country.
(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any
reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding,
between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to
which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the
Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a
report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from
foreign entities in fiscal year 2007. Such report shall
separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the
Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement
described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of
1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement
to which the United States is a party.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American
Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making
appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other
purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
Sec. 8028. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds available during the current fiscal year and hereafter
for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines program.
Sec. 8029. During the current fiscal year, amounts
contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military
Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section
2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available
until expended for the payments specified by section
2921(c)(2) of that Act.
Sec. 8030. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey
at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian
tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units
located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force
Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
(b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing
units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for
such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the
Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes
located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,
and Minnesota.
(c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation
Walking Shield Program shall resolve any conflicts among
requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection
(a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air
Force under subsection (b).
(d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term
``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included
on the current list published by the Secretary of the
Interior under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25
U.S.C. 479a-1).
Sec. 8031. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
which are available to the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items
having an investment item unit cost of not more than
$250,000.
Sec. 8032. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the
appropriations or funds available to the Department of
Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase
of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new
inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the
current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an
item would not have been chargeable to the Department of
Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and
if the purchase of such an investment item would be
chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations
made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
(b) The fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department
of Defense as well as all justification material and other
documentation supporting the fiscal year 2008 Department of
Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the
Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified
as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation
contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed
fiscal year 2008 procurement appropriation and not in the
supply management business area or any other area or category
of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
Sec. 8033. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for
programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain
available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year,
except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for
Contingencies, which shall remain available until September
30, 2008: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or
otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central
Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or
subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred
to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and
development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert
action programs authorized by the President under section 503
of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall
remain available until September 30, 2008.
Sec. 8034. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence
Agency may be used for the design, development, and
deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program
intelligence communications and intelligence information
systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands,
and the component commands.
Sec. 8035. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act
may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense
unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the
Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term
``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An
Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office
Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for
other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et
seq.).
(b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person
has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing
a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the
Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f
of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be
debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
(c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with
appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of
the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in
expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made
equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment
and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and
available in a timely fashion.
Sec. 8036. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or
consulting services entered into without competition on the
basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the
activity responsible for the procurement determines--
(1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one
source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
(2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an
unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or
technological promise, represents the product of original
thinking, and
[[Page H4263]]
was submitted in confidence by one source; or
(3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of
unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a
specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of
a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That
this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of
less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of
equipment that is in development or production, or contracts
as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense,
who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the
award of such contract is in the interest of the national
defense.
Sec. 8037. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and
(c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be
used--
(1) to establish a field operating agency; or
(2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or
civilian employee of the department who is transferred or
reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or
employee's place of duty remains at the location of that
headquarters.
(b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military
department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a
case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and
certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver
will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial
requirements of the department.
(c) This section does not apply to--
(1) field operating agencies funded within the National
Intelligence Program; or
(2) an Army field operating agency established to
eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised
explosive devices, and, as determined by the Secretary of the
Army, other similar threats.
Sec. 8038. The Secretary of Defense, acting through the
Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, may use funds
made available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement
other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided
in the House report accompanying this Act, and the projects
specified in such guidance shall be considered to be
authorized by law.
(rescissions)
Sec. 8039. Of the funds appropriated in Department of
Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby
rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the
specified amounts:
``Other Procurement, Army, 2006/2008'', $100,200,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2006/2008'', $76,200,000;
``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2003/2007'',
$15,000,000;
``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2005/2009'',
$11,245,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'',
$108,000,000;
``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2006/2008'',
$64,000,000;
``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2005/2007'', $29,600,000;
``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2006/2008'',
$138,000,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2006/
2007'', $21,600,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2006/
2007'', $42,577,000;
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force,
2006/2007'', $92,800,000; and
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide,
2006/2007'', $123,900,000.
Sec. 8040. None of the funds available in this Act may be
used to reduce the authorized positions for military
(civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air
National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the
purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian
personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military
(civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct
result of a reduction in military force structure.
Sec. 8041. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be obligated or expended for
assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Sec. 8042. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and
maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands
and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of
pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be
incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and
Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve
provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to
Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence
Activities, including the activities and programs included
within the National Intelligence Program, and the Military
Intelligence Program: Provided, That nothing in this section
authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National
Guard personnel and training procedures.
Sec. 8043. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the
civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to
military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003,
level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive
this section by certifying to the congressional defense
committees that the beneficiary population is declining in
some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be
consistent with responsible resource stewardship and
capitation-based budgeting.
Sec. 8044. (a) None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug
interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to
any other department or agency of the United States except as
specifically provided in an appropriations law.
(b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence
Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities may be transferred to any other department or
agency of the United States except as specifically provided
in an appropriations law.
Sec. 8045. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic
origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military
department responsible for such procurement may waive this
restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction
shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as
defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball
or roller bearings purchased as end items.
Sec. 8046. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the
United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to
the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes that is not available from United States
manufacturers.
Sec. 8047. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each
contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the
current fiscal year for construction or service performed in
whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of
title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with
another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the
national average rate of unemployment as determined by the
Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the
contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that
portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous
with another State, individuals who are residents of such
State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or
would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the
requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the
interest of national security.
Sec. 8048. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or
employee of the Department of Defense who approves or
implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or
budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity
financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal
agency not financed by this Act without the express
authorization of Congress: Provided, That this limitation
shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for
in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts
providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 8049. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles
and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for
the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to
transfer to another nation or an international organization
any defense articles or services (other than intelligence
services) for use in the activities described in subsection
(b) unless the congressional defense committees, the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
(b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
(1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United
Nations Security Council resolution; and
(2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
(c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services
to be transferred.
(2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or
services to be transferred.
(3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or
supplies--
(A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of
all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve
components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be
transferred have been met; and
(B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be
transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the
President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
Sec. 8050. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay
a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense
for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee
when--
[[Page H4264]]
(1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of
the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
(2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated
with a business combination.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8051. During the current fiscal year, no more than
$30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be
transferred to appropriations available for the pay of
military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available
for the same time period as the appropriations to which
transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in
connection with support and services for eligible
organizations and activities outside the Department of
Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, in the case of
an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for
which the period of availability for obligation has expired
or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of
title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative
unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an
adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current
appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or
closed account if--
(1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable
(except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before
the end of the period of availability or closing of that
account;
(2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to
any current appropriation account of the Department of
Defense; and
(3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is
not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department
of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note):
Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if
subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was
not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in
the account, any charge to a current account under the
authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded
against the expired account: Provided further, That the total
amount charged to a current appropriation under this section
may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total
appropriation for that account.
Sec. 8053. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of
equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by
any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable
basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish
the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case
basis.
(b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be
credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance
Learning Project and be available to defray the costs
associated with the use of equipment of the project under
that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such
purposes without fiscal year limitation.
Sec. 8054. Using funds available by this Act or any other
Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a
determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States
Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required
heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military
Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That
in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include
the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy
for municipal district heat to the United States Defense
installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army
Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat
may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services,
if provisions are included for the consideration of United
States coal as an energy source.
Sec. 8055. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of
this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to
military forces for operational training, operational use or
inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does
not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and
test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for
operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does
not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence
Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may
waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying
in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national
security interest to do so.
Sec. 8056. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made
available to provide transportation of medical supplies and
equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and
funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made
available to provide transportation of medical supplies and
equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health
Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military
project.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the
bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk will read as follows:
Sec. 8057. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to approve or license the sale of the F/A-22 advanced
tactical fighter to any foreign government.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Granger
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Granger:
Strike section 8057 (page 73, lines 6 through 8).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply deletes section 8057
of the underlying bill. While there was merit in including this
provision in 1997 when it was first enacted, the provision has become
unnecessary due to comprehensive safeguards enacted into permanent law
under the Arms Export Control Act, which is vigorously enforced by the
Department of Defense.
I believe this provision of this bill is no longer necessary to
safeguard our technology. I have discussed this amendment with both
sides, and I ask that it be adopted.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the original language I thought was extremely important
at the time that it was adopted by the House. It was adopted as an
amendment by Mr. Obey in 1997. But I believe that probably it has
outlived its necessity.
I would say to the gentlewoman that we will agree to this amendment.
However, I would like to advise her and the House that as we move to
the conference on this bill, we are going to be extremely involved in
determining that the protection of our technology will be very, very
positive. This aircraft, this weapons system, has a lot of great
technology that we have to protect. So we have to work out the proper
language, and we will do that as we go through the conference.
We are willing to accept the amendment with that understanding.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think the House needs to understand the history of
this. Back in 1997, when the F-22 was first being contemplated, there
was a controversy about whether it should be built, whether it was
needed, given the capability of our other aircraft. We were told that
we had to go ahead and construct the plane because we had given away so
much technology by selling other high performance aircraft, F-15s, F-
16s, that we had to regain our technological edge.
So I said, well, if that is the case, if we are going to build the
thing, at least let's make certain that we hang onto our technology
edge this time. Hence, the language in section 8057.
Now, I must confess that times may have changed, but I don't know
that we are yet at the point that would justify removing these
limitations. My own preference, given my biases about arms sales around
the world, my own preference would be to impose the same kind of
limitations on new aircraft that we are developing, such as the F-35,
as we impose now on the F-22. But I recognize that that is not in the
cards, given the mindset of the Congress these days.
So given that fact, I would simply say that I have indicated on
numerous occasions that I have an open mind and I would be willing to
be persuaded, but I am not yet convinced that we are at the point where
we ought to relinquish the controls on the export of this aircraft.
I recognize what the committee is about to do, but I am significantly
uncomfortable with it, and I am certainly not convinced that we have
reached the point where we ought to remove these restrictions. I would
simply ask the chairman, I would hope that if the committee does intend
to accept this amendment, that it will have an in-depth discussion with
the Pentagon to make certain that we know exactly what we are doing in
terms of the kind of technology that we might be letting loose, that it
might not be in the interest of this country to do.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman
that protecting this technology is extremely important to this
chairman. This is a super aircraft. It is just an unbelievable weapons
system. Mr. Murtha and I have both seen it fly, we have talked with the
pilots who fly it, we have seen the systems that they use, and this
gives us technology superiority in the air. Anyone that goes into
[[Page H4265]]
any kind of a battle will tell you that they want to make sure that
those aircraft overhead belong to us and not to the other guys.
So we are going to be extremely careful before we allow this to
happen, that the technology will be protected and that it will be
available, the aircraft, the sales would only be available to those who
are unquestionable supporters, and allies, of the United States.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that is useful, but I am
still concerned about the fact that we will be allowing a very high-
technology aircraft to wind up in the hands of people who may be allies
today, but God knows what they are going to be tomorrow.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I find the exchange between the Chair, the ranking
member, and the gentlewoman from Texas to be very interesting; I
appreciate the sensitivity with which it is being approached by the
subcommittee as we move on to conference. I hope that there will be a
way, sooner, rather than later, that we can have a broader conversation
about export controls and about dual use technology, because I am
hearing on a regular basis that we are not correlating these in ways
that are in the best interest of our national security and in terms of
the way that we are practicing technology control in the ordinary
course of business.
Now, in the International Relations Committee we have fallen a little
short of the mark because we haven't come forward with legislation
under our jurisdiction dealing with an update of this issue. I would
hope that the conversation that the chairman talks about could be done
in a broader context in terms of what we are doing, to make sure that
we are not driving other areas of technology overseas and working to
our competitive disadvantage.
I have also heard stories that I believe to be credible, which I look
forward to maybe advancing further with the distinguished gentleman,
where there have been situations where our allies are using our
equipment, but we have artificial barriers in place to be able to have
them use things like spare parts and technical manuals to be able to
use them. I've heard there are odd sorts of jerry-rigged solutions that
take place in the theater of battle that look to be on their face
nonsensical and perhaps driving people to do things that in the long
run may provide problems for protecting our technology.
While I have no objection to this amendment and I appreciate the
words of the chairman, I am hopeful that this can be done in a broader
context to make sure that we are achieving our objectives, not freezing
things in amber rather working against the long-term interests of both
American business and American technology.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman makes a very good point, and it has not fallen on deaf ears.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 8058. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each
limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign
sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the
application of the limitation with respect to that country
would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between
the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would
invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of
defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10,
United States Code, and the country does not discriminate
against the same or similar defense items produced in the
United States for that country.
(b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
(1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised
after such date under contracts that are entered into before
such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason
other than the application of a waiver granted under
subsection (a).
(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding
construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings,
food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section
11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and
products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401
through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through
7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211,
8215, and 9404.
Sec. 8059. (a) Prohibition.--None of the funds made
available by this Act may be used to support any training
program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign
country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible
information from the Department of State that the unit has
committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all
necessary corrective steps have been taken.
(b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a
decision to conduct any training program referred to in
subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible
information available to the Department of State relating to
human rights violations by foreign security forces.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in
subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required
by extraordinary circumstances.
(d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of
any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense
shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees
describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and
duration of the training program, the United States forces
and the foreign security forces involved in the training
program, and the information relating to human rights
violations that necessitates the waiver.
Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to
develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the
main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are
manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated
entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in
writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic
supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense
requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition
must be made in order to acquire capability for national
security purposes or there exists a significant cost or
quality difference.
Sec. 8061. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or other Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the
purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military
family housing units of the Department of Defense, including
areas in such military family housing units that may be used
for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense
business.
Sec. 8062. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any new
start advanced concept technology demonstration project may
only be obligated 30 days after a report, including a
description of the project, the planned acquisition and
transition strategy and its estimated annual and total cost,
has been provided in writing to the congressional defense
committees: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive
this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the
congressional defense committees that it is in the national
interest to do so.
Sec. 8063. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a
classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment
of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as
directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
Sec. 8064. During the current fiscal year, refunds
attributable to the use of the Government travel card,
refunds attributable to the use of the Government Purchase
Card and refunds attributable to official Government travel
arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management Centers
may be credited to operation and maintenance, and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts of the Department
of Defense which are current when the refunds are received.
Sec. 8065. (a) Registering Financial Management Information
Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a
mission critical or mission essential financial management
information technology system (including a system funded by
the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with
the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A
system shall be considered to be registered with that officer
upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system,
together with such information concerning the system as the
Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management
information technology system shall be considered a mission
critical or mission essential information technology system
as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
(b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial
Management Modernization Plan.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management
automated information system, a mixed information system
supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system
improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone
A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies,
[[Page H4266]]
with respect to that milestone, that the system is being
developed and managed in accordance with the Department's
Financial Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) may require additional
certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such
system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1).
(c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen
Act.--
(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated
information system may not receive Milestone A approval,
Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or
their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the
Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that
milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance
with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
The Chief Information Officer may require additional
certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such
system.
(2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the
congressional defense committees timely notification of
certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification
shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and
milestone schedule for each system covered by such a
certification and confirmation that the following steps have
been taken with respect to the system:
(A) Business process reengineering.
(B) An analysis of alternatives.
(C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the
return on investment.
(D) Performance measures.
(E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the
Department's Global Information Grid.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior
official of the Department of Defense designated by the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``information technology system'' has the
meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section
5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
Sec. 8066. During the current fiscal year, none of the
funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to
provide support to another department or agency of the United
States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in
arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for
goods or services previously provided to such department or
agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this
restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized
by law to provide support to such department or agency on a
nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support
pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
that it is in the national security interest to do so.
Sec. 8067. Notwithstanding section 12310(b) of title 10,
United States Code, a Reservist who is a member of the
National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under
section 502(f) of title 32 may perform duties in support of
the ground-based elements of the National Ballistic Missile
Defense System.
Sec. 8068. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition
held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire
cartridge and a United States military nomenclature
designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'',
``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing
incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing
demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under
a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing
projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by
the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture
ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of
Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant
to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military
Articles issued by the Department of State.
Sec. 8069. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may
waive payment of all or part of the consideration that
otherwise would be required under section 2667 of title 10,
United States Code, in the case of a lease of personal
property for a period not in excess of 1 year to any
organization specified in section 508(d) of title 32, United
States Code, or any other youth, social, or fraternal non-
profit organization as may be approved by the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, or his designee, on a case-by-case
basis.
Sec. 8070. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall
be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity
of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and
wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such
alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military
installation located in the United States unless such malt
beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the
case of the District of Columbia, within the District of
Columbia, in which the military installation is located:
Provided, That in a case in which the military installation
is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in
any State in which the installation is located: Provided
further, That such local procurement requirements for malt
beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages
only for military installations in States which are not
contiguous with another State: Provided further, That
alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in
contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be
procured from the most competitive source, price and other
factors considered.
Sec. 8071. Funds available to the Department of Defense for
the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year
may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the
satellite and ground control segments of such system's
modernization program.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8072. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $78,300,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other
activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and
carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property,
construction, personal services, and operations related to
projects carrying out the purposes of this section: Provided
further, That contracts entered into under the authority of
this section may provide for such indemnification as the
Secretary determines to be necessary: Provided further, That
projects authorized by this section shall comply with
applicable Federal, State, and local law to the maximum
extent consistent with the national security, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 8073. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter
under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to
apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of
Defense in fiscal year 2007.
Sec. 8074. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in
this Act, $2,500,000 is hereby appropriated to the Department
of Defense, to remain available for obligation until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, these funds shall be available only for a grant to
the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., only for the construction
and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to meet the needs
of military family members when confronted with the illness
or hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary.
Sec. 8075. Amounts appropriated in title II of this Act are
hereby reduced by $71,100,000 to reflect savings attributable
to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of
miscellaneous or other contracts in the military departments,
as follows:
(1) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $31,100,000.
(2) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $35,000,000.
(3) From ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'',
$5,000,000.
Sec. 8076. The total amount appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act is hereby reduced by $22,000,000 to
limit excessive growth in the procurement of advisory and
assistance services, to be distributed as follows:
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $20,000,000.
``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $2,000,000.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8077. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide'', $77,175,000 shall be made available for the
Arrow missile defense program: Provided, That of this amount,
$13,000,000 shall be available for the purpose of producing
Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow
missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's
defense requirements, consistent with each nation's laws,
regulations and procedures: Provided further, That funds made
available under this provision for production of missiles and
missile components may be transferred to appropriations
available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be
merged with and to be available for the same time period and
the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under
this provision is in addition to any other transfer authority
contained in this Act.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8078. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under
the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'',
$436,449,000 shall be available until September 30, 2007, to
fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That
upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the
amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
To:
Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
1999/2007'':
New SSN, $15,000,000;
Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2000/2007'':
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $39,049,000;
[[Page H4267]]
Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2001/2007'':
New SSN, $31,000,000;
Carrier Replacement Program, $318,400,000;
Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2003/2007'':
New SSN, $22,000,000;
Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy,
2005/2009''; and
LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $11,000,000.
Sec. 8079. The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or
compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims under
section 7622 of title 10, United States Code arising out of
the collision involving the U.S.S. GREENEVILLE and the EHIME
MARU, in any amount and without regard to the monetary
limitations in subsections (a) and (b) of that section:
Provided, That such payments shall be made from funds
available to the Department of the Navy for operation and
maintenance.
Sec. 8080. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2007 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007.
Sec. 8081. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
initiate a new start program without prior written
notification to the Office of Secretary of Defense and the
congressional defense committees.
Sec. 8082. (a) In addition to the amounts provided
elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $5,400,000 is hereby
appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made
available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant
in the amount of $5,400,000 to the entity specified in
subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to
opportunities for skilled employment in the construction
industry.
(b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center
for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment,
a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided
for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations
Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth
in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of
1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
Sec. 8083. Financing and Fielding of Key Army
Capabilities.--The Department of Defense and the Department
of the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans
to fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon
(NLOS-C) and a compatible large caliber ammunition resupply
capability for this system supported by the Future Combat
Systems (FCS) Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in order to field
this system in fiscal year 2010: Provided, That the Army
shall develop the NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS
development timeline to achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010.
In addition the Army will deliver eight (8) combat
operational pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of
calendar year 2008. These systems shall be in addition to
those systems necessary for developmental and operational
testing: Provided further, That the Army shall ensure that
budgetary and programmatic plans will provide for no fewer
than seven (7) Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
Sec. 8084. In addition to the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $13,000,000
is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense, to
remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense shall make grants in the amounts
specified as follows: $4,500,000 to the Intrepid Sea-Air-
Space Foundation; $4,000,000 to the Center for Applied
Science and Technologies at Jordan Valley Innovation Center;
$1,000,000 to the Women in Military Service for America
Memorial Foundation; $2,000,000 to The Presidio Trust; and,
$1,500,000 to the Red Cross Consolidated Blood Services
Facility.
Sec. 8085. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2008
submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title
31, United States Code shall include separate budget
justification documents for costs of United States Armed
Forces' participation in contingency operations for the
Military Personnel accounts, the Operation and Maintenance
accounts, and the Procurement accounts: Provided, That these
documents shall include a description of the funding
requested for each contingency operation, for each military
service, to include all Active and Reserve components, and
for each appropriations account: Provided further, That these
documents shall include estimated costs for each element of
expense or object class, a reconciliation of increases and
decreases for each contingency operation, and programmatic
data including, but not limited to, troop strength for each
Active and Reserve component, and estimates of the major
weapons systems deployed in support of each contingency:
Provided further, That these documents shall include budget
exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in the Department of
Defense Financial Management Regulation) for all contingency
operations for the budget year and the two preceding fiscal
years.
Sec. 8086. None of the funds in this Act may be used for
research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or
deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense
system.
Sec. 8087. Of the amounts provided in title II of this Act
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide'', up to $20,000,000 is available for the Regional
Defense Counter-terrorism Fellowship Program, to fund the
education and training of foreign military officers, ministry
of defense civilians, and other foreign security officials,
to include United States military officers and civilian
officials whose participation directly contributes to the
education and training of these foreign students.
Sec. 8088. None of the funds appropriated or made available
in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the
operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the
Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130
Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in
this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd
Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in
support of national defense requirements during the non-
hurricane season.
Sec. 8089. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
available for integration of foreign intelligence information
unless the information has been lawfully collected and
processed during the conduct of authorized foreign
intelligence activities: Provided, That information
pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in
accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment
of the United States Constitution as implemented through
Executive Order No. 12333.
Sec. 8090. (a) At the time members of reserve components of
the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under
section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member
shall be notified in writing of the expected period during
which the member will be mobilized.
(b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of
subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines
that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national
security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements
of the Armed Forces.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 8091. The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds from
any available Department of the Navy appropriation to any
available Navy ship construction appropriation for the
purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from
inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any
ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That
the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under
the authority provided by this section: Provided further,
That the funding transferred shall be available for the same
time period as the appropriation to which transferred:
Provided further, That the Secretary may not transfer any
funds until 30 days after the proposed transfer has been
reported to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, unless sooner notified by
the Committees that there is no objection to the proposed
transfer: Provided further, That the transfer authority
provided by this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority contained elsewhere in this Act.
Sec. 8092. (a) The total amount appropriated or otherwise
made available in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by
$45,000,000 to limit excessive growth in the travel and
transportation of persons.
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction
proportionately to each budget activity, activity group,
subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity
within each applicable appropriation account.
Sec. 8093. For purposes of section 612 of title 41, United
States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made under the
heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' that is not
closed at the time reimbursement is made shall be available
to reimburse the Judgment Fund and shall be considered for
the same purposes as any subdivision under the heading
``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' appropriations in the
current fiscal year or any prior fiscal year.
Sec. 8094. The Secretary of Defense may present promotional
materials, including a United States flag, to any member of
an Active or Reserve component under the Secretary's
jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary,
participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom, along with other recognition items in conjunction
with any week-long national observation and day of national
celebration, if established by Presidential proclamation, for
any such members returning from such operations.
Sec. 8095. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions the
total amount appropriated in title II of this Act is hereby
reduced by $514,800,000, the total amount appropriated in
title III of this Act is hereby reduced by $93,900,000, the
total amount appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby
reduced by $315,900,000, the total amount appropriated in
title V of this Act is hereby reduced by $10,400,000, the
total amount appropriated in title VI of this Act is hereby
reduced by $10,350,000, and the total amount appropriated in
title VII of this Act is hereby reduced by $3,650,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall allocate this
reduction proportionally to each budget activity, activity
group, subactivity group, and each program, project, and
activity, within each appropriation account: Provided
further, That this reduction shall not apply to ``Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund''.
[[Page H4268]]
Sec. 8096. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act,
to reflect savings from favorable foreign currency
fluctuations, the total amount appropriated in title I of
this Act is hereby reduced by $23,200,000, the total amount
appropriated in title II of this Act is hereby reduced by
$32,800,000, the total amount appropriated in title III of
this Act is hereby reduced by $22,100,000, the total amount
appropriated in title IV of this Act is hereby reduced by
$20,200,000, the total amount appropriated in title V of this
Act is hereby reduced by $700,000, the total amount
appropriated in title VI of this Act is hereby reduced by
$700,000, and the total amount appropriated in title VII of
this Act is hereby reduced by $300,000: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense shall allocate this reduction
proportionally to each budget activity, activity group,
subactivity group, and each program, project, and activity,
within each appropriation account.
Sec. 8097. The Secretary of Defense shall, not later than
90 days after the enactment of this Act, submit to the
congressional defense committees a report detailing the
efforts by the Department of Defense Education Activity
(DoDEA) to address dyslexia in students at DoDEA schools:
Provided, That this report shall include a description of
funding provided in this and other Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts used by DoDEA schools to address
dyslexia.
Sec. 8098. Appropriations available to the Department of
Defense may be used for the purchase of heavy and light
armored vehicles for force protection purposes,
notwithstanding price or other limitations applicable to the
purchase of passenger carrying vehicles.
TITLE IX
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Army'',
$4,346,710,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Military Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Navy'',
$229,096,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Marine
Corps'', $495,456,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Military Personnel, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Military Personnel, Air
Force'', $659,788,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Reserve Personnel, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Reserve Personnel, Navy'',
$10,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided under this
heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
National Guard Personnel, Army
For an additional amount for ``National Guard Personnel,
Army'', $251,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance, Army
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'', $24,280,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Navy'', $1,954,145,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps'', $1,781,500,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Air Force'', $2,987,108,000: Provided, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', $2,186,673,000, of which up to $300,000,000,
to remain available until expended, may be used for payments
to reimburse Pakistan, Jordan, and other key cooperating
nations, for logistical, military, and other support
provided, or to be provided, to United States military
operations, notwithstanding any other provision of law:
Provided, That such payments may be made in such amounts as
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of State, and in consultation with the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, may determine, in his
discretion, based on documentation determined by the
Secretary of Defense to adequately account for the support
provided, and such determination is final and conclusive upon
the accounting officers of the United States, and 15 days
following notification to the appropriate congressional
committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense
shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees on the use of funds provided in this paragraph:
Provided further, That the amount provided under this heading
is designated as making appropriations for contingency
operations directly related to the global war on terrorism,
and other unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant
to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made
applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 818
(109th Congress).
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army National Guard'', $220,000,000: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Iraq Freedom Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for ``Iraq Freedom Fund'',
$4,000,000,000, to remain available for transfer until
September 30, 2008, only to support operations in Iraq or
Afghanistan and classified activities: Provided, That the
Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein
to appropriations for military personnel; operation and
maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid;
procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; and
working capital funds: Provided further, That of the amounts
provided under this heading, $2,500,000,000 shall only be for
classified programs, described in further detail in the
classified annex accompanying this Act: Provided further,
That not less than $1,500,000,000 shall be available for the
Joint IED Defeat Organization: Provided further, That funds
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes and for the same time period as the
appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further,
That this transfer authority is in addition to any other
transfer authority available to the Department of Defense:
Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part
of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not
necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may
be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days
prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the
congressional defense committees in writing of the details of
any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each
fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees
summarizing the details of the transfer of funds
[[Page H4269]]
from this appropriation: Provided further, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'', $132,400,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', $1,214,672,000, to remain
available for obligation until September 30, 2009: Provided,
That the amount provided under this heading is designated as
making appropriations for contingency operations directly
related to the global war on terrorism, and other
unanticipated defense-related operations, pursuant to section
402 of H. Con. Res. 376 (109th Congress), as made applicable
to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th
Congress).
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Army'', $275,241,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Other Procurement, Army
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Army'',
$1,939,830,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement,
Navy'', $34,916,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Weapons Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'',
$131,400,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement of Ammunition,
Navy and Marine Corps'', $143,150,000, to remain available
for obligation until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for contingency operations directly related to
the global war on terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-
related operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res.
376 (109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Other Procurement, Navy
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Navy'',
$28,865,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Procurement, Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Marine Corps'',
$621,450,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force'', $912,500,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Missile Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Missile Procurement, Air
Force'', $32,650,000, to remain available for obligation
until September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Other Procurement, Air Force
For an additional amount for ``Other Procurement, Air
Force'', $9,850,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
Procurement, Defense-Wide
For an additional amount for ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
$121,600,000, to remain available for obligation until
September 30, 2009: Provided, That the amount provided under
this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
For an additional amount for ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'', $1,000,000,000: Provided, That the amount provided
under this heading is designated as making appropriations for
contingency operations directly related to the global war on
terrorism, and other unanticipated defense-related
operations, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 376
(109th Congress), as made applicable to the House of
Representatives by H. Res. 818 (109th Congress).
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 9001. Appropriations provided in this title are
available for obligation until September 30, 2007, unless
otherwise so provided in this title.
Sec. 9002. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of
this Act, funds made available in this title are in addition
to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.
(transfer of funds)
Sec. 9003. Upon his determination that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense
may transfer between appropriations up to $2,500,000,000 of
the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this
title: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress
promptly of each transfer made pursuant to the authority in
this section: Provided further, That the authority provided
in this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Department of Defense and is
subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority
provided in section 8005 of this Act.
Sec. 9004. Funds appropriated in this title, or made
available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this
title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be
specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414).
Sec. 9005. None of the funds provided in this title may be
used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in
fiscal years 2006 or 2007 appropriations to the Department of
Defense or to initiate a procurement or research,
development, test and evaluation new start program without
prior written notification to the congressional defense
committees.
Sec. 9006. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the funds made available in this title to the Department of
Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed
$1,000,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to train, equip
and provide related assistance only to military or security
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to enhance their capability to
combat terrorism and to support United States military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such
assistance may include the provision of equipment, supplies,
services, training, infrastructure and funding: Provided
further, That the authority to provide assistance under this
section is in addition to any
[[Page H4270]]
other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations:
Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify
the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives, and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate not less
than 15 days before providing assistance under the authority
of this section.
Sec. 9007. (a) From funds made available in this title to
the Department of Defense, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be
used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to fund the
Commander's Emergency Response Program, for the purpose of
enabling military commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent
humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within
their areas of responsibility by carrying out programs that
will immediately assist the Iraqi people, and to fund a
similar program to assist the people of Afghanistan.
(b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 15 days after the
end of each fiscal year quarter (beginning with the first
quarter of fiscal year 2007), the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report
regarding the source of funds and the allocation and use of
funds during that quarter that were made available pursuant
to the authority provided in this section or under any other
provision of law for the purposes of the programs under
subsection (a).
Sec. 9008. During the current fiscal year, funds available
to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance
may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to
provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift
and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces
supporting military and stability operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall
provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense
committees regarding support provided under this section.
Sec. 9009. Supervision and administration costs associated
with a construction project funded with appropriations
available for operation and maintenance, and executed in
direct support of the Global War on Terrorism only in Iraq
and Afghanistan, may be obligated at the time a construction
contract is awarded: Provided, That for the purpose of this
section, supervision and administration costs include all in-
house Government costs.
Sec. 9010. The reporting requirements of section 9010 of
Public Law 109-148 shall apply to the funds appropriated in
this title.
Sec. 9011. Amounts provided in chapter 1 of title V of the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 are hereby
designated as emergency requirements pursuant to section 402
of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
{time} 1515
Mr. YOUNG of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 114, line
24 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment
at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the
bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 9012. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Government of the United States to enter into
a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
Strike section 9012 (page 115, lines 1 through 4).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I bring an amendment here to the
floor that strikes section 9012 from the bill. The bill language under
9012 says: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used
by the Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights
agreement between the United States and Iraq.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should not foreclose our options in
Iraq, and H.R. 5631 prohibits the United States from entering into any
military base agreement with Iraq. If we rule out all bases, we forego
a critical part of diplomatic relations. My amendment would strike this
section from the bill.
Historically, basing rights agreements have been a necessary part of
diplomatic relations with foreign governments. These agreements outline
guidelines and conditions for operating American military bases
worldwide. It is both common and responsible for the United States to
enter into, and periodically renegotiate, basing rights agreements with
countries hosting American troops. This has been done with every
country hosting U.S. troops including Afghanistan.
The newly elected democratic government of Iraq should be no
exception, and it is likely and appropriate that basing agreements will
soon be negotiated. In this way, my amendment respects Iraqi
sovereignty.
Prohibiting these negotiations will not make the problems go away.
Rather, by refusing to enter into a sensible diplomatic dialogue, the
United States would neglect its diplomatic duties. Opposing my
amendment would tie the hands of those responsible for engaging in
civilized diplomatic relations with Iraq, but supporting my amendment
would allow for prudent decision-making and dialogue with the
independent nation of Iraq.
The use of the term ``permanent bases'' is a loaded term. The BRAC
process clearly demonstrates there is no such thing as permanent U.S.
military bases, even within the United States. Furthermore, military
basing agreements can be negotiated for any length of time, including
short term and temporary, and they can be renegotiated at any time. I
am not proposing installation of permanent bases in Iraq with this
amendment, Mr. Chairman. I am simply asking that the United States be
allowed to pursue this historically necessary avenue of responsible
foreign relations.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I think that this amendment does the opposite of what he would hope.
It sends a signal to the American public: we expect to spend time there
forever. Permanent bases can be negotiated at any time with the
government. What we are saying with this bill is that at this point in
time there shouldn't be any permanent bases in Iraq. And when you
strike this language, it does the opposite of the impact the gentleman
wants to have.
As I travel around the country, I hear this all the time. I hear the
President say no permanent bases, I hear the Secretary of Defense say
no permanent bases in Iraq. I am just reiterating what the policy of
this country is, that we shouldn't have permanent bases in Iraq.
Once we start down this road of permanent bases, I remember reading
something where Harry Truman said we would be out of Germany in two or
three years; we were there for 50 or 60 years. We are spending almost
$8 billion a day, or a month, in Iraq. And I think one of the bases
that we were going to build, the construction costs were almost double
what they anticipated the permanent base we were looking at or at least
the temporary base we were looking at would be. I can't imagine what a
permanent base would cost if you are going to build it. You have got to
have permanent security. There are all kinds of things that have to be
built in.
This is not the time to eliminate a provision like this, and I would
hope that the gentleman would withdraw this amendment because it is
very disruptive to what our troops are doing. We are trying to figure
out a way to solve this problem. And when the gentleman offers an
amendment like this, I think it has the opposite impact of what he is
trying to do.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, all of us think that things that we say in this House
are extremely important and to all of the Members in the House. But on
occasion there are things that are said in this House that are heard by
a lot of people not only in the House, not only in our districts, but
in other parts of the world.
I understand Mr. King's amendment, and I understand how serious he
considers this to be; but what I am worried about is this: if we strike
this prohibition from this bill that was well thought out, what we are
saying to the Iraqi people and what I am satisfied the propaganda
machine of al Qaeda in Iraq are going to do is use this and say:
[[Page H4271]]
see there, we told you so. The Americans plan to occupy us for the rest
of our lives.
We don't have any plan to do that, and we don't want the Iraqi people
to think that we are going to do that, and we don't want the American
people to think that we are going to be constantly occupying Iraq. I
understand Mr. King's interest, and most of the time I agree with him,
but in this case I can't agree with him because I just think it sends
the wrong message not only to the people of Iraq, not only to the
people of America, but to the people of other Muslim nations who might
say, hey, are we next? Are we going to be occupied? Are we going to
have American troops in our streets? We don't want that to happen. We
don't want that message delivered across the oceans. I think that we
have to defeat this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with Mr. Murtha, and I would
invite participation of the chairman if he is so inclined, because I
have an issue that I hope the conferees will consider when they meet to
work out the final version of the bill.
Specifically, I would like to ask that the conferees examine the need
to include funding to provide for the videotaping of interrogations of
detainees in U.S. custody.
Now, as Members of this House know, I have before the House a bill
that would, if enacted, require that all interactions between detainees
at Guantanamo and similar facilities and U.S. personnel be videotaped.
Videotaping interrogations would not only help deter any claims of
actual or potential abuse of detainees, but just as importantly, it
would protect the interrogators from false accusations of abuse.
Indeed, across this country, including in my own district, many
police departments routinely videotape interrogations for precisely
these reasons. It is a powerful and effective tool for protecting both
the interrogator and the one being interrogated.
Additionally, videotaping interrogations would ensure that the
maximum possible intelligence value is gained during and after the
interrogation sessions. If analysts and linguists have the chance to
review videotaped interrogations, they have additional opportunities to
evaluate both the quality of the information gleaned from the
interrogation, but they will also be able to look for body language and
other clues about the truthfulness of the person being interrogated.
And I should mention that the legislation I have and what we are
talking about here has been endorsed by a variety of groups as an
effective way to conduct interrogations with the protections of all
involved, and I know they would be supportive of the conferees acting
on this request. I hope that I can have the cooperation of my friend
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would yield, is it the gentleman's
understanding that such interrogation is not currently being
videotaped?
Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is correct. I am informed, well, most
recently by a trip to Guantanamo by the Armed Services Committee staff,
that videotaping of detainee interrogations has not been conducted
consistently and uniformly.
Mr. MURTHA. I can see some merit to what the gentleman is
recommending, and certainly I will bring it up to the conferees when we
get to conference, and we will see what they say and get some expert
opinions. I can see some merit in what the gentleman is proposing, and
I will certainly do my best to work something out.
Mr. HOLT. Well, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and
related issues. I know the gentleman was instrumental last year in
facilitating the establishment of specific guidelines for the treatment
of detainees, and I hope that once again he can help refine and
strengthen our policies in this area in conference. I thank the
gentleman.
{time} 1530
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished ranking
member
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member and the
entire subcommittee for excellent work on the Defense Appropriations
Act of 2007. This act does an extraordinary job of continuing the
transformation of our forces, while funding our military at war.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that every military threat now and in the
foreseeable future is derived from or impacted by one thing, and that
is our dependence on foreign oil.
We fund a Defense budget of $500 billion this year, including
supplemental spending. Of that amount, $10.6 billion is spent on the
Pentagon's direct energy costs alone, and of that $10.6 billion, $4.7
billion bought one thing, fuel for our Air Force planes. That is about
the same amount as the President has budgeted for the National Cancer
Institute this year alone.
The Department of Defense uses 97 percent of all Federal fuel
consumption, and half of that is used for fuel for the Air Force. A
single F-16 can burn 28 gallons of gas a minute, in fact.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, $10 million for the Air Force's
alternative fuels research program to help reduce our reliance on
foreign oil to fly our own Air Force planes is not included in the
budget.
I was going to submit an amendment that I would let the Air Force
allocate $4 million for B-52 synthetic fuels testing, $3 million for
other synthetic fuel testing, and about $3 million for studies on
synthetic fuel and suitability for use in jet engines. However, I will
not proceed with my amendment in the hope that the honorable gentleman
and ranking member will pursue this effort during conference with the
Senate.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I think you are absolutely right. Matter of
fact, 10 years ago, we put language in that would allow them to produce
jet fuel from coal. The Air Force did not particularly like it, did not
particularly agree with it, but now this particular year they said to
me this could reduce the cost of their fuel substantially. So I agree
with you, and we will do everything we can to work this thing out.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I
know he, above all people, realizes that our energy dependence is a
national security issue that we must triumph over. I thank the
gentleman.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Castle:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be obligated or expended to provide award fees to any
defense contractor for performance that does not meet the
requirements of the contract concerned.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me just start by thanking the gentleman
from Florida and the gentleman from Pennsylvania and their staffs for
their exemplary work on what is not easy legislation. What I am about
to discuss is something that has been brought more to light this spring
than it had been brought heretofore, but I think it is documented
enough that we should try to add it to this bill. It is a simple but,
in my judgment, much-needed amendment to the legislation before us
today.
Currently the Department of Defense spends over $200 billion annually
to acquire products and services from defense contractors, including
everything from spare parts to major weapons systems. In an effort to
encourage contractors to perform at the highest level possible, the
Department often gives its contractors the opportunity to collectively
earn billions of dollars through monetary incentives known as award
fees.
[[Page H4272]]
Unfortunately, while there is no doubt that U.S. weapons programs
continue to be the best in the world, the Department's acquisition
process has at times run into problems such as dramatic cost increases,
late deliveries, and significant performance shortfalls, wasting
billions of dollars in critical funding.
In response to these setbacks, Congress recently asked the General
Accountability Office, known as GAO, to study the Department's use of
incentives and the role they play in the acquisition system. On April
5, the GAO reported that the Pentagon's current incentive practices
often do not hold contractors accountable for achieving desired
outcomes and routinely undermine efforts to motivate contractor
performance.
Specifically, the GAO noted that the Department regularly provides
these bonuses to contractors, often giving them second, third and
fourth chances, despite the fact that the contractor's work does not
fulfill the Department's expectations.
As part of its report, the GAO issued detailed recommendations for
how the Department could improve its strategy for using incentives to
motivate exceptional performance. The Pentagon has concurred with the
majority of GAO's suggestions, and during consideration of the fiscal
year 2007 defense authorization bill in May, I successfully included an
amendment by voice vote that would implement these reforms.
While the language included in the authorization bill is a crucial
step forward, the effectiveness of these changes will ultimately be
determined by how well GAO's recommendations are executed.
The Pentagon recently identified significant cost overruns in 36 of
its major weapons systems. With such costs rapidly increasing, my
amendment ensures that none of the funds provided in this bill will be
used to continue the wasteful incentive practices identified by GAO.
As the Department moves forward in complying with GAO's findings,
this amendment will provide an additional safeguard, to make certain
that these funds are not wasted in violation of the new incentive
guidelines.
Mr. Chairman, cost increases and business management weaknesses
damage our government's ability to provide our men and women in the
military with the resources to keep us safe. While we obviously have a
lot of work ahead of us to improve the efficiency of military spending,
I believe this amendment is a simple way to work with the Department to
make certain that incentives are being used to maximize its return on
investment and provide soldiers with needed capabilities at the best
value for the taxpayer.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is well aware of the issue that the
Castle amendment addresses. In fact, the subcommittee had scheduled a
hearing to look into not only this issue, but a number of other
acquisition issues where we believe that there can be some performance
changes. Unfortunately, because of a heavy voting day on the floor, we
had to postpone that hearing, which will be held sometime in July now.
In view of that, I want to say that I agree with what Mr. Castle is
offering, and I am certainly prepared to accept his amendment. I think
it is a good amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle/
Shays amendment. As chair of the Science Committee, I oversee the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the
critical weather forecasting services it provides. NOAA is a partner
with the Air Force on the next generation of weather satellites, known
as NPOESS.
In May I held a hearing about an Inspector General report on NPOESS.
One of the key findings of that IG report was that the contractor
received excessive award fees for a problem-plagued program. Over the
first 3 years of NPOESS--September 2002-September 2005--the contractor
received 84 percent of the award fee available to it, for a total of
$123 million. This occurred despite the fact the NPOESS is more than 5
years late and its total costs have risen from $6.5 billion to $11.5
billion. In my mind, that does not represent performance worthy of $123
million in award fees.
Another investigative body, the GAO, found that excessive award fees
are not unique to NPOESS, but are a problem throughout the Department
of Defense. Mr. Castle's, amendment directly addresses specific
recommendations in that GAO report by prohibiting payment of award fees
if contractors do not meet expectations.
It is absolutely vital that the major programs like NPOESS succeed.
NPOESS will provide our ``eyes in the sky'' for both civilian and
military weather forecasting, and we cannot afford to be stumbling
around blind. We cannot allow the excessive use of award fees to
continue in these major procurement programs and must hold contractors
accountable for how they spend taxpayers' money. I strongly support the
Castle/Shays amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Mr. Castle's amendment to
prohibit the Department of Defense from awarding bonus fees for good
performance to any defense contractor that does not meet the contract's
requirements.
Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed we need to debate this subject. I'm
disappointed that while our servicemen and servicewomen are in harm's
way, and while the Congress and the American taxpayer are spending
billions of dollars to ensure they have all the resources and equipment
they need, the Defense Department is paying bonuses to companies that
haven't earned them and companies are accepting bonuses that are not
due to them.
During consideration of the Defense Authorization Act, we wisely
passed an amendment also authored by Mr. Castle that requires the
Defense Department to develop and issue standards that link award and
incentive fees to desired program outcomes, such as meeting cost,
schedule, and capability goals. I look forward to the Department
implementing these standards, but until they do we should ensure
unwarranted and undeserved payments are not paid.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, hell hath no furry like an electronic warfare officer
spurred into action.
This field is quite technical and obscure, but provides one of the
keys to answering the question of why the United States can command the
skies with such few casualties.
While the Air Force has eliminated its fleet of tactical jamming
aircraft, the United States Navy has kept theirs, based on the EA-6B
Prowler aircraft. The Navy's choice in this field appears to be
superior because during conflicts with Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and
Afghanistan, our joint combatant commanders have routinely denied entry
to U.S. tactical aircraft in a theater of war unless there was a
Prowler present to ensure that enemy air defenses were rendered blind
or under attack.
Mr. Chairman, the Prowler fleet is now aging. Most aircraft are well
over 30 years old and are planned to be replaced by the electronic
attack variant of the F-18, the F-18G or so-called Growler. The Growler
is vital to maintaining the safety of future Navy air crews sent into
harm's way against competent air defense forces.
Mr. Chairman, under the committee's mark we changed the President's
request from buying 30 F-18E and Fs and 12 Growlers to buying 42 F-18E
and Fs. This would dramatically delay the F-18 Growler line for a year
and may present a gap in the force protection for Navy air crews sent
into harm's way.
Mr. Chairman, I would like your assurance that when we move this bill
to conference, if there is an additional 302(b) allocation available,
we might be able to address this critical 12 aircraft F-18G, Growler,
model procurement so that we make sure that Navy air crews have not
just what they need now, but what they need in the future with regard
to tactical jamming aircraft.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding,
and I would say to the gentleman, as you and I have discussed this many
times, the importance of this capability cannot be overstressed. It is
extremely important.
The gentleman has reminded me, and I remember very well, in Kosovo
and Bosnia we had to bring the EA-6Bs from all over the world to
concentrate on their mission there. So the additional capability, I
think, is well-intended. I will be glad to work with the gentleman as
we go to conference.
[[Page H4273]]
As you are well aware, our 302(b) allocation was $4 billion less than
the President's request, and so we had to do some cutting.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that we would have liked to
have done that we just could not do. The money was not there, but the
gentleman makes a very important point that this capability is
extremely important, I think more so than most people realize, but as
an officer who flew in those aircraft, you know an awful lot about
this.
So I am with you. I want to do the best we can to enhance our
capability. Thank you for bringing this issue to the Congress.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and wish to work with
you and the Chief of Naval Operations on this and make sure that we can
work together in conference to make sure our Navy air crews have full
electronic support.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
At the end of the bill, insert the following provision:
Sec. . It is the sense of Congress that the Department of
Navy is to be commended for having the highest percentage of
Alternative Fuel Vehicles acquired by any federal agency
during fiscal year 2005.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the Navy for having
the best record for purchasing alternative-fuel vehicles of any agency
in the Federal Government. Whereas the overall record for all agencies
is just 26 percent of all new acquisitions being alternative-fuel
vehicles, the Navy had a 62 percent of AFVs, which is 2,722 of the
4,338 vehicles they acquired.
I have been making these amendments on every appropriations bill
because I feel so strongly that we ought to have the different agencies
abide by the laws that Congress passes which would require them to
purchase more alternative-fuel vehicles.
The Army is also to be commended because this one agency purchased
8,835 alternative-fuel vehicles, about 50 percent of the 17,703
vehicles the Army acquired last year. In fact, the Army acquired more
AFVs than all the other civilian agencies combined.
Many of you may think that I am fast becoming a broken record coming
to the floor and talking about alternative-fuel vehicles. I prefer a
more apt metaphor: I feel like the squeaky wheel.
From the bottom of my heart, I believe that our Nation's addiction to
oil has a direct threat to our national security. The Federal
Government has to lead the way that will ease our dependence on
unstable, undemocratic, oil-producing sheikdoms.
The bill before us today pays for the costs of our operations in
Iraq, paid for with taxes from the American people. At the pump the
American people pay for gasoline, and some of the profits are finding
their way into the pockets of the terrorists that our brave men and
women are fighting right now. So, in essence, we are paying for the war
on terror twice, and we have to stop this insanity.
The way to do it is to look at alternative means of producing our
energy. We have to take the fight to the terrorists before they come
back here, and that is not the only part of the solution. What we do
here at home is obviously just as important. So ending our dependence
on oil must be a key to this.
Just yesterday Roll Call ran a special section called, ``Fueling
Alternatives.'' There were editorials by myself, by Senator Burns,
former Senators Dole and Daschle, and we all spoke of the importance of
ethanol as an alternative fuel. Columns by Senator Bayh and
Representative Kingston talked about providing incentives to consumers
to purchase alternative-fuel vehicles. I am doing a bill with
Representative Kingston that would do exactly that, wean us off of
Middle Eastern oil.
We have a broad, bipartisan group of Members of Congress who see the
benefits for our national security, our economy and our environment if
we take these steps to end our addiction.
And so I find myself on the floor again, though this time I am
pleased to be able to talk about the good work of two agencies of the
Federal Government; two agencies that are in the forefront of our fight
against terrorism; two agencies that are strained to the limit with
incredible demands; two agencies that have, in the midst of numerous
other missions, taken a small step to lead the way to our safety and
security. So I commend the Navy and I commend the Army and for all that
they do and for being the leaders as well in procuring alternative-fuel
vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, I will cede the point of order, and I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chocola
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Chocola:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be obligated or expended for the development, deployment,
or operation of the web-based, end-to-end travel management
system of the Department of Defense known as the Defense
Travel System.
{time} 1545
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, in 1998, the Department of Defense had a
very good idea. They had the idea that they should consolidate the
literally millions of trips DOD personnel made every year on an
electronic-based travel management system that would result in quicker,
easier, and more efficient travel and thus saving taxpayers money.
Despite the good idea, Mr. Chairman, 8 years and almost $500 million
later, what we have is a no-bid contract to develop a system that is
essentially inoperable, has pitifully low utilization rates, and cannot
even guarantee it can book the lowest applicable airfare. Therefore,
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply limit the money available to
fund this failed effort, which is known as the Defense Travel System,
or the DTS.
Now, I know that some will oppose this amendment and they will say
that we cannot afford to stop the investment now because we have
invested so much and we are so close to success. The unfortunate
reality is that we must stop now because we have wasted so much and
success is nowhere in sight. I think that argument has been made in
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now 2006; and I think it is time to cut our
losses.
After 8 years of development and almost $500 million spent, less than
15 percent of all DOD travel is actually booked on the system.
Logically, that means over 85 percent of the travel in DOD is booked on
traditional travel services. Every trip that is booked on the system is
also manually reviewed by a travel agent to confirm that the
transaction is complete and that it has attained the lowest applicable
airfare because the system cannot guarantee that it can attain the
lowest applicable airfare.
So if you divided the amount of taxpayer money we have invested in
this system with the number of trips that have actually been
successfully booked on this system, each transaction costs about $1,500
before the actual travel cost or the travel agent fee. And what makes
this situation even worse is that there are other GSA-approved
electronic-based travel systems that are fully operational today and do
not cost the taxpayers one penny in maintenance or development cost and
only charge on a per-transaction basis for every successful transaction
when it is actually used.
Mr. Chairman, spending $.5 billion on a travel system that does not
work and nobody uses might actually be worse than the days when the DOD
spent $640 on toilet seats. At least people used the toilet seats.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar all funds in this act for
development, deployment, or operations
[[Page H4274]]
for the Defense Travel System. This would put us back to millions of
individual transactions that would be almost totally unaccountable and
which would have no proper oversight.
I admire the gentleman's goal in trying to come up with a system that
is better than DTS, but I don't think he has done that. He has just
done away with the DTS. We are attempting to get some integrated
financial management at the Pentagon, and DTS is just one of the many
programs that is trying to accomplish this integration. The program has
some problems, but I don't think we ought to kill the effort and go
back to ground zero and start all over again.
The prohibition on spending any money to develop, deploy or operate
would bar the Department from even operating the current system and
would also bar the Department from continuing any improvements to DTS.
This would ultimately leave the Department's 3.5 million active duty
military, reserve, and civilian employees without any travel system.
DTS is currently the only system that can meet the full spectrum of
cost, capability, security, and savings requirements, as well as the
protection of personal information so important to the Defense
Department and its global travelers.
Interrupting development of this important program would cause an
enormous disruption, adversely affecting and, in some cases, seriously
jeopardizing Defense Department mission requirements. I believe this
amendment is well intended, but I believe that barring all funding
would be a serious mistake, so I oppose the amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the amendment
of the gentleman from Indiana. Certainly there is no government agency
or no government Department that is immune from having waste, fraud, or
abuse and duplication; and this does indeed include the Department of
Defense.
I have no doubt that there is much hard work that has been done by
the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the subcommittee, but I
also believe that every single Member of this body has a
responsibility, has a duty in these challenging fiscal times to root
out the waste, the fraud, the abuse, and the duplication wherever they
can find it.
I think that once again, as we look at how much money the taxpayers
have already invested in a system that clearly does not work, when 85
percent, approximately 85 percent of the travel out of DOD is booked in
other systems and only 15 percent in the DTS, clearly there are
alternative systems available. GSA has already approved two E-travel
systems that are being used throughout the Federal Government and could
also be used by DOD.
So what we have now is already $.5 billion that is being invested in
a system that doesn't seem to save any money, and certainly I don't
think the case can be made that it is essential to our national
security or essential to our war effort.
We are sitting here in very challenging fiscal times, when our
national debt, in just a few years, has gone from $5.5 trillion to $8.5
trillion, Mr. Chairman. Of course, at the same time, tax revenues have
escalated. We have personal tax revenues up 15 percent and corporate
tax revenues are up 40 percent. That would seem to indicate that the
challenge in the national debt is on the spending side.
So when you have 10,000 Federal programs spread across 500 to 600
different agencies, it is almost impossible for any one Member or any
one committee to have effective oversight on each and every one. So I
applaud the gentleman from Indiana on his work here. Because we all
know that soon, soon in America's future we will face a very, very bad
fork in the road. One fork is going to lead us to a Federal Government
that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security. There may be no Department of Defense. There may be no Border
Patrol. We will see that in one generation.
The other fork in the road is going to lead to doubling of taxes on
the American people. And that is unconscionable, Mr. Chairman. It is
just unconscionable. We all know the old saying a billion here, a
billion there, and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Well,
it looks like we have at least $.5 billion here that has been spent on
a system that nobody is using, that costs way beyond what the
marketplace is charging now, and there are alternative systems
developed by private enterprise that are doing a better job and being
utilized by others.
So, indeed, our Nation faces two great threats. The war on terror, of
course, is the greatest threat; but we have another threat, and that is
out-of-control spending. And every Member, every Member of this body
has the responsibility to root out the waste, the fraud, and the abuse;
and that is why I salute the gentleman from Indiana for what he has
done.
I don't think the case has been made that this is essential to our
national defense. I don't think the case has been made that it is
helping taxpayers. So we need to prevent future tax increases. We need
to prevent more debt being placed upon our children and our
grandchildren, and I think we need to adopt the amendment of the
gentleman from Indiana, and I once again salute him for his work.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for offering his amendment
to H.R. 5631. Mr. Chocola has been a constant fighter against waste,
fraud, and abuse, and today he offers an amendment that gives us sound
responsible oversight, which is a critical part of our job here in
Congress. He has done us a favor by bringing this program to our
attention.
The Defense Travel System was envisioned as an end-to-end E-travel
system for DOD employees. Yet with the money spent, we could have, for
the next 40 years, given Orbitz $1 million a month; plus, with the
additional $50 million that we are putting in, we could pay them
another $4 million a month just to use their computer system to do
approximately the same thing.
Or else, if we had decided for the 15 percent of the people who are
actually using the system, we could have bought a fleet of $250 million
personal jets and used $1 million a year to fuel those jets up and fly
the people around.
All the facts point to a system that is behind schedule, overbudget,
and inoperably broken, costing taxpayers a lot of money. At times like
this, Congress should help agencies stop digging themselves deeper
holes. This amendment will stop funding this wasteful program and allow
DOD to stop digging themselves into a deeper hole they should not be in
and reconsider a better plan for scheduling, ticketing, and paying for
travel.
I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
ask for a ``no'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or
regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on
December 10, 1984):
(1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277;
112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations
prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of
title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title
22, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes
in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-148).
Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
[[Page H4275]]
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I am offering today is
a simple one. It serves to reaffirm the United States' commitment to
the Convention Against Torture. It does this by prohibiting the use of
funds in contravention of laws and regulations promulgated to implement
the Convention Against Torture.
Now, this may all seem very familiar, because I offered essentially
the same amendment to three appropriation bills on this House floor
last year, and each time the amendment was adopted with near unanimity.
And since those votes, we also passed the amendment of Senator McCain,
which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees
under the law.
But President Bush, in his signing statement of that bill, announced
that he did not feel bound by the restrictions on this administration's
ability to be able to torture individuals who come within the
protection of the United States Government. The Bush administration
says that it can choose to ignore what the United States Congress says
and actually what the President signs, a bill which binds him to
implement.
This House cannot and should not allow the administration to get away
with simply ignoring laws enacted by Congress. This is particularly the
case when we are talking about torture, where the international
reputation of our Nation is at stake.
In addition to refraining from the practice of torture under
international law, we also have a responsibility as a Nation that we
not outsource torture to other countries, that is, that we render, that
we extraordinarily render prisoners who we have captured to other
countries which we know engage in torture, and accept as a promise from
that country they will not torture these individuals, even though these
countries are on the list of the State Department as countries that we
know engage in torture.
This policy must be rejected by this House. We should not and cannot
undermine our standing as the international leader in human rights by
allowing for the outsourcing of torture in the name of the United
States to fight terrorism, because we send a signal to the rest of the
world that we are not willing to abide by the rules that we say we
intend for the rest of the world to adopt.
And make no mistake, that is what this country is doing when it
carries out renditions of prisoners that we have captured to notorious
human rights' violators; it is outsourcing torture. It must be
rejected. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As usual, Mr. Markey is very persuasive, as he has been in the past.
It is important that the United States Congress make it very clear to
anyone who would listen that we do not intend to use torture and that
we do not use torture or inhumane treatment.
As the gentleman suggested, the House agreed with the McCain
amendment, and it was included in last year's legislation.
{time} 1600
We believe that the Markey amendment basically restates existing law,
and because of that we have no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used by the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the
project designated as the ``Wind Demonstration Project''.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this process of challenge earmarks on the
floor is often described at tilting at windmills, so I suppose it is
only proper that we start today with an earmark for the wind
demonstration project.
This amendment seeks to prohibit $6.3 million from being used to fund
this project. It appears that this is the second year in a row that
this project has received multiple millions of dollars in Federal
funding. Last year's defense appropriations included $4.25 million for
this same earmark. It appears the funding was not requested by the
administration.
While little information is made available in this year's report,
last year's conference report indicated that the funding is for a
``wind demonstration project on a U.S. Air Force installation using
domestically manufactured turbines that are new to the U.S. market to
test the security and reliability of wind generation on base.''
So I ask when this country is at war and seeing unprecedented
increases in the Federal debt, why are we spending more than $10
million on windmills for military bases? How is it in the list of
extensive and costly priorities for the United States military that
testing newly introduced turbines rises to the list above research and
development that could save lives? How is it possible in addition that
taxpayers could be asked to spend more than $10 million on an earmark
that doesn't even include such basic information as where this will be
sited or what companies will directly benefit from the funding?
How can we honestly say to Members that Members have a real
oversight, that we have real accountability here when we are spending
millions of dollars?
I would submit that spending like this doesn't just waste precious
defense dollars, but it leaves taxpayers hanging in the wind.
Let me simply conclude by saying that this applies to many amendments
that I will address today. They may be worthy projects, yes, but how
can we justify them? How can we justify using the money in the defense
bill?
Here we have a technology, wind generation. Let me just say in March
2005 at the request of Congress, the Department of Defense issued a
renewable energy assessment that stated that currently 2.5 percent of
the energy used on military installations is already from renewable
sources. This level of renewable energy use meets a Federal goal
already set by the Department of Energy.
In addition the report indicated the best way to increase the level
of renewable energy being used by military installations would be
through purchasing commercially developed renewable energy, not by
spending earmarked money, millions of dollars, to put windmills there.
We know that wind energy is the most unreliable there is, and how we
are supposed to pursue renewable projects to increase energy security
at military installations by installing windmills simply strains
reason.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
There are a lot of ideas that Members of Congress come up with that
the Department of Defense initially opposes, and then they find out all
at once they work.
For instance, some years ago we came up with a research project to
produce fuel for jets out of coal, and now you would think it was the
Air Force's idea, and we will save as much as 50 percent of oil costs
for the jet fuel. This is something where the commercial side is way
ahead, and we certainly ought to be trying to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff:
At the end of the bill (before the Short Title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. (a) None of the funds made available in this
Act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance in the
United States except as authorized under--
(1) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.); or
(2) chapter 119 or chapter 121 of title 18, United States
Code.
(b) For purposes of this section, the terms ``electronic
surveillance'' and ``United States'' have the meanings given
those
[[Page H4276]]
terms in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Young and
Ranking Member Murtha for forging a strong bill to fund our Defense
Department and DOD entities, and I applaud them for their hard work and
dedication. As we consider this important bill today, I appreciate the
opportunity to address a crucial issue.
At the outset, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Inslee for all of his
leadership on this issue, which has been tremendous. We have been
working side by side on this amendment today. I would also like to
thank Mr. Flake that I have introduced legislation along with for his
tremendous leadership. This amendment is, in fact, based on legislation
that I have offered with Mr. Flake. I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen
for all of his leadership.
The bill that I introduced with Representative Flake several months
ago was a bipartisan bill of five Democratic Members and five
Republican Members, and addresses the NSA surveillance program that
almost every Member of this body learned about in the morning
newspaper.
This amendment recognizes two important principles: First, that the
government must have all of the tools necessary and all of the
authority required to pursue al Qaeda and other terrorists who would
seek to harm our country. And second, this amendment recognizes that we
are a Nation of laws.
While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in
electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress
possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United
States, and, in fact, Congress has spoken in this area through Title
III and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
When Congress passed these statutes, it intended that they provide
the sole authority for surveillance on American soil. Our amendment
simply reinforces existing law that the government must obtain a court
order when U.S. persons are targeted or surveillance occurs in the
United States of America.
Recently when the Attorney General testified in the Judiciary
Committee, I asked about the limiting principle of the NSA program; was
it restricted only to international calls; what if the administration
decided tomorrow it had the inherent authority to tap purely domestic
calls between two Americans, did it feel it could do so without court
order; and the Attorney General said that he would not rule it out. He
would not rule out having the pure authority without going to court to
tap the calls between two Americans on American soil.
So what is the limiting principle if this program can change from day
to day without the input of Congress? The only limiting principle is
the good faith of the executive, which, when the executive shows it is
infallible, might be a sufficient limiting principle, but the executive
is no more infallible than we are here in Congress, and so we have a
role to play.
In enacting FISA, Congress specifically sought to balance our
national security interests with legitimate civil liberty concerns. In
so doing, Congress expressly permitted surveillance without court order
for 15 days after the declaration of a war.
Additionally, Congress provided the authority to engage in electronic
surveillance for up to 72 hours without court order.
Furthermore, after the September 11 attacks, the administration came
to Congress and asked us to modify FISA to respond to the new
challenges in the war on terror, and Congress responded by making those
changes.
Electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and others seeking to
harm our country must continue; it simply can and should comply with
the law.
We stand ready to work with the administration if further statutory
revisions to FISA or other authorities are required to meet the new
challenges in the war on terrorism. Until then, we must restore the
rule of law. I urge the House to do so today.
I know my colleagues Mr. Sherman, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Van Hollen will
want to strike the last word to speak on this as well.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee is not here today due to a important personal commitment in
his district, and he asked me to state his opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying that this is an
extremely important provision, and this amendment would do, in my
opinion and in Chairman Hunter's opinion, great damage to the ability
of our country to provide national security for the American people.
That is why the administration also strongly opposes the Inslee-
Schiff amendment. It is a direct effort to cut off the President's
ability to engage in surveillance pursuant to his constitutional
authority, and the authorization to use military force as passed by the
Congress.
The program has been briefed to all members of the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees. They are fully briefed to all aspects of the
terrorist surveillance program and are conducting oversight.
I would just point out NSA Director General Hayden said on January
23, 2006, at the National Press Club, ``The TSP allows interception of
the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda
and related terrorist organizations. There are no communications more
important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al
Qaeda with one end in the United States. The purpose here is to detect
and prevent future attacks.''
In underscoring the importance of this, on January 25, 2 days later,
the President of the United States said, ``The 9/11 Commission made
clear in this era of new dangers, we must be able to connect the dots
before the terrorists strike so we can stop new attacks.'' And the NSA
program, he said, is doing just that.
Those of us on the Armed Services Committee and other Members of
Congress in various other capacities work night and day trying to
provide a high level of national security for our country. This
amendment would do damage to that effort. It would make that effort at
least much more difficult.
To the credit of the CIA and to the credit of the administration and
our government generally, we have been able to get through the years
since September 11, 2001, without additional attacks.
The activities are reviewed for this program every 45 days. We are
making every attempt to make sure that this program is carried out
correctly and safely and doesn't infringe on the rights of the American
people. The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly
reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials,
including NSA's general counsel and inspector general.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The problem we have here is those of us who have been briefed on the
program, even though admittedly we were not briefed until it became
public, can't talk about the program. I was briefed for an hour and 45
minutes, and I feel comfortable that there are adequate safeguards. But
we can't talk about the safeguards.
I asked NSA, what can we say about the program and not violate the
security? And they said, well, you have to look at what the President
said. Well, I looked at what the President said, and he didn't say very
much. This is a real problem we are getting into, and the more we talk
about it, the more difficult it makes it.
Now you are actually authorizing this program. If you vote for this,
you authorize this program. You say you have safeguards. That is what
you are going to have. If this passes, this authorizes this program. At
one point we couldn't even say that this program existed. So I think
this is a very difficult time for those of us who have been briefed
about it.
{time} 1615
And I know there are a lot of people in the executive branch that
know about it. But the way I read this amendment, you say follow the
proper procedure and you agree with the amendment. You agree with the
procedures. I think that there is some real benefit if they do it
right. But if this passes, I think you ought to know this is
authorizing the program. And if it
[[Page H4277]]
fails, you are saying, in fact, let them go ahead and not pass. So we
are in a catch-22 position here, Mr. Chairman. And we can't talk about
it at all. And I think we have to be careful that more and more people
don't talk about it so that more people don't know the value of the
program. We have got a heck of a problem here. And I recommend we vote
against it. But if we vote against it, then we actually are saying,
well, you can go ahead with the program as it is. And yet I believe
there are enough safeguards. But if we pass it, we actually are
authorizing the program.
I don't even know if we can work it out, Mr. Chairman, because there
are so few people that really know about the program.
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MURTHA. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The amendment says
that there is a prohibition on using funds to fund this program unless
it meets the requirements of FISA. Any part of the program that does
meet the requirements of FISA, meet the existing law passed by the
Congress, could continue to be funded. Those parts that don't meet the
requirements of FISA, the administration will have to go back.
Mr. MURTHA. Let me take back the time. I agree with that. I agree.
And I think there are sufficient safeguards in the program already. We
are in a bad situation here, Mr. Chairman. I don't know that I can say
any more.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment. As Mr. Murtha has suggested, there is a lot that can't be
said about this amendment and about this program. But what I would like
to say is, let's don't tie our hands behind our back when we are
fighting a vicious, cruel enemy.
Intelligence is extremely important in the war against terrorism.
First of all, you don't have, in this particular war, you don't have an
army against an army. You don't have a country against a country. You
have terrorists attacking innocent people here in the United States on
September 11, and leading up to September 11, and anywhere else in the
world that they decide that they are going to attack.
One of the best defenses against these attacks is the ability to know
where they might be or when they might strike or what the target might
be. Don't deny the people on the front lines of this intelligence war
and information war and the hot war, don't deny them every tool that
they can possibly have.
As Mr. Murtha said, for those that have been briefed on this program
on a regular basis, I am not aware of anyone who is concerned that the
rights of Americans to their privacy have been violated. I certainly do
not believe that the rights of Americans have been violated in this
program. And so I think it is crucial to oppose this amendment; this is
far beyond politics. It goes a lot deeper. This goes to the safety and
the security of American people wherever they might be. And it is
unfortunate that we can't reveal everything that is done, how it is
done, where it is done, when it is done; but believe me, it is
effective and the privacy of the American people have been protected.
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Yes, of course I would yield.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate
your yielding. And we are up against a vicious enemy, and we ought to
have every power of intelligence and every tool in the tool box and I
completely agree with that. I think we can do that within the laws that
the Congress has passed. And the gravamen of my concern is something
that took place in the Senate, when one of our GOP colleagues asked the
administration, during the debate over the PATRIOT reauthorization,
which I supported, do we need to change FISA. We were making modest
changes to FISA, and the Republican Senator said, Do we need to do
something larger? And the administration response was no, that FISA is
operating just fine as it is.
Now, if there are changes that need to be made, there is a 72-hour
after-the-fact authorization. If that window is too short, it can be
lengthened. If there are other problems, they be changed. And all that
can be changed without disclosing to the public the nature of the
program itself.
I haven't been briefed on it. I am not one of the lucky few, or maybe
I am lucky. But it concerns me when the administration says we don't
need to change existing law, when I think we can retain all of these
tools, but the Congress can play its role in making sure that these
programs are authorized by law, that they are not being conducted
extralegally.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Well, let me reclaim my time and suggest that
if you want to rewrite FISA, you don't do it on the floor on an
appropriations bill. You introduce a bill, or you go to the proper
committee of proper jurisdiction. This is not something you do on the
floor. This is serious. It is not something you do on the floor without
any real hearings or consideration. If you want to change FISA, let the
authorizing committee change it. They are the ones that have the
jurisdiction.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will.
Mr. DICKS. I am also one of those who have not been briefed on this
particular program. But I would like to ask the gentleman, is the
gentleman suggesting that the administration is not complying with
FISA?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am not.
Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, that would certainly clear it up without
getting into any classified information if somebody here, the chairman
of the Intelligence Committee or the chairman of the Full Committee or
someone can say, yes, the administration is complying with FISA, and
they have taken this program to the FISA court for clearance. That is
what people who support this amendment are concerned about, that
Congress enacted legislation here saying that if you want to go out and
gather this kind of information, you have to first go to the FISA court
to get approval and to show cause. I think that is what this really all
gets down to.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Young of
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DICKS. So that is the question we have here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I will continue to yield in just a minute. On
the legal aspects of this, I am going to Mr. Lungren. I think he is
prepared, and he will probably get his own time, because I am limited
to 2 minutes.
But in the minute I have left, I will yield to Mr. LaHood.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am the longest-serving
member of the Intelligence Committee. I am in my eighth year. I am the
vice chairman of the committee.
If it were disclosed, the answers that you want, it would be a
violation of those who serve on the committee and those who have been
briefed. They can't disclose that information. They will be thrown off
the committee.
Mr. DICKS. I was on the committee for 8 years and served as the
ranking member.
Mr. LaHOOD. I know you were. But this is highly classified
information.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has the time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have yielded to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. LaHOOD. This is highly classified information. What you all need
to know is, the people that you have put your trust in, that the
leadership have put their trust in, those that serve on the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, those that serve on the Intelligence
Committee have been briefed. Now you have to trust them that they know
what is going on here.
All 435 members can't be briefed. You know why they can't be briefed,
because we all love to talk and it would get out.
So what I am saying to you, the gentleman from California, the author
of the amendment, you need to trust Mr. Murtha, you need to trust the
chairman of the committee. You need to trust Mr. Hoekstra. You need to
trust Jane Harman. These are people with the responsibility from your
leadership to serve on these committees. They know what is going on.
Mr. SCHIFF. Will the gentleman yield so I can respond to the
question?
[[Page H4278]]
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the other
Members get their own time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into the specific debate on this
amendment because I think there are equities on both sides. But I must
comment on a statement that was just made by the gentleman from
Illinois when he said that the reason this information can't be more
broadly shared is because people in Congress like to talk.
When Mr. Negroponte was before the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee, and I have been an ex oficio member of that committee now
for over 12 years, but when I asked Mr. Negroponte, who, after all, is
the Director of Intelligence, when I asked him whether or not he could
cite a single instance in which any member of the Defense
Appropriations Committee had ever leaked any classified information, he
indicated he could not.
I also asked him, and I think this is an accurate recollection, I
also asked him if he could tell me how many times stories had appeared
in the Washington Times that his own agency thought had been leaked by
the executive branch of government.
And I asked him how many times he thought those leaks had been
provided by the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. And his response
was, to the best of his knowledge, none.
And yet, I want to make clear, not all members of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee have been briefed. Now, I believe they
should have, because taxpayers dollars go through the appropriations
bill, and I think every member of that subcommittee needs to know what
the facts are on this case.
But the fact is, let's not get into the belief that it is the
Congress who routinely leaks. The White House routinely leaks more
classified information than the Congress even has. And anybody who
doesn't believe that doesn't know the score.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I can't quote Mr. Negroponte,
but I can quote Benjamin Franklin who, in 1776, explained the unanimous
decision of the Committee on Secret Correspondence for not telling
their colleagues in the Continental Congress about a covert operation.
And he said we find by fatal experience that Congress--
Mr. OBEY. I am going to take back my time. I was prepared to
entertain a serious question. That is not a serious question. I am not
interested in what happened 200 years ago. I am interested in what is
happening today and tomorrow.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Defense Subcommittee on
Appropriations, as well as the House Select Committee on Intelligence.
I'd like to answer several questions that have come up with this
amendment.
When questioned about the purpose of this amendment, the author said
that he thought that the FISA law, or the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, should be rewritten. And there are some who believe
that legislation should be rewritten because it was originally penned
in 1978, and we have had significant changes in technology since that
time. Each of us carries a phone or BlackBerry, none of which existed
in that format back at the time. So there have been changes that have
gone on to our technology.
But to answer the question of the gentleman from Washington, the
administration does believe that they are within the current law, and
they do believe they have the authority to do what the gentleman has
alleged that they are doing. I don't think that there is anything that
really needs to be expressed much beyond this, except that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) said he believes that FISA
should be rewritten, if it doesn't meet the requirements of today's
environment, it should be rewritten. This amendment doesn't do that.
All this amendment does is strike funds for any electronic surveillance
program in the United States. And I think that would be an opportunity
for putting this country in peril.
One of the reasons we haven't had an attack since September 11, 2001,
is because we have used every means necessary to keep ahead of the
terrorists.
{time} 1630
The terrorists have used videos to advance their ideals. They have
used the Internet. They have used Web sites. They have tried to raise
money and reach out and touch Americans in a negative way again and
again and again. And this country has done everything possible to
prevent that from happening, and they have done it successfully, and
they have done it by using technology. And this amendment appears to be
tying hands on our ability to use technology, and I think that is
wrong.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Very quickly, the only thing the amendment provides is that
surveillance on American soil cannot be funded if it is not in
compliance with FISA. So if you are in compliance, if this program
complies with FISA, it could go on.
Just to address the chairman's point, and this is on the same point
you are making, too, which is we should not be debating this on the
House floor, that you should introduce the bill, and it should be heard
in committee. Mr. Chairman, we have introduced the bill. I along with
Mr. Flake, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Leach, and others have introduced the bill.
We have not been able to get a hearing in committee, and so the only
opportunity for us to raise this issue is on the House floor
Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, I suggest you pursue your bill then,
because what you are doing here absolutely ties the hands of the
Federal Government from protecting us, and it does not rewrite FISA.
Now, let me also make this argument that FISA is a very narrow
portion of our law. There is a much broader scope that is applicable to
the situation necessary to protect this country. So focusing on one
portion of the law is tying our hands and trying to make the whole
world comply with this one narrow segment of law, in my view, it ties
our hand, and I don't think we should do it.
What I would suggest is that you withdraw this amendment, pursue your
bill, along with the Republican cosponsors, because this does tie our
hands. It gives us an opportunity to be less safe, and I suggest the
gentleman withdraw his amendment.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there are times where the Constitution needs to be
considered, and this is one of those times. Those of us who support
this amendment, I hope that both Republicans and Democrats will do so
because I think Republicans and Democrats ought to agree on one central
proposition, and that is the proposition that our government ought to
protect our citizens aggressively, assertively. We need electronic
surveillance to be doing it to the full extent of the law, and that
intelligence should be done in compliance with the American way.
There is an American way to do intelligence, and there is a Chinese
way to do intelligence. There is a Turkish way to do intelligence.
There is a Russian way to do intelligence. And there is an American way
to do intelligence. And the American way to do intelligence is to do a
very simple thing: Comply with the law that has been passed and signed
by Congresses and Presidents.
And all this amendment does is say a very simple proposition: You
don't spend taxpayers' money to do illegal acts by the Federal
Government. That is all it says. And when it passes, we will do
assertive, aggressive intelligence of these scoundrels by doing a very
simple thing: Get a warrant. And if you do not have time to get a
warrant, get it 72 hours after you do the intelligence, because the
FISA Court allows that to happen. That is the simple proposition here.
Now, why is that important? It is important because the people who
fought the Revolution realized that no American is perfect, and that
includes no American President. To the proposition that all men are
created equal, you can add the proposition that no
[[Page H4279]]
man is created perfectly. And that is why we demand some judicial
oversight on this.
And, by the way, the central argument I have heard about this is that
a few Congressmen have said it is okay, apparently. Well, calling a few
Congressmen is not enough under the law. Why? Because the law is very
specific. It says that each application for an order approving
electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a
Federal officer in writing, upon oath or affirmation, to a judge. To a
judge. And we are great Congressmen. I have eminent respect for all the
people who were briefed on this. But not a single one of them wears a
black robe, and not a single one of them was given authority by the
United States Constitution to make this decision. Calling Ray or Norm
or any of my great colleagues and saying, ``Does this sound okay to
you,'' is not enough in American democracy.
Now, we have had other occasions in our democracy where we have been
challenged by fear, and I do not want to see us succumb to that again.
And for those of us who think it shouldn't bother us, the President is
not going to bug us, other nations have lost their liberty because of
that attitude, because some Supreme Court Justice said loss of liberty
does not come like a curtain coming down like a thunderclap. It comes
the way the twilight comes, gradually, and you do not notice.
Do not wink at this potential violation. Say that we are going to do
intelligence the American way. For those people in Iraq and Afghanistan
who are risking their lives for democracy and the liberties we enjoy,
don't we have enough gumption to send a simple message to the executive
branch of the United States from the U.S. Congress, a very simple
message that we expect the law to be fulfilled, that our personal
protection to be fulfilled by getting a warrant the way the law
requires? That is all that we require.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
There has been a lot of talk about following the law. People seem to
ignore what Griffin Bell said at the time the Carter administration
brought this bill before the Congress to be passed into law. At that
time he very carefully said that enactment of FISA did not exclude the
authority the President has under the Constitution.
We have heard on this floor about illegal acts. I would remind my
colleagues that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, and
the President has inherent authority under Article II of the
Constitution in this area. We may not like it, but the fact of the
matter is that is one of the reasons you have elections for a
President, to have the authority and the power that he has under the
Constitution. The vesting clause of Article II of the Constitution
which gives the President executive authority, coupled with his
authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, forms the basis
for the surveillance of al Qaeda members and those who are affiliated
with al Qaeda.
The President's actions are certainly consistent with the Founding
Fathers, as expressed in John Jay's observation in Federalist Paper No.
64: ``The President . . . will be able to manage the business of
intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest.'' An examination
of historical records makes clear that the Founding Fathers intended
the President to have primary, if not exclusive, control over the
business of intelligence. We may not like it, but that is what the
Constitution establishes. We may have a FISA law, but that does not
restrict the President if, in fact, he has inherent authority under the
Constitution.
The argument that the President has somehow violated the law
misunderstands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Congress has no more authority to intrude on the executive authority of
the President than the President does on the enumerated authority of
the Congress. As James Wilson argued during the ratification debate in
his own home State of Pennsylvania: ``The President of the United
States can shield himself and refuse to carry into effect an act of
Congress that violates the Constitution.'' In the same context, John
Jay points out in Federalist 64 that ``it surely does not follow that
because they have given the power of making laws to the Legislature,
that therefore they should likewise give them power to do every other
act of sovereignty by which the citizens are to be bound and
affected.'' The United States Supreme Court summed it up well in Ex
parte Miligan: ``Neither can the President in war more than in peace
intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the
proper authority of the President. Both are servants of the people,
whose will is expressed in the fundamental law.''
It is interesting to note for those who have talked about historical
record that the First Congress, which created the Department of
Treasury and the Departments of War and Foreign Affairs, gave Congress
access to the records and papers of the Treasury Department, but not to
the Departments of Foreign Affairs and War. It is clear that the power
of the President vis-a-vis Congress was broader with respect to foreign
affairs than it was in the domestic realm of governance. We may not
like it, but that is what the Constitution says.
According to Madison, the ultimate check on Presidential power
possessed by the Congress rests with the ``first principle in free
government.''
According to John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the limits on such
Presidential authority must be found elsewhere in the Constitution
itself.
Look, we ought to look at what Justice White observed in his
concurring opinion in the Katz decision. These are the words of Justice
White: ``Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been
authorized by successive Presidents.'' In other words, it did not start
with this administration. He said, ``The present administration would
apparently save national security cases from restrictions against
wiretapping.'' Again, Justice White's words: ``We should not require
the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of
the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has
considered the requirements of national security and authorized
electronic surveillance as reasonable.''
As explained publicly by the President, he followed the prescription
of Justice White. He has personally had hands-on over this. He has had
his Attorney General with hands-on authority over this. But then in
addition, he did notify the Congress. He notified the leadership of the
House and the Senate. He notified the leadership of the House and the
Senate committees of jurisdiction. No, he did not notify all of us, but
he comported with the law and the interpretation of the Constitution
suggested by Justice White.
I would suggest if one looks up the definition of the word
``moderate'' in Webster's Dictionary, you would find the picture of
Justice White. He started the middle ground on all of this.
So I would suggest, as we look at this, we understand that we may
have a debate about how the President has done it, but to suggest that
what he has done is unlawful or illegal does not recognize either the
Constitution or the comments of the Founding Fathers in support of the
Constitution.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, when President Carter signed the FISA into law, he said
in his signing statement: The bill requires for the first time a prior
judicial warrant for all electronic surveillance for foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States in
which communications of U.S. persons might be intercepted. It clarifies
the executive's authority to gather foreign intelligence by electronic
surveillance in the United States. It will remove any doubt about the
legality of those surveillances which are conducted to protect our
country against espionage and international terrorism. It will assure
FBI field agents and others involved in intelligence collection that
their acts are authorized by statute, and, if a person's communications
are concerned, by a court order, and it will protect the privacy of the
American people.
In my reading of FISA, and I served for 8 years on the Intelligence
Committee, 4 years as the ranking member, I do not think there is an
exception here. I do not think the President of the United States has
inherent authority to violate FISA.
If you took Mr. Lungren's approach to this problem, he can comply
with
[[Page H4280]]
FISA when he wants to. He does not have to do it ever. That simply
cannot be the reason Congress enacted this statute.
I think President Carter had it right when he signed this into law.
There is one way and only one way to gather foreign surveillance
information domestically, and that is you go and get a warrant and go
to the FISA Court first. First. And maybe you have 72 hours to do that.
That is certainly understandable.
But in my mind, if you want to change FISA, change FISA. But I cannot
accept an interpretation that says the President can comply with FISA
when he wants to, and he does not have to comply with it when he does
not think it is in his best interest to do so. He is not a king. He is
a President.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I want people to understand the sweeping
scope of Mr. Lungren's argument. What he argues is that the President
of the United States, during a time of fear and war that we are now in,
has the unchecked, unfettered, unlimited authority to ignore not just
FISA, but any law passed by the Congress of the United States and
signed by any President. His argument here means that no law restricts
this President or any other President to do anything else. Not just
intelligence. Torture, false imprisonment; you go as far as you want.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to ask the author
of the amendment.
Both of you are the authors of this amendment.
There is no restriction on the utilization of money if the President
has complied with FISA; is that not correct?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. That is absolutely right. The only thing that the
amendment does is it says that when you are surveilling people on our
home soil here in the United States of America, it has to be authorized
by FISA. If it is not authorized by FISA, if it is outside of FISA, you
cannot use the funds in this bill.
{time} 1645
The gentleman from Illinois says, ``Trust us. There are some of us
that know the program, trust us. We can't disclose information about
the program here on the House floor.'' I am not asking anyone to
disclose information about the program on the House floor. The only
question raised by this amendment is are we funding programs that are
in contravention of existing law, FISA.
I think you are exactly right about my colleague from California's
argument, which is basically the President has the inherent authority
to do anything he wants when he wants, surveil who he wants when he
wants, how he wants, for whatever reason he wants.
In fact, this is why I made the point. When the Attorney General
testified in committee, he said he believed, as evidently my colleague
from California does, the President has the inherent authority to tap
calls between two Americans on American soil, that he wouldn't rule
that out.
Well, I am not satisfied by an argument that says, trust us. We are
from the government.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think President Carter
had it right. He said all electronic surveillance for foreign
intelligence or counterintelligence purposes in the United States has
to come under the FISA Court. That makes sense. That is, I think, the
purpose of this amendment, is to make certain that the money is being
expended in compliance with FISA.
The gentleman is a cosponsor of this amendment. Is that your
understanding?
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is
exactly right. The President can do all of the intelligence he needs to
do in a way that complies with FISA. That is what we want him to do.
That is what the Constitution requires.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the main sponsor of this
amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it.
I would love for the President to have this authority, as he should
have it. I would love to give him this authority, but I think unless he
is going to go under FISA, he ought to come ask for it. I think that he
needs it, I think it is proper.
But when we are told, as we have been on the Judiciary Committee by
the Attorney General, that he feels that any domestic surveillance
could be okay, he wouldn't rule it out, what isn't allowed? Why does
the President need FISA at all if he can simply go around it? What
purpose does FISA serve? Why did we go through what we went through for
months and months with the initial PATRIOT Act and then for a year to
reauthorize it?
In the end, we had to ask ourselves, after hearing the testimony of
the Attorney General, why did we do this? Why are we so specific and so
careful about the powers that we give to the executive when they can
simply ignore it and go on their own? It simply begs the question if
you are not going to use FISA, why not just run amuck?
I submit that the acid test for Republicans on this has to be, would
we be comfortable if a Democrat were in the White House using this
authority? I have to say I wouldn't be. But nor am I comfortable with a
member of my own party having it.
There is a separation of powers argument here. We are a coequal
branch of government, and I think it is our constitutional obligation
to say if you are not going to use FISA, tell us why. Tell us what we
need to do to make it more applicable.
We have offered that numerous times in the Judiciary Committee, yet
we are told, no, you don't need to change it. Of course we don't need
to change it if they can simply go around it. So I think the
gentleman's amendment is perfectly proper.
Believe me, if this amendment passes, and the administration feels
compelled, they will come directly to Congress and ask for the
authority, but they will do it right, and I think the Congress will be
glad to give it to them. But there has to be bounds here.
We are the elected representatives. It struck me when one of the
Members in opposition to this amendment said a lot of people in the
executive branch know about this program. That ought to be disturbing
to a lot of us, that far more people in the executive branch know about
this program than the elected representatives of the people. Does that
not disturb anybody around here that many people over in the executive
know about it and we don't?
We are told in the National Security Act that the President is
supposed to inform the committees of jurisdiction. It doesn't say a few
members of those committees, the committees of jurisdiction.
I think we simply ought to follow this. This is a reasonable
amendment. I would urge those in my party and the other party to
support it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering
this amendment.
I think we should all be able to agree on a couple things. This is an
extremely important issue. It should be beyond partisan politics. We
should use all our means to intercept communications from al Qaeda for
our national security. We should also abide by the rule of law.
The rule of law is not an a la carte thing. You don't get to pick and
choose which laws you like and which laws you don't like. We don't say
to the American people when we pass statutes in this Congress and they
are duly signed by the President in accordance with the Constitution,
pick the ones you like to comply with and ignore the ones we don't
like.
Well, this President and any President should not be held to any
different standard than the American people when it comes to abiding by
laws duly passed by this Congress and signed by the President in
accordance with the Constitution, and that is what this debate is all
about.
The amendment is very simple. It is so straightforward, I am just
going to read a portion of it right now. ``None of the funds made
available in this act may be used to engage in electronic surveillance
in the United States except as authorized under the Foreign
[[Page H4281]]
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'' and other chapters cited here.
In other words, comply with the laws passed by this Congress and
signed by the President.
Now, we have heard from our colleagues on the Intelligence Committee
to trust us, this is a needed program. A lot of us haven't had the
benefit of that information. But I would say, many of us have not
disputed the need for the program.
Maybe we should have this program. We certainly want to intercept any
communications from al Qaeda. But it does concern me that the members
of the same Intelligence Committee cannot tell us whether or not the
program as it is currently configured is complying with FISA. That
certainly is not a classified thing, whether or not it is configured to
comply with FISA. The fact that the members of the Intelligence
Committee cannot tell us whether it is configured with FISA or not is
troubling.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, all of the articles in the Washington Post
that talked about this said that it wasn't, in some cases. None of us
get in trouble for disclosing that fact. Your amendment doesn't
restrict money if it does comply with it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely. If it
complies with FISA, it is fine.
Now, what is troubling is the Attorney General was asked way back why
he didn't come to Congress to seek changes to the law to accommodate
this program, and he said he considered that possibility, but then he
didn't think Congress would pass it. Well, if that is your conclusion,
you don't get to just say, well, I am going to ignore the law and
circumvent it. You have to work with Congress.
What is really troubling is I think all of us here, if we heard the
same information that members of the Intelligence Committee say they
have access to, would also conclude it may be a necessary program. But
if it is, let's put it within the confines of the law. That is all this
amendment does.
Yes, it authorizes electronic surveillance. We want it to authorize
electronic surveillance. But we want to authorize electronic
surveillance within the confines of existing law, and if existing law
can't accommodate that program, let's come back here, let's pass a
statute and change it.
Those who say FISA hasn't been changed, it is outdated, the fact of
the matter is we have made eight changes to FISA since its enactment in
1978. We can make more changes to FISA right now to accommodate this
program.
But let's just make it clear: If you don't think you can get a law
passed by the Congress, you don't get to choose to ignore it. It is not
an a la carte system. Our Constitution is based on the rule of law. We
can protect the American people, we can intercept al Qaeda
communications, and we can do it in accordance with the rule of law.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. The
debate here and potentially the outcome confirm a very important point:
We do not suffer in this country from a problem of the Presidential
usurpation of power. We suffer from congressional dereliction of duty.
It is not a case of the President overreaching. It is a case of us
ducking and dodging and letting him do all the tough issues.
This amendment is a very simple one. Now, Members have said on the
other side, I heard the gentleman from Kansas say, why don't you bring
in a bill? Two reasons: First of all, if we brought in a bill, it would
never see the light of day. How can a majority party which has
specialized in strangling legislation at its birth complain when we
don't think that is a good way to debate important issues?
But there is another reason. This is one that can sustain a veto. The
Supreme Court has made it very clear: It will not referee disputes
between the executive and legislative branches. The only way you can
put some restraint on a President who is acting without restraint is by
an amendment that says there are limits on what he can do with the
money.
Now, we have heard selected quotations from John Jay. Poor old John
Jay hasn't been mentioned in years. I am glad his spirit has been
invoked. But nobody much cares about John Jay most of the time.
We have had some Supreme Court cases cited. Youngstown Sheet and Tube
against Sawyer, which restricted the President in a time of war, was
not mentioned.
Let's be very clear: History does not dictate the answer. This calls
on every Member of this House to say what kind of Constitution do you
want? Do you want one in which the President can have unchecked
executive power, not just in time of war, but any time?
We are in what the President now says is a war against terrorism that
is unlikely to have an end. So we are not talking about temporary
wartime powers. We are talking about what kind of Constitution do you
want?
We have a President who has asserted his right to do whatever he
thinks necessary to protect the country, including, remember, arresting
American citizens and having them incarcerated indefinitely with no
chance to present a case. The Supreme Court said, whoa, that goes a
little too far. But this is what the President has asserted with regard
to FISA.
One gentleman said, well, remember what Griffin Bell said. I will be
honest with you, I have found that as a general principle, ignoring
Griffin Bell is a good idea. I have always done that in important
cases. But what Griffin Bell said or didn't say doesn't tell us.
And this is the question, not what John Jay said or this one said,
because you can quote each other to death. What kind of Constitution do
you want? Do you want one where the President of the United States
without any check can do what he thinks best? Because, by the way, the
courts won't be involved here, because they can avoid a court decision
by never prosecuting based on this evidence.
So the only potential check here is if we say no. Yes, you can
wiretap, as long as you can get a warrant. And getting warrants under
FISA is not hard. But we do not like the principle of an unchecked
Presidential power.
I will yield to my friend from California if he will begin by
answering this question: Conservatives tell me they like to be textual
with regard to the Constitution. Would he cite for me, I thought maybe
the Constitution got changed while I wasn't looking, so I went and read
article II, it took about a minute and a half, it is a pretty small
article. I am glad to see the President can get paid. It is right there
in the Constitution.
But would he cite for me the text of the Constitution, article II,
which empowers the President to do this, even if Congress tells him not
to?
I will just add this. With regard to Youngstown Sheet and Tube, as I
recall the analysis, it was there are three situations. I will ask for
additional time, because I would like to have a colloquy. The President
acting alone, the President acting with Congress, and the President
acting in contradiction to what Congress has said.
The analysis has always been acting with Congress, the President is
at the peak of his powers. Acting alone, it is unclear. Acting in
contravention to what Congress has said, he is at his weakest. Here,
since we have FISA, this is in contravention to what Congress has told
him to do.
So I would now yield to the gentleman. Would he begin just by citing
the parts of the Constitution that are relevant, and then, obviously,
he is free to say what he wishes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I was speaking of the vesting clause in the U.S. Constitution
that gives the President with the executive powers----
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Please read it. I would ask the gentleman
literally to please read it, because I think it doesn't say what he
says it says. Please read it.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't have the exact words.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would ask, would a page bring me the
Constitution while we are talking?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. It is the vesting clause of the
Constitution, vesting in the President
[[Page H4282]]
the executive authority, coupled with his authority as Commander in
Chief.
Now, let me just say to the gentleman, so we can make it clear, I
have never argued that the President has this authority in all things,
as some have suggested, to kill people, to do this, to do that. I have
cited authority which suggested in the area of gathering foreign
intelligence, which is about what we are talking.
Secondly, I would just say that the gentleman is right that we do
have the power of the purse.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
{time} 1700
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I don't argue at all that this
is an inappropriate amendment to be considered, because this is the
proper exercise of our authority to the power of the purse. What I have
suggested is the arguments that the President is acting illegally or
unlawfully are not appropriate, because he is acting under the
Constitution, in my judgment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I take back my time. So the gentleman
then agrees with this point. There is nothing inappropriate about this
amendment. So while he believes the President is within his power to do
this, does the gentleman agree that if this amendment is adopted by a
majority, the President would be bound by it?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. He would be bound by it with
respect to the expenditure of funds in this particular bill. I don't
think there is any question about that.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. So that if he can find, I thank the
gentleman and I appreciate that. I take back my time. The gentleman
knows the rules. The gentleman knows the rules. He may not know the
Constitution, but he knows the rules. I take back my time just to say,
so we understand----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let us have the common ground. The
question here, and I think I will accept this, we are not debating
constitutionality here; we are debating what public policy ought to be.
The gentleman from California agrees it is appropriate for us to
consider it and agrees that, if it passes, the President is bound by
it.
Now, I would yield to the gentleman. Are there other places the
President can then find this money? Is that what the gentleman is
saying? If the President were to be bound by this, would the gentleman
suggest the President could then do this anyway in some other fashion?
I would yield to him.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. This doesn't cover all
expenditures of the President under all circumstances. This is limited
to the funds that are contained in this bill, as you know, because it
is an appropriation bill.
But could I mention one thing, because there has been some question
about this. The FISA court of review issued an opinion in 2002 which
stated: all the other courts that have decided the issue held that the
President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches
to obtain foreign intelligence information.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We are beyond that. Look, I do not think
the Constitution, I will be honest with you, I think people decide and
then they pick the----
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Can we talk about----
MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. I am taking back my time. Let us debate
the merits. Let us not hide behind----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I just want to say, stop hiding behind
varying degrees of constitutional interpretation. By hiding behind
them, I mean this: I don't think that people sat and said, oh, geez
this is what John Jay told me and this is what I am bound by. I think
we are talking here about what we think public policy ought to be.
Should the President or should not the President have to get a warrant
through FISA? That is the text of this amendment. Let us debate the
public policy.
I yield first to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to say to the gentleman, I agree with that. I
also think that the American Bar Association looked at this. They came
to the conclusion that the President had to comply with the FISA law.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me just say this. Here is the
constitutional text that my friend from California invoked, and pretty
accurately. Good memory the gentleman has. Article II, section 1: The
executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America, period.
Now, he says that gives him the power. This is circular. Why does the
President have the power? Because he has the executive power. But we
are precisely here defining for ourselves, as Americans today, what the
executive power is and has meant to be. All this says is that he has
the executive power. Does the executive power mean he can lock somebody
up without a trial as he has said it does? Does the executive power
mean he can ignore an act of Congress and wiretap when he wants to?
That is the question. Saying that the executive power is vested in him
simply is a way of putting the question. The question is, What is the
executive power?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to get to
one question that has I think not been answered to the opposition to
this amendment. And that is, the suggestion is by those who know the
program better than I do that parts of it don't meet the requirements
of FISA. And my question is, Why can't this program be authorized by
law? Why can't we change the law to authorize it?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will answer the gentleman's question:
because the President and his supporters do not want to concede that
there is any limit on his power even if he could get this done through
FISA, and that is the----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) has again expired.
Mr. FRANK. I ask for an additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will not
object, but we are talking in circles. We are not even talking about
some of the main issues that are before us. The sponsor of the
amendment just admitted that we are talking about an authorization.
This is an appropriations bill. This should be done at an authorization
committee where you all are.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Just a minute. It is under my reservation.
Let us bring this to a close. We can repeat our arguments so many
times. I withdraw my reservation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his reservation.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. In my remaining minute, I understand, I
will say that my good friend from Pennsylvania I think is probably not
distressed that we are talking about something that is not the heart of
the bill. But the fact is, I will close by this, we are talking about
it here because this is the only enforceable way to put restraints on
the President. And I will tell you why I think it is important.
Chaplain Yee at Guantanamo, Burton Mayfield in Oregon, Wen Ho Lee under
the Clinton administration, there are, sadly, cases of entirely
innocent individuals who were prosecuted and gone after.
I don't think the President is ill intended here. And I think the law
enforcement people are the good guys; I just don't think they are the
perfect guys. So I want to give them power, but I want to subject that
to some check beforehand and some process afterwards. And that is what
we are
[[Page H4283]]
saying here. We are fully in favor of empowering law enforcement, but
we do not want them to be exclusive in the exercise of that power. And
asking that they go before a judge to justify it when they are going to
be wiretapping an American seems to us to be reasonable and to do no
harm to America.
And to repeat my answer to the gentleman from California: the
opponents of this amendment are the proponents of the view that the
President's power should be entirely unchecked, and that is dangerous.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I thank the Chair, and I appreciate the discussion and the debate
that we have had on this amendment. I join with the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee in opposing
this amendment.
It would jeopardize one of the most critical abilities to detect and
prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. In addition, it would
interfere with an ongoing course of oversight that has been conducted
on a bipartisan basis by the leadership in the authorizing committee
since the inception of this program.
It is the day after 9/11 and the President has asked NSA, other parts
of the intelligence community, the military: What is the threat? How do
we most effectively respond? And what is the threat to the Nation? And
he has asked the intel community and the military to come back with
various options as how best to protect the United States in that time
of uncertainty, and the executive branch and the various agencies come
back with a series of proposals as to exactly what they believe can be
done and should be done to keep America safe.
The President doesn't act unilaterally; the President acts in a
collaborative basis. It is not an overreaching of an Executive.
To my colleague from Arizona, if a President of the other party went
through the same processes that this President went through and
exercised these authorities would I support that President? My answer
would be different than my colleague from Arizona; the answer would be,
yes, because the process was very straightforward. Four times within
the first 8 months after 9/11, it was a collaborative process between
leaders of this House and the U.S. Senate who sat down with the
executive branch and reviewed this program in detail. Do you know what
they said? This is a program that is necessary in a time of
uncertainty. We support this program, and it needs to move forward.
We have had some discussions and disagreements as to the extent of
the number of people that should have been briefed on the authorizing
committee. We have worked through that process, and now every single
person who has the desire to be briefed on this program is briefed on
the program and have had the opportunity or will be given the
opportunity when they get new questions to have every single one of
their questions answered.
We have a way ahead on our authorizing committee. The ranking member
has introduced legislation that she thinks may address some of the
issues. But we know that FISA and electronic surveillance is a very,
very difficult issue because technology has changed significantly since
FISA was originally developed. And so we are going to move forward, and
I am thrilled that within the Intelligence Committee we are going to
continue a bipartisan way ahead. It doesn't mean we are going to agree,
but it does mean that we have laid out a process as to what the needs
are of the intelligence community to keep America safe, what the legal
framework is, and evaluate the changes in technology and the
environment so that we can do the necessary oversight and protect and
balance civil liberties with the needs of America's security.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. I appreciate it that you mentioned bipartisanship and
mentioned our committee. I had not been planning to speak during this
debate. I have great admiration for the bipartisan sponsors of this
amendment. I also agree with their point, which is that the total
program must comply fully with FISA. But my view is, as the chairman
has stated, that we should deal with this issue in the legislative
committee. And the reason we should deal with this issue in the
legislative committee is that it is, as everybody here fully
understands, very, very complicated. A number of us, 50 of us, are
supporting H.R. 5371, The Listen Act.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoekstra was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Ms. HARMAN. I would like to ask our chairman: Will you agree that
that bill and perhaps others will be the subject of the committee
oversight and the subject of a legislative hearing in our committee at
a reasonable future date?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time, absolutely. And as we have talked
about it, and I appreciate the patience of my colleague as we have
worked through the briefings of the entire committee and as we move
forward, the legislative hearing on H.R. 5371 and other legislative
initiatives that some of our colleagues are developing that address
both the FISA issues which may apply to the current program but also
which will be further reaching in terms of taking a look at different
technology and those type of things as that has evolved is something
that I think we can do on a bipartisan basis, and I am committed to
doing.
Ms. HARMAN. And if you would yield to me again, first, to note that
the American Bar Association and numerous civil liberties groups
support H.R. 5371. But my further question is, Do you agree that the
entire program should be covered by law? The President may have
inherent authority to do things, but eavesdropping on Americans in
America must be covered by the law that Congress passed. I am not
asking you to agree to that point because you may not, although I feel
strongly about it. But I am asking you whether you agree that it is the
Congress that should determine the legal basis for the President's
actions and not the White House acting unilaterally.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentlewoman for her
comments. From my perspective, it is very, very important that Congress
create the legal framework by which the President exercises his
authority. And the only thing that could overrule our legislative box
that in our case we put the intelligence community in would be the
overriding authority of the Constitution.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this issue
to the floor in the form of this amendment today. I think that they
have done the country a great service. If this House had been doing its
job properly, this issue would have been out here on the floor of the
House of Representatives quite some time ago.
The fundamental principle that we are dealing with here is simply
this: we are a Nation of law. All of our law is based upon the
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the
President of the United States the authority to violate the law. The
President of the United States has violated the law.
This is not the first administration that has sought to govern the
country on the basis of the creation of a climate of fear. As one of
our colleagues pointed out earlier in this debate, that can be traced
all the way back to the Adams administration, the first Adams
administration. But that attempt eventually was overthrown, and it
didn't take a long time.
{time} 1715
The last time we had a President of the United States who wanted to
engage in illegal surveillance on the American people, the last time we
had a President like this one who was engaging in that kind of
activity, was the Nixon administration. President Nixon engaged in
illegal surveillance on the American people. As a result of that and
other things, he was forced out of office.
Subsequently the Congress developed the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, FISA, in 1978. There are some of us who believe that
FISA itself is a compromise of the fourth amendment of the
Constitution. The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees
[[Page H4284]]
independence and privacy to every single American citizen, and there
are some of us who believe that the FISA Act compromises that.
Nevertheless, it is the law.
So what do we have now? We have a President who has gone beyond the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, who has engaged in illegal
surveillance against the American citizens.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would direct the Member not to refer to the
President of the United States in accusatory terms.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak in the way that I
believe is appropriate, and I will continue to do so.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to ensure that
the President did not violate the law and go beyond it. This
administration has violated the law. We have not addressed that. The
House of Representatives, the Senate has not addressed this issue.
Now we have an opportunity to address it by virtue of the fact that
we have this amendment before us. This is an important vote today.
Every Member of this House should act in accordance with the law and
accordance with the Constitution and vote for this amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will
be very quick. Two final points in response to what the chairman and
the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had to say.
First, there is legislation on this subject, bipartisan legislation,
that was introduced on March 16. We have had no oversight hearing on
it, no markup on it, nothing, zero, zilcho, nada, which is why we are
on the appropriations bill, the only vehicle in which we could raise
this issue.
Second, both Members have said that this amendment would somehow
jeopardize an existing NSA program. What that means is that far from my
colleague from California's point, that the program does not comply
with FISA. Otherwise, how could it be jeopardized? So there is an
admission by the chair of the committee that the existing program does
not meet the requirements of FISA.
What still has gone unanswered is why can we not make changes to FISA
and the existing law? If this is such a vital program, why does it have
to be done outside of the law?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the major point here that the opposition to
this makes is the President has inherent authority. That has not been
tested at the Supreme Court because once FISA was enacted, that was
enacted to limit unbridled Presidential authority. I believe FISA is
the only way that you can proceed; that the President must go to FISA
if he is going to conduct these kind of foreign intelligence
activities.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
exactly right. That is the law currently. Whether that law violates the
Constitution is an open question. Nevertheless, because it has not been
contested, it is the law, and the President, the administration, all of
us have to live by that law.
There is nothing that gives the President of the United States or
anyone in this administration the authority to engage in surveillance
of the American people, not a single American citizen, outside of the
definition requirements within the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court has made
it very clear it will not referee fundamental constitutional debates
over power between the executive and legislative branches. Only if you
got a case would this get to the Court, and they will dodge and duck
and never allow there to be a case. This is the only constitutional way
to confront it.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
This is, I think, a very important debate, and I am glad we are
having it. I think this is an absolutely terrible amendment. The
question is really do you believe we are at war or not. The President
has made it very clear. You have a known al Qaeda operative.
Let us go back to World War II. You have got a German or a Japanese
agent, in Germany, in the south Pacific, speaking to various people,
and we are listening in. Now, would the American people in World War
II, if they began speaking to somebody in the United States or a known
American citizen, want the listening device put down and go to a judge?
That is what we are talking about.
He is in a cave, he is in Afghanistan, he is in Baghdad, he is
talking. Let us talk about Israel, okay? Do you think the Mossad, if
somebody is speaking from Jordan, and there are known terrorists
operatives, and they are speaking to somebody in Israel, they want to
put down the listening device and go in front of a judge? That is what
we are talking about. Are we at war, or are we not at war? It is a
known al Qaeda operative.
They are overseas, and suddenly they are talking to an American
citizen, be it in the United States or elsewhere, and it is time to put
down and stop listening and go find a judge and put together a brief
and get a judge to review it? I believe we are at war, and they want to
kill us. They want to kill our wives. They want to kill our children.
This is a good debate because this debate has been going on for
months and months, and this is a horrible, horrible amendment because
it ties one hand behind our back, and it should be defeated, and we
should vote it soon and vote it down.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy, and I do think
this is an important debate. I appreciate your perspective.
I want to ask you a forthright question. Do you understand that under
the scenario you have posed, that you can go over the executive, 72
hours after the event, 72 hours after the event, you go and get a
warrant, you can continue your tap, you can get the intelligence, 72
hours? Do you understand that is allowed?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I understand that I want them to keep
listening. I want the information, and this is what the debate is
about. You want to stop. You want go to a judge. I do not think we
should.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to make
sure you understand. I want to make sure the gentleman understands that
under this amendment you do not have to stop listening to anybody ever.
We want to continue listening, and we simply require that 72 hours
after that, we ask the executive to have another set of eyeballs take a
look at it to make sure it is compliant. Does the gentleman understand
this amendment does not stop anybody ever, as long as you go and have a
warrant 72 hours after the intelligence gathering? Do you understand
that is the purpose of our amendment? Because it is.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, that begs the
question as to whether or not you can, in fact, effectively do that
with the 72-hour limitation. There are those running the program that
suggest that that is not possible, not because necessarily the
limitation on going to court, but all of the work that needs to go
forward before you get to the court to get the approval. That is what
we ought to be talking about.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I
understand it, what you all have laid out is not that easy to do
basically; that you have to make a case in front of a judge, and if it
is a known al Qaeda operative, I think we should be listening to all of
their conversations.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, if you will yield just for a moment, I just
want to make sure members understand what we are voting on.
If this amendment passes, the President of the United States and his
executive authority will be able to continue
[[Page H4285]]
to listen to these conversations unimpeded, unimpeded, as long as they
go to a judge 72 hours after.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think they
should be able to do that. If you have a known al Qaeda operative, we
should be listening to all their conversations. We should be listening
to all conversations from all al Qaeda operatives.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the Intelligence
Committee in a colloquy. Let me just state before we have this
colloquy, my position is that FISA, as presently drafted, must cover
the entire program. This is my position after being fully briefed on
the program, as the chairman said, and being fully briefed by the NSA
and the Justice Department about how FISA works. It is my position that
FISA can and must cover the full program. Be that as it may, I would
like to ask the chairman some questions.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, some of us on the committee and a total
of 50 Members of this House have introduced H.R. 5371, the LISTEN Act,
which would require that this program be brought fully under FISA, and
which also states that more resources will be made available to change
the way FISA is implemented so that using electronic means, more staff,
whatever it takes, there will be a more efficient way to get 72-hour
emergency warrants. I know you are aware of the contents of our bill.
My question to you is are you prepared to hold a legislative hearing
in the Intelligence Committee on our bill and any other bills that may
be pending before our committee that address this issue of FISA as it
is connected to the NSA program?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding.
As the gentlewoman knows, we have worked through this very much in a
collaborative process. We followed on the heels of the former chairman
and the former ranking member in trying to make sure that we do this in
a bipartisan basis.
We have had a number of briefings on this program to fully understand
how FISA works both from the NSA, from Justice and a number of place.
It is interesting for those people who are not part of the committee,
who make categorical statements that nothing has happened, and we know
that we have had a way forward, where we have done things.
But in terms of your simple question, I just had to take the shot,
the opportunity to respond to just what I thought were some unfair
characterizations as to what you and I have been doing in the
committee.
I commit that we will have a legislative hearing on this and other
proposals that will create a framework that hopefully can move out of
committee, but there will be a legislative hearing, yes.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, are you prepared
following the legislative hearing or hearings to report a bill to the
House floor? Will you personally agree not to block any bill from being
reported to the House floor?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I will not use my position as chairman of the committee
to block a consensus of the Intelligence Committee to move a bill to
the floor.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify this for myself and
others who are listening.
You are prepared to consider this bill, H.R. 5371, which would force
this entire program to comply with FISA. Actually much credit for the
construct of H.R. 5371 does go to Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake. I just want
to clarify, and then I would like to yield, H.R. 5371 says the entire
program must comply with FISA, and we will hold a legislative hearing
on this bill and other bills, the committee will then report
legislation to the House floor; is that correct?
Mr. HOEKSTRA. We will hold a legislative hearing, and we will
determine whether there is a consensus in the committee that will
enable us to move a bill that would reform FISA and move it to the
floor.
Ms. HARMAN. Well, our bill, reclaiming my time, does not reform FISA.
It just gives resources to make FISA work.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, we are further along than
we were, but the phrase ``consensus,'' consensus is nice, but nothing
in the House rules or the Constitution or the writings of John Jay say
that it is a prerequisite for moving legislation.
I would hope that the gentleman would say on an issue that we all
agree is important, a bill will come to the floor, the majority will
decide, but I do not think those of us not on the committee ought to
only get an opportunity to legislate on this if there is a consensus.
Now, if you are telling us do not do it as an amendment to the
appropriations bill, Mr. Chairman, because the bill is going to come
forward, we need to know that a bill is going to come forward,
consensus or not, and then the House can decide what it wants to do.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and
I would appreciate it if he would answer that comment.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, to my good friend from Massachusetts,
consensus means that we have 12 votes to move a bill out of committee.
All right. Consensus does not mean 21 ayes and zero noes. Okay. So
thank you for that clarification.
I think it is also important to know that moving a bill to floor that
would deal with this issue, we would probably not be the only committee
of jurisdiction. Other committees would have jurisdiction as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Harman) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Schiff, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Harman was
allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the chair and ranking
member, I know my bill, and I assume that the gentlewoman's also, has
now been referred to both Intel and Judiciary, and without a similar
commitment from Judiciary, there is really no commitment that would
come to the floor.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Judiciary Committee would also
act. Mr. Conyers is a lead author with me of the bill I am talking
about. But I think it is critical that the Intelligence Committee act
because we have the membership that is briefed on the program, and if
we report a bill to the House floor for action, I would hope that the
House would respond to that promptly.
{time} 1730
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I must confess I am a little ambivalent about this
amendment because the amendment seems to say that we should obey the
law, and some people might get the implication if we don't pass the
amendment that we are free not to obey the law.
The amendment says that ``funds are prohibited from being used to
engage in electronic surveillance in the United States except as
authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or title
III.'' Well, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that. It
says that this title and title III shall be the exclusive, exclusive,
that is the word used in the law, the exclusive authority for domestic
surveillance, for domestic wiretapping. Anything outside of that is
illegal. Anything the administration is doing outside of FISA and title
III, by the terms of FISA, is illegal.
Certainly we should obey the law. I will vote for this amendment
because I can't imagine the House saying we shouldn't obey the law,
although I hear some of that from the other side. The fact is that this
entire program, insofar as it is done outside of FISA or title III, is
by definition illegal because the law says so, period.
Now, I just came from the airport, and I heard a little of the
debate, with people saying, well, maybe it is too hard to get a
warrant. Maybe the work that has to go on beforehand is too
[[Page H4286]]
hard and takes too long to get a warrant, even 72 hours after the
surveillance begins, which is what FISA says. Well, if that is the
case, let the administration make that case and let us amend FISA.
Remember why FISA was passed. FISA was passed because of tyrannical,
illegal conduct by the FBI and by prior administrations that was
considered by the Congress. After hearings and after revelations, they
said, my God, we curtailed liberty in this country. We invaded the
liberty of law-abiding, peaceful citizens under the cover of law, and
we should never do that again; we are going to enact some safeguards.
And Congress enacted FISA to be that safeguard.
And to say if you want to do domestic surveillance, if you think
someone is a Communist agent, in those days, or an al Qaeda agent
today, here is the procedure by which you get the authority to wiretap
that person. Should a known al Qaeda agent be wiretapped all the time?
I would say, yes, but a court would say, yes, too. In fact, we provided
in that law for a secret court. You can go get an exparte order on
secret evidence in a secret proceeding, and you can even do it after
the fact, 72 hours.
Now, maybe it should be 96 hours or 5 days. Maybe someone could make
a case for that. Let Congress change the law for that. But simply to
say, the FBI tells us, the administration tells us that obeying the law
is too difficult?
I remember a few years ago hearing ringing phrases from Henry Hyde
and a lot of other people about the rule of law. We should impeach a
President because he allegedly violated the rule of law. And now we
come to this floor and say ignore the law? The administration, if it is
too hard, can ignore the law?
The law says that FISA and title III are the exclusive authority for
wiretapping in the United States, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. All
this amendment does is repeat it.
As I said, I am ambivalent about it because I don't know that we
should have to repeat it, but apparently we do. So I urge the adoption
of this amendment, and I would remind everybody that to vote against
this amendment is to say we are endorsing the violation of the law. We
don't care about the rule of law. We endorse the administration's
illegal and extraconstitutional action and we are making ourselves
complicit in that and there is no protection, because the President now
claims the power to disobey any law under his inherent authority under
article II as Commander in Chief.
That is a power even George, III, didn't claim, to just disobey the
law when he judges it necessary because of his being Commander in Chief
of the armed services. He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Services,
not of the United States. He is not Commander in Chief of the United
States. He is not a monarch.
No President should have the power to disobey the law or to set aside
the law when he thinks it necessary. If he thinks changing the law is
necessary, come to Congress, change the law, enact a change in FISA. I
might support it; I might not. But Congress will work its will. Enact a
change in FISA.
Simply to say, as this amendment does, that no funds shall be used
except in accordance with law, because the law says no electronic
surveillance shall occur, that is the words, no electronic surveillance
except as provided in this act or in title III. That is the law. That
is what this says. If we have any shame at all, we should adopt this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last work for
purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman of
the subcommittee.
On May 11, the House passed the defense authorization bill for fiscal
year 2007. As the chairman knows, the bill includes a funding
authorization to build two Virginia Class submarines per year, starting
in 2009. Consistent with the Navy's stated requirement, the House bill
also includes language requiring the service to maintain a submarine
fleet of no less than 48 attack submarines.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the Navy has a growing shortage of
fast attack submarines, and I offer for consideration the following
statistics provided by the Navy: over the last 5 years, the Navy
submarine force last fulfilled only 60 percent of the mission taskings;
in 2006, the submarine force covered only 54 percent of the combatant
commanders' requests; and most alarmingly, this year the force has met
only 34 percent of high-priority missions.
I congratulate this distinguished chairman for his hard work on the
defense appropriations bill under consideration today. The bill does
not include submarine provisions similar to those found in the
authorization bill, however; and so I ask the chairman to work toward a
conference solution that includes funding for the advanced procurement
of a second Virginia Class submarine sometime before 2012. Increasing
our submarine build rate is the only solution to a growing force level
gap.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the very distinguished chairman of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Connecticut has made a
strong and convincing policy argument for building two submarines each
year sooner than the year 2012, and we have discussed this off and on
for the last several weeks. He is very, very persuasive. So I can
assure him that I will continue to work with him as we prepare to go to
conference and go to conference to address the shortage of submarines
in our Navy.
I am a very strong advocate of our submarine capability. I think that
is one of the best deterrence systems that we have, one of the best
military systems, and I appreciate the work of the gentleman from
Connecticut on this issue. As I said, we have had many conversations
about this. I know of no better champion of submarines in the House
than Congressman Simmons.
But as we have discussed, the 302(b) allocation for this subcommittee
was $4 billion less than the administration requested, so that made a
shortage of funds. Anyway, Mr. Simmons has made a very strong case and
I do intend to work with him because I also believe that we should have
a larger submarine fleet.
I go back to the days of President Ronald Reagan, who thought we
should have a 600-ship Navy, which we don't have today, but I supported
that as well. And I certainly support increasing the size of our
submarine fleet. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and
doing the good job that he has done in making this case.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his commitment
and applaud him and the rest of the committee for their hard work on
this legislation under consideration today, and I look forward to
working with him in an appropriate fashion as the Congress moves
forward with this important spending bill.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the issue I bring before my colleagues is that we have
done a very good job in protecting the soldiers on the battlefield, and
I want to compliment Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha for all you have done.
And you have done that to protect them against ballistics. So we have
given them the body armor. They have the side plates, the shoulder
plates, throat plate, groin plate, and they have this helmet on them
and it protects them against the ballistic and crash.
But we have a problem. The problem is now, when these IEDs go off, we
have blast injuries. Where before you would be close to a blast and the
body or the torso would absorb part of that blast, now that blast hits
all that armor that we have put on them, and part of that goes up the
face where the helmet is strapped onto the chin, and when it goes up
into the helmet there is no place for the force to be released. So you
get a concussion, and as the force
[[Page H4287]]
then comes back down you get a precussion. So we have traumatic brain
injuries.
We need to examine this, and I want to work with Mr. Young, with Mr.
Weldon, and Mr. Murtha. We need for the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to conduct a series of
comprehensive, nonballistic and ballistic tests and an evaluation of
the Marine Corps light combat helmet and Army combat helmet with all
qualified sling, pad, and suspension systems available in accordance
with the operational requirements applicable to such helmets.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Last week, on Thursday, I chaired a hearing in my subcommittee
looking at this very issue with helmets, and we have a dilemma right
now, Mr. Chairman.
We have all of our Army being outfitted with modern helmets thanks to
the good work of the appropriators. 500,000 of these helmets are on
order and in place with cutting-edge technology inserts that the
soldiers are very happy with. We have the Marines Special Ops units
deployed with similar helmets with the inserts the Army is using.
But we have 20,000 marines in theater, and 6,000 of those marines
have requested an updated insert that the marines are unwilling to
provide. So we have a private nonprofit, headed by a former Navy
surgeon, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy inserts
to give to our soldiers in theater, including the 6,000 marines.
It is a very confusing issue. General Catto last week said, well, we
are not going to stop them from using these inserts, but he won't order
them for the rest of the marines. What this language does is it says
complete this study within 60 days and buy immediately the helmets and
the inserts, especially for the Marine Corps that the marines in
theater are in fact requesting and using.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for his good work.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For those of us who have visited our wounded
soldiers and marines in the hospitals understand the importance of the
type of injury you are discussing. Sometimes it is very obvious, very
evident, and sometimes it is not obvious at all, but it is there.
I believe we can help with what you want to do here. I believe as we
write our conference report that will come with the conference product.
I think we can direct what it is that you want to see directed, and I
am prepared to offer that as we go into the conference.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the chairman, and I yield to Mr. Murtha.
Mr. MURTHA. I agree.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the two gentlemen and look forward to working with
you as we go to conference.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Institute for Exploration at Mystic
Aquarium in New London, Connecticut.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, when I saw this earmark, which is $1 million
for research at the environmental center at Mystic Aquarium,
Connecticut, I thought I was experiencing deja vu. We had a similar
amendment in the Energy and Water bill just last week, or 2 weeks ago.
Now we are looking at the defense bill, and the only difference is the
amount of the earmark. I believe it was $400,000 then; this defense
bill earmark is for $1 million. My amendment would remove this earmark
from the bill.
Now, during our debate a few weeks ago on this subject, we learned
that the aquarium has been in operation for over 20 years, that it is
an educational and research institution with expertise in ocean
environmental studies and in deep sea exploration. We learned that it
provides activities and learning for boys and girls clubs. All of these
are worthy activities, certainly.
We learned that the world's foremost deep sea explorer collocates his
operation at the aquarium. That is Dr. Robert Ballard, I believe.
{time} 1745
What we didn't learn was why this aquarium gets favorable treatment
over aquariums in Arizona or Massachusetts or Kansas. We didn't learn
what enumerated Federal function the aquarium fills. We certainly did
not learn, and we haven't learned yet today, and I hope to learn in the
next 5 minutes, how the aquarium contributes to the most basic and
critical function of defending our country.
We just heard a great discussion about how we need to free up more
funding for helmets for our military. I would suggest this is a great
place to start. It is often said you can't vote for the Flake
amendments because the money will simply be spent anyway by the agency.
In this case the agency is the Department of Defense, and I think it
would be hard to believe that they could make a case for a program less
wise than this on their own, that they have something that fitters away
more dollars than spending on an aquarium.
I like the Boys and Girls Club, but they aren't fighting for us and
defending our country. Maybe they have programs that benefit them at
this aquarium, but I would submit that it is no way to spend our
defense dollars.
By voting against this amendment, you are saying that we place more
value in the defense bill for funding aquariums than we do in funding
defense.
Now we were trying to find out when we were researching this
amendment, and we were not told much by the Appropriations Committee,
so we tried to find out what this is, if it really is Connecticut, and
I was told today, no, I think it is in Ohio on Lake Erie. I don't know
what the aquarium does. I am anxious to learn what it does and how it
contributes to defense.
In this process without a unanimous consent agreement on this bill, I
am unable to ask questions and then speak later. I hope whoever is
sponsoring this legislation or supporting this will please tell us how
it is more vital to fund aquariums in the defense bill than funding
helmets for our troops, for example, or anything else the Defense
Department can do.
I would ask, please, for the sponsor of the amendment or whoever is
defending it to tell us why we should be funding aquariums in the
defense bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
oppose the gentleman's effort to try to eliminate the funding for this
program.
Let me first begin by saying that the Supreme Allied Commander of
NATO supports this effort as one that is strategic. Many of us on the
committee also support it because it is educational.
Let me explain to the gentleman that the organizations that will
carry out the undersea exploration in the Black Sea and in the eastern
Mediterranean will do this working under the authority of NATO. There
are very preeminent scholars who are involved in this, including Mr.
Bob Ballard, best known for finding the wreckage of the Titanic.
The efforts in the Black Sea and the eastern Mediterranean will be to
explore underwater in a cooperative effort with our friends in both
Ukraine and in Russia. The Government of Greece will be involved as
well, but the instrumentalities that you talked about in this country
are only locations through which some of our talented people have been
selected and will be coupled with those of Ukraine, Russia and Greece.
As you may or may not know, Russia has a base in Crimea, and as both
Russia and Ukraine move towards NATO, I think it is important for the
United States to find ways to work with them together so we can achieve
a very progressive maturation and a set of relationships that include
underwater exploration in which everyone feels they have a stake.
One of the side benefits of this particular effort, so you know, is
that there will be educational programs relating to math and science.
This particular scientific endeavor will be
[[Page H4288]]
broadcast through a live network of museums, science centers, Boys and
Girls Clubs, and aquariums, perhaps the one the gentleman mentioned.
There are literally hundreds of them, including Department of Defense
schools in all of the NATO countries. So there is also a benefit for
education.
One of the goals is to take and broadcast through Ukraine and Russia
so we work on this together. There is actually a term that they use, I
might not have it exactly right, but it is like an instantaneous
televideo connect where as they film underwater and begin to identify
various undersea artifacts and conditions, and the oceanographers and
the scientists involved will make this information available globally.
So the Institute for Exploration Project is designed not only to help
our strategic relationships in the region, but it has a benefit for
children across the world. And by working on a project focused on
exploration of the maritime conditions in those locations, we engage
strategically with countries where we need to develop friendships and a
common agenda without engaging in any kind of overt military activity.
That is a bit of an explanation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Simmons), who has been such a great colleague in helping the Ukrainian
Caucus move this project forward.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and
I also rise in opposition to the amendment.
If the logic of the amendment is to be understood, the Department of
Defense should not engage in any funding of academic research. I think
we know that the Department of Defense expends incredible dollars on
academic research, especially applied research, that has application to
some of their varied missions.
The United States since World War II has enjoyed subsurface
dominance. Just a few minutes ago we talked about the issue of our
submarines and our Submarine Center of Excellence in Groton-New London.
Well, that Submarine Center of Excellence in Groton-New London is
collocated with the Institute for Exploration. We are not talking about
funding for fish food and cleaning the tanks. My colleague from Arizona
keeps saying it is an aquarium as if we have goldfish in this place, or
something like that. That is to trivialize some of the activities that
take place there.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Simmons, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. SIMMONS. That is to trivialize the fact that Dr. Robert Ballard,
a Navy officer, whose exploration activities also mirror his activities
as a naval officer, and is involved in very interesting and sensitive
research in the subsurface.
I would say to my colleague from Arizona, the Department of Defense
does engage in funding for academic research. The investment in this
program is very consistent with that, and I feel that perhaps in
another venue or another time we could make a very detailed explanation
as to why this is important to our country.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention to the gentleman
from Arizona that some of the following school districts in your State
will benefit directly, including the Mesa Unified School District, and
schools in Phoenix, Tucson, Scottsdale, Glendale, Yuma, Prescott and
the Arizona Science Center in Phoenix is also involved in the
dissemination of materials.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was allowed to proceed for 15
additional seconds.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned school districts
in my State that would benefit. I would say again, this is the exact
point we are making. This is not the Labor-HHS bill. This is the
defense bill, for crying out loud. We are trying to fund our defense,
and we are bleeding off dollars to aquariums. This is the wrong place
to have this debate. It should be on Labor-HHS.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the JASON Foundation.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I put this next one after the last one
because they kind of are similar. Again, the argument has to be why
aren't we debating this in the Labor-HHS bill? If we are debating it at
all, it should be debated in the Labor-HHS.
This earmark that we are seeking to strike is $1 million for the
JASON Education Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia. Again, it seems like
something that ought to be in the Labor-HHS bill. The mission of the
JASON Foundation, and this is from their own Website, is to ``inspire
in students a lifelong passion for learning in science, math and
technology through hands-on, real-world scientific discovery.'' That is
a wonderful mission. I am glad kids are getting the opportunity, but we
shouldn't be funding it in the defense bill.
Dr. Robert Ballard has already been referenced here. He is the
world's foremost ocean archeologist, and is its founder. They have good
leadership. This is the same Dr. Ballard who collocates his ocean
exploration operations out of the Mystic Aquarium, the recipient of
$1.4 million in earmarks so far this year.
With corporate sponsorship and support from the likes of Oracle, Sun
Microsystems, EDS, Shell, and Texas Instruments, the JASON Foundation
has very good backing. However, this earmark raises questions that
apply to too many other earmarks: Why is it in the defense bill? Should
it receive any earmark funding at all? Who requested it? We don't know.
I to this moment do not know who requested this earmark. I am hoping
the author will come and say. Has there been a hearing on the subject?
What essential Federal purpose does this serve; and doubly, what
defense purpose does this earmark serve?
I think the mission of the JASON Foundation is noble, but the fact
that we are funding it this way with this vehicle without real
transparency is very disconcerting. This is not the Labor-HHS-Education
bill. And frankly, given a lack of transparency and many problems that
the current earmarking process presents, I don't think that it belongs
in that bill either when we have a situation where I still to this
moment have no idea who authored this earmark or what else it is
supposed to do. All I know is what I have read, and yet we are being
asked to approve a million dollars for it.
This is the only oversight this earmark will likely ever get. There
is virtually no oversight after this. The agencies don't know about
these earmarks. Most of the time they can't tell us what the earmark is
for. And if we don't ask these questions here on the House floor, they
simply don't get asked. I am anxious to hear answers to the questions
that have been asked: Why is it in the defense bill? Who requested it?
Has there been a hearing on the subject? Is there a Federal purpose?
And is there a purpose for it in the defense bill? I can't ask that
question too many times: Why are we funding this in the defense bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment
and to try to answer the gentleman's very appropriate questions.
I will speak to both of the amendments that he might have in mind,
the Tech Center in Apple Valley, California, and the JASON Foundation
program, for it speaks very much to why this kind of funding should
flow through the Defense Department. If
[[Page H4289]]
there is a need that this country has today as it relates to our future
security and national defense, it is to one way or another here at the
Federal level, where we can impact education, it is to begin to turn
around the involvement of young people as well as excellent teachers in
the fields of math and science.
Without any question, our future viability in terms of security does
relate to America leading in these fields. The JASON Foundation is very
much involved in that question; but most importantly, I would like to
highlight that by describing the Tech Center in Apple Valley,
California, and give you a feeling for what we are talking about as far
as turning kids on to math and science and stimulating teachers to
become better teachers in the fields of math and science.
A young teacher dealing with kids at the elementary level took them
out in the countryside in the nighttime in the desert. You and I know
it gets cold in the desert, and they looked at the stars. When it
started getting cold, he thought, we need a center where kids can study
these things.
{time} 1800
It led to this high-tech center. Amazing over time what has evolved
from that model that one day may very well turn around the teaching of
math and science in the country. No less than Dan Goldin visited this
school, and walking into a classroom with me. Here were about 30
youngsters around the room at computers. The unique thing about this
was not just that. But these were third grade youngsters who happened
to be handicapped, and they were using their computers to develop
lesson plans for their colleagues in the third grade in Philadelphia.
And Goldin's eyes got big as he examined some of the ideas coming
from this high-tech center as to how to turn kids on. Over time he saw
that this was perhaps the first chapter of the book that must be
written that will change the way we teach math and science in the
country. Dan Goldin eventually, with this young guy, became convinced
that he ought to gift him the first antenna that brought men back from
the Moon. And as a result of that gift, that school and its teaching
model is currently across the country teaching kids to use the Internet
by way of using this antenna. Now, tens of thousands of youngsters in
school districts all over the country and in four foreign countries are
participating in this effort to turn around the way math and science is
taught, the way teachers are turned on, and the way kids are turned on
to the fields of math and science.
If we are going to lead the world in the future and have the security
for the world for peace we need, we must get back in the business of
math and science, and this chapter will be a piece of the book that
will be written.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for the chance to tell my
colleagues about the benefits to students from military families from
access to the JASON science education program.
Since 1993, this non-profit subsidiary of the National Geographic
Society has provided advanced science and mathematics training to DoD
teachers and students. Because of the funding provided in past Defense
Appropriations bills, many DoD teachers have had the opportunity to
attend extended hands-on science training sessions with experts from
NASA, NOAA and many major universities.
As my colleagues are well aware, we are facing a science education
crisis in the United States. Within the next five years, some 70
percent of current advanced math and science teachers will be able to
retire. More and more of the science and math students in our top
universities are immigrants, with fewer and fewer students from our
nation's public schools each year.
Independent analysis shows that teachers who have the opportunity to
attend the JASON seminars are much better prepared to lead their
students into an understanding of science and math, and to get their
kids enthusiastic about making a career out of these subjects. These
seminars are highly recommended by the National Science Teachers
Association.
Schools that serve our nation's military families are increasing
ranked among the best, and one of the chief reasons for that is their
affiliation with enrichment programs like the JASON project. Our
responsibility lies not only with providing weapons and training to
those who would defend our nation. We must also make we give the very
best opportunities and benefits to their families, who are also making
a sacrifice in defense of America.
Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amount of money to invest in bringing
better science and mathematics education to our military families. Our
nation needs that training, and these families deserve it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Schiff of California.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment by Mr. Chocola of Indiana.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Mystic Aquarium.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the JASON Foundation.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 219, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 295]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--219
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
[[Page H4290]]
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Hunter
Napolitano
Nussle
{time} 1827
Messrs. SULLIVAN, McCAUL of Texas, BONILLA, HOBSON, NEY, SOUDER,
GOHMERT, and EHLERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GORDON, BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. BERRY, COOPER,
WAMP, ROSS, REYES, SALAZAR, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 50,
noes 376, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 296]
AYES--50
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Beauprez
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boren
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Cole (OK)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Drake
Feeney
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marshall
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Pearce
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ryan (WI)
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Souder
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--376
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Hunter
Napolitano
Nussle
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1832
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Chocola
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H4291]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141,
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
AYES--141
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Eshoo
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKinney
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thompson (CA)
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Westmoreland
NOES--285
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Becerra
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Hunter
Napolitano
Nussle
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.
{time} 1837
Mr. SPRATT, Mrs. MALONEY and Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GOODLATTE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding the Mystic Aquarium on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77,
noes 347, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
AYES--77
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Holt
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marshall
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Moore (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Slaughter
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Waxman
Westmoreland
NOES--347
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
[[Page H4292]]
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Gohmert
NOT VOTING--7
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Hart
Hunter
Napolitano
Nussle
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.
{time} 1842
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 298 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding the Jason Foundation on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 69,
noes 352, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
AYES--69
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Doggett
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Linder
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Moore (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Slaughter
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
NOES--352
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Gohmert
NOT VOTING--10
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Evans
Hunter
Istook
Napolitano
Nussle
Price (GA)
Scott (GA)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.
{time} 1846
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4293]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to to interpret voluntary religious discussions
as ``official'' as specified in the revised interim
guidelines concerning free exercise of religion in the Air
Force.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have this amendment, and it took quite a
bit of expertise on myself and staff to get this so it would be
germane, and I sort of feel that that is one of my accomplishments. I
intend to offer this, but then I am going to ask unanimous consent to
withdraw it out of great deference to the chairman.
The second is to bring it on the House floor and to discuss it so we
can put it in the Record so that the Armed Forces, particularly the Air
Force, when they talk about the revised interim guidelines concerning
free exercise of religion in the Air Force, have an understanding what
we in the House believe is appropriate.
The amendment is basically saying that none of the funds made
available in this act may be used to interpret voluntary religious
discussion as official, because within this interim guidelines
concerning free exercise of religion the word ``official'' is in the
paragraph where we are talking about voluntary worship. Let me read
this portion to you:
``Voluntary participation in worship, prayer, study, and discussion
is integral to the free exercise of religion.''
Now, that we all agree upon. And then they go on to talk about this
voluntary discussion of religion. But then there is a sentence in this
that goes on to say: ``Voluntary discussions of religion or the
exercise of free speech where it is reasonably clear that the
discussions are personal and not official.''
So even within the paragraph talking about voluntary, talking about
voluntary discussion of people coming together, there is still an
interpretation by the Air Force that it is reasonably clear it is not
official. Well, obviously if these people come together voluntarily to
talk about their faith, to pray, to study, and have this discussion, it
is voluntary and should the word ``official'' not even be in this
paragraph. But it still gives the Air Force the ability to go in and
say, well, you know, we can reasonably say that it is not clear that
the discussion that you men and women have had while you are
worshipping, you are praying, you are studying is an integral part of
this free speech. It appears that there might be some official
overtone. So it is official overtone. Then at that point they can step
in and say, okay, you cannot have this discussion.
So my amendment is basically saying that, no, the Air Force could not
step in anytime there is voluntary participation in worship, prayer,
study, and discussion. And it is simple on that respect.
Some of the revised interim guidelines that the military put together
is worded in such a way that it makes many of us feel a little
uncomfortable. It seems like it is a little bit over the line, and I
felt personally, and I say to the chairman, my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Young), that when you add voluntary, I think that should be
enough. And the word official and reasonably clear and some of these
extraneous words that would imply intimidation to the people who are
trying to worship and pray should not be a part of this interim
guideline.
So I wanted to go on record to say I as one Member don't agree, and I
hope perhaps there are other Members who would take this amendment to
heart. And so if we find that the Air Force somehow intimidates these
people during voluntary participation in prayer, worship, and study,
that they would remember my amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask unanimous consent to
withdraw out of deference and understanding the lateness of the hour
and also the understanding that you have just been through one
donnybrook and perhaps this one might be another one, but I still feel
and I might at a later date bring this forward now that I finally
figured out a way to make it germane.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to place a social security account number on any
identification card issued to a member of the Armed Forces, a
retired member of the Armed Forces, or a dependent of such a
member or retired member.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member
of the committee for this discussion we have had on so many issues
today.
As the senior Democratic member of the Veterans Committee, I have
been particularly appalled at the loss of 26\1/2\ million records of
veterans with their Social Security numbers and some medical data plus
about 200,000 active duty personnel. So the issue of identity theft I
think is on all our minds. And we all know that servicemembers and
military retirees are at great risk for identity theft because the
Department of Defense puts the Social Security number right on their
military ID cards. The DOD is thereby placing millions of
servicemembers, military retirees, and their family members at risk for
identity theft, and the threat is heightened for servicemembers who
must carry this ID with them at all times.
We all know identity theft as being one of the fastest growing crimes
of the decade, and it creates a nightmare for the victims who suffer.
Identity thieves make off with billions of dollars each year, and each
day more than 1,000 people are being defrauded. The Federal Trade
Commission recently listed identity theft as the top consumer
complaint. With just your name and your Social Security number, a thief
can open credit lines worth thousands of dollars, rent apartments, sign
up for utilities, earn income, and your credit rating is ruined. You
risk being rejected from everything from a college loan to a mortgage,
and it is all up to you as an individual to fix it all up. Law
enforcement will generally not pursue these identity theft cases.
Sixteen percent of the 13 million victims of identity theft in the
last 2 years had their wallets stolen. Anybody who had their ID card in
their wallet lost their identity. A military ID is one of those that is
generally carried in a wallet. We could have saved 2 million people
from the problems of identity theft. Just look at the two individuals
who were recently convicted of Federal identity theft after creating
331 fake credit cards in the name of high-ranking military officers.
They just found their Social Security numbers and military IDs on a Web
site and copied the information from the Congressional Record.
The recent incident at the VA affirms our need to wean the Federal
Government from its overreliance on the Social Security number for ID
purposes. There seems to be a culture of indifference in many agencies
with regard to these numbers. States and universities and health care
insurance companies have given up their addiction of Social Security
numbers. Why can't we in the Federal Government?
So I hope this issue is taken very seriously. I know Mr. Murtha and
Mr. Young are seriously looking at this. I hope they will look at it in
conference and as they pursue this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to waive or modify
[[Page H4294]]
regulations promulgated under chapter 43, 71, 75, or 77 of
title 5, United States Code.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment brought by myself and my
colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Jones, seeks to protect very basic
job securities for Department of Defense employees by blocking funds
for those parts of the National Security Personnel System that have
been declared illegal. The workplace environment that would result if
this amendment does not pass, that results in destroying basic worker
rights; jeopardizes our ability to recruit and maintain qualified,
skilled workers to protect our national security. These are hardworking
men and women. They deserve our gratitude, they deserve our respect,
they deserve a personnel system that respects their work and complies
with principles that we hold forth.
I have got to tell you, I just want to note who we are talking about
here. These are the men and women who make sure that our equipment
works. When I went out and saw the Carl Vinson, one of our great
carriers coming back from the Afghanistan campaign, the sailors asked
me to thank the people who worked on that carrier to see to it that it
could launch 10,000 sortees without losing an airplane.
These people are part of the defense team. They deserve respect. But,
unfortunately, the current situation does not give them either respect
or fairness in the personnel system.
It is worth noting that the Office of Personnel Management questioned
the legitimacy of this new program in March 2004 in a letter to
Secretary Rumsfeld and said, ``The current system may be contrary to
law insofar as it attempts to replace collective bargaining with
consultation and eliminate collective bargaining agreements all
together. In addition, other elements of the proposal lack a clear and
defensible national security nexus and jeopardize those parts that
do.''
Now, this is not just us speaking; it is the Federal courts. At the
beginning of this year, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Emmitt
Sullivan ruled that the NSPS system failed to ``ensure even minimal
collective bargaining rights.'' The court further enjoined the National
Security Labor Relations Board on the grounds that it did not satisfy
congressional requirement for independent third-party review. It has
been declared illegal.
Now, one might assume after such a ruling had come down that the
Pentagon would attempt to fix the problem and that the administration
would do so, but in fact that has gone on after 3 years. They are
essentially snubbing their noses at collective bargaining rights, at
civil service rights, at the right to know whether you are discharged
or what your discharge would be, basic fundamental rights that we ought
to give to the people who are critical members of the defense team.
{time} 1900
That is why we bring this amendment, to preserve the right to be free
from discrimination based on political opinion, something that our
Civil Service rules need to protect; and the right to collective
bargaining, to engage in collective bargaining in good faith; the right
to due process for advance notice of suspension and some meaningful
appeal rights for people who work on the defense team.
So we are offering a commonsense amendment that will recognize that
we should not be forcing this broken system that has been ruled illegal
for people who are doing such great work for us, keeping our uniformed
personnel on the post in Iraq and Afghanistan. We commend this
amendment to our colleagues' attention.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, a simple and
commonsense statement from this Congress that says we stand with our
Nation's Federal civilian employees.
We are here today to take a stand and rein in a personnel system that
is opposed by nearly each and every one of the 700,000 members of the
DOD Federal civilian workforce.
The National Security Personnel System, or NSPS, is a system that
restricts our Nation's Federal civilian employees of their collective
bargaining rights, as well as the right to have an independent labor
relations board settle disputes, as was recently affirmed in a court of
law.
This amendment would withhold the funding to go forward on
implementing only those portions of the NSPS declared illegal. It would
not arbitrarily kill the system as a whole, but allow Congress to carry
out its oversight responsibility.
Congress has continuously affirmed its strong support of the men and
women in our Nation's military. Today, with this amendment, we are
asking the same thing, reaffirm your support for our Nation's Federal
civilian workforce.
Mr. Chairman, by passing this amendment we will help send a message
to these highly valuable men and women that we stand with them today;
that we stand with those Federal civilians who maintain and repair our
Navy and Marine Corps' battle-worn helicopters; that we stand with
those Federal civilians who capitalize and upgrade our Army's Bradley
fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks; that we stand with those Federal
civilians who skillfully manage our Air Force's logistics and
distribution operations; and that we stand with those Federal civilians
who maintain, overhaul and upgrade our Navy's fleet of ships,
submarines and aircrafts.
I hope that my colleagues in this House of Representatives will join
us and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
I am pleased to join with my colleagues Mr. Inslee and Mr. Jones in
offering this amendment, and the issue here is really straightforward:
Are we going to require the Department of Defense to comply with
guidelines established by this House and this Congress, or are we going
to allow them, one more time, to ignore the will of Congress and roll
over us here in the House of Representatives?
Here is the situation. Back in 2004, this House passed the defense
authorization provision that allowed the Defense Department to go out
and set up a new personnel system, but we did it with certain
guidelines. We wanted to provide the Department of Defense with greater
flexibility, but we also wanted to ensure fairness to the employees.
Here is what happened. The DOD took the flexibility part, and they
ignored the portions requiring fairness to employees. They ignored the
provision that required, for example, an independent entity to
arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. They ignored
the provisions that said you have to have a merit system protection
board that has an independent judgment, instead of allowing the Defense
Department to essentially overrule the decisions, at least on a
preliminary basis, of an independent merit system protection board. So
they made a number of changes to the congressional intent.
As my colleague Mr. Inslee said, you do not have to take our word for
it. Just listen to what a Federal judge said, and that is Judge Emmet
Sullivan. He is the first person in the District of Columbia to have
been appointed by three United States Presidents to three judicial
positions, and he ruled in favor of the employees who brought a case
and challenged the administration's decision on this. He said it was
``the antithesis of fairness'' the way DOD had set up its system and
determined that it was outside the scope of what the Congress had
mandated.
Now, they have ruled. That ruling came down in February. We have had
a Federal judge, therefore, stick up for the Congress. The question is,
are we going to stick up for ourselves? Did we mean what we said back
there? A Federal judge has looked at the law and said, clearly, the DOD
provisions are outside the scope of what we intended. Anyone who takes
a fair look at what this Congress said to the administration and to the
guidelines that we had in setting up the system would reach the same
conclusion.
Let us not once more roll over. A Federal judge has done the right
thing. They said the administration should not roll over the will of
Congress. Let us not allow them to do it. Let us make sure that we do
not spend taxpayer money on a system that a Federal judge has said is
outside the scope of what Congress intended.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
[[Page H4295]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Young and Mr.
Murtha for their hard work and support of our troops and support of our
Nation's defense, but I also join with my colleagues who have
previously spoken.
In November of 2003, I supported the National Defense Authorization
Act, which authorized the NSPS system. At that time, I believed that
NSPS would produce greater efficiencies in government. Further, I
believed NSPS would reward government employees that displayed personal
initiative, hard work, and productivity, all at the same time while
preserving collective bargaining and Civil Service protections.
Unfortunately, as others have outlined, the implementation of NSPS
has been staggered and revised on several different situations,
indicating both the complexity and the problems when applying some of
the good aspects of NSPS with the reality of its implementation.
Last November the Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel
Management published the final regulations for NSPS. These did not live
up to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration between the
government and labor that was promised when Congress passed the
authorization bill several years ago.
In fact, as has already been alluded to, a Federal judge agreed with
representatives of labor that NSPS failed to meet fundamental
standards. On February 27, 2006, a Federal court enjoined the NSPS
regulations because they failed to ensure collective bargaining rights,
did not provide for independent third-party review of labor relations
decisions, and failed to provide a fair process for appealing adverse
actions.
For the thousands of Federal workers at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
which is in my district, the NSPS regulations as proposed would have
had a damaging impact. The shipyard's unique labor and management
relationship has created tremendous efficiencies and progress and has
become a model for good government. This progress and the relationship
at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard could well be lost under the NSPS
program.
Under the broad and rigid centralized NSPS regime, the flexibility
that has led to some of our government's best practices and most
successful entities would be impossible. In fact, representatives of
labor have indicated to me that many of the efficiencies that were the
result of labor-management agreements would not have been possible
under NSPS.
NSPS, as proposed, systematically restricts opportunities for labor
representatives to communicate, negotiate and collaborate with Pentagon
management. Given the exemplary record of the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, which is in my district, which has returned submarines to the
water and to fleet commanders sooner than any other yard in the
country, all while saving significant millions of dollars on submarine
maintenance for taxpayers, it is difficult to imagine that none of this
could have been possible under the proposed NSPS format.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues who have spoken
previously on this issue, and I rise in support of this amendment and
ask the entire House to support it tonight.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I think at times we have an arrogance in the Defense Department when
they ignore not the regulations, but what we are trying to do in this
legislation. We expected them to talk to the people working in the
Defense Department.
I have never seen a better workforce than we have in the United
States when it comes to the civilians who support our troops out in the
field and civilians who work for the Defense Department, and we have
tried several years now to get them to do more negotiations. They have
continually ignored our advice, and I am very nervous about the way
they have handled things.
I have never seen so many union representatives come to me and say,
we have asked them for this, and then the court, the court itself, says
they are not being treated fairly.
So I would hope we could accept this amendment or at least vote this
amendment. It is a little broader than I would like, but we can always
adjust that if we have to at some other point.
I would advise, recommend the Members they support the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Based on the actions of the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Defense, it is clear to me that it is time for Congress
to send a message to the Administration about the importance of
preserving bedrock principles of labor relations.
In making my case for this amendment, I want to recount a few key
points leading up to where we are today.
In 2002, Congress enacted legislation to create the Department of
Homeland Security. This legislation provided the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management with
the authority to develop a separate human resources management system
for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security. Subsequently,
in the FY2004 Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Defense was
authorized to develop and implement the National Security Personnel
System.
In August 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Colyer ruled that
the proposed Department of Homeland Security personnel rules ``would
not ensure collective bargaining, would fundamentally alter [Federal
Labor Relations Authority] jurisdiction . . . and would create an
appeal process at MSPB [Merit Systems Protection Board] that is not
fair.'' This federal court ruling should have been a wakeup call to the
Department of Defense to take care in pursuing changes to labor
relations regulations. However, DOD chose to ignore it, proceeding with
plans to implement regulations that would make substantial changes
concerning collective bargaining and review of appeals of adverse
actions.
In February 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that
specific sections of DOD's NSPS regulations were unlawful. He ruled
that NSPS ``fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively,''
that the proposed National Security Labor Relations Board ``does not
meet Congress's intent for independent third party review,'' and that
``the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide employees
with fair treatment.''
To their credit, the labor organizations that represent many federal
government workers have been vigilant in protecting the rights of their
members by appealing to the courts. I believe that it is time for
Congress to reinforce the ruling of the federal court to ensure that
the Administration gets the message: Congress does not intend that core
principles of labor relations are to be eroded by DOD, and we are
prepared to make that crystal clear by prohibiting the expenditure of
funds on steps that violate the intent of the law.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleagues, Representatives Inslee, Jones and Van Hollen, which
would prohibit the use of funds in this bill to be expended on specific
elements of the National Security Personnel System.
In February, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that
the Department of Defense, in establishing a rule to execute the
National Security Personnel System, had failed to ensure the rights of
the approximately 700,000 civilian employees of the Department of
Defense.
Specifically, the judge determined that the rule:
Fails to ensure that employees can bargain collectively.
Does not meet Congress's requirement for ``Independent Third Party
Review'' of labor relations decisions.
And that the process for appealing adverse actions fails to provide
employees with the ``Fair Treatment'' required by the Congress.
Yet, despite the decision, the department has proceeded with the
implementation of the rule.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply ensures that the Department of
Defense will not continue to pursue a policy that is clearly against
the law and against the best interests of our national security.
I commend the gentlemen for their continued efforts on behalf of our
Federal employees and urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation.
[[Page H4296]]
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before addressing this amendment, let me
simply speak to the problem with this process of earmarking. We have
the last amendment with regard to the Jason Foundation. All we know is
that it was, I believe, requested for Ashburn, Virginia.
We still do not know, after having voted for it, after 332 Members
voted for it, after people came to defend other earmarks, nobody came
to defend this one. We still do not know. What we do know is that the
administration never requested it, that no hearings were ever held, no
markup was ever held. We still do not know why it is in the defense
bill.
As I mentioned, we do not know who requested it. There is no
oversight mentioned, no, no process or structure for oversight,
nothing, yet we just appropriated $1 million for the Jason Foundation
in Ashburn, Virginia. That is all we know, and that is all we will
probably ever know.
What kind of process is that? It is simply wrong. We should have a
process that is more transparent where there is real accountability.
Let us go on to this amendment. This is an amendment to strike $4
million for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation in Media,
Pennsylvania. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from
being used for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation.
According to the center's Web site, their goal is to enhance the
competitiveness of the U.S. rotorcraft industry in the world
marketplace.
I should say nobody is more supportive of a strong, viable rotorcraft
industry than I am. Just about 2 miles from my house is the Boeing
facility that makes the Apache. About a mile and a half from my home is
where MD Helicopter has made for Special Forces the Little Bird
helicopter. So this is important for my district and every other
district that does have a strong, viable rotorcraft industry.
But what we should not be doing is picking winners and losers and
saying the Federal Government, in the defense bill, is going to prop up
one industry or another. We simply should not be doing that.
The helicopter companies that are principal members of the center are
world-class and competitive because they make a great product needed by
our military and militaries around the world.
I have toured a number of times the Apache facility. I have heard the
accounts of soldiers who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
Apache has performed wonderfully. I have also toured MD Helicopter. It
is a great product. I am sure Sikorsky and others who manufacture
helicopters do as well.
The question becomes, why are we using the defense bill as a
mechanism to fund a center like this when these businesses are fully
capable of marketing their own products?
{time} 1915
The rotorcraft industry wants $4 million of Federal defense dollars
to subsidize their marketing efforts around the globe. They are doing
pretty well. I hope they continue to do well. They are competitive
because they make a good product, not because the Federal Government is
subsidizing them.
Many of them compete for government contracts. That is great. We rely
on them, but we shouldn't be saying, all right, we are going to pick
you and we are going to lavish you with Federal dollars to help market
your product.
Those of us who oppose corporate subsidies for cotton and sugar and
tobacco and the airline industry, I think that we also ought to say, if
we are going to oppose those subsidies, why don't we oppose subsidies
for the rotorcraft industry as well?
At this time of war, we need to send money to help our troops and not
subsidize private industry. Again, it is not the role of the Federal
Government, and certainly not in a defense bill, to be picking winners
and losers in industry, saying you are going to get a subsidy but you
are not.
This argument will come up as we offer additional amendments in the
next few minutes, but I would ask support for this amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
First of all, let me say there is a role for this Congress to play in
defense, in spite of my colleague from Arizona. If it wasn't for this
Congress, a decision made by the administration back in 1989, when they
canceled the V-22 program, would have been left undone. This year, the
Marine Corps will deploy the V-22 program.
In spite of the administration back then and Secretary Cheney
canceling the program, we did the right thing for the Marines. Today,
we are building 450 of these aircraft because this Congress knew what
it was doing.
I would remind my colleague that it was in 1996 that this Congress
passed a defense authorization bill requiring that we arm the Hellfire
missile on the Predator system. The administration didn't want it back
then. They knew better than we did. Thank goodness this Congress armed
the Hellfire missile on the Predator. That was our decision, not the
administration's.
If this Congressman would have come to me and asked me some
questions, perhaps he would have been a bit more enlightened about what
this is. This is not a subsidy program. This is a program to focus
research and technology on the rotorcraft industry for our military and
for other purposes.
If the gentleman would have come to me, he could have attended one of
our four hearings. Now he speaks a good game here. Why weren't you at
the hearings when we discussed rotorcraft over the past 2 years? We had
two hearings this year. Why didn't you come and sit on those hearings
and understand what the rotorcraft center was all about? Why didn't you
talk to the American Helicopter Society, headed by Rhett Flater? More
importantly, why didn't you talk to the Boeing folks? Maybe by then you
would have realized that a portion of this money, and by the way none
of it goes into my district, the money is funneled out to 21 other
locations, including your district. The Boeing Company received a grant
from this program in your district, which you weren't even aware of.
I will not yield because the gentleman has offered an amendment that
he knows nothing about. I respect people of intelligence, who have
integrity. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask me about this
program. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask about the
briefing, about the four hearings, about the memorandum of
understanding signed in 2004 by every major rotorcraft manufacturer in
this Nation, including Sikorsky, Bell Textron, including Kaman
Industries, including Boeing, including Georgia Tech, Penn State, and
Maryland, all the major rotorcraft centers in this Nation.
You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask. You took a cheap shot.
And you know what? Your cheap shot is just that. The amount of impact
on my district is one job, one job at Penn State University. The money
you just talked about flows into 21 other States, into universities and
corporations doing research on rotorcraft technology.
Now, why is that important? Because the primary responsibility for
rotorcraft research was NASA, but NASA has seen fit to move away from
that. And as a member of the Science Committee, we have worked
repeatedly to try to get NASA to take the responsibility mandated by
the law. NASA used to fund $30 million a year in rotorcraft research.
In the past 5 years, they have spent zero. So we took the initiative
that the Army established.
And when the gentleman says on this floor, again ignorantly, that the
military and the Pentagon don't support this, I would have said to him,
why don't you go talk to the Army, because the Army has supported the
Center For Rotorcraft Innovation repeatedly. The U.S. Army. Not the
Russian Army, the U.S. Army. If you would have taken the time to go to
the Army, you would have found those facts out.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I hate to be emotional in this debate; but
doggone it, I am not going to let somebody stand up here in total and
complete ignorance and spout off a bunch of gobbledygook about
subsidizing the rotorcraft industry. That is not what this is about.
If you want to give the money back from your district, you go to
Boeing and tell them to turn back the money they got from this research
initiative. But don't stand up on the floor and make stupid allegations
because you want a headline about cutting waste. This is not waste.
[[Page H4297]]
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the memorandum of
understanding, the list of all 21 centers that have received funding
from this program, and the Center For Rotorcraft Innovation's outline.
Memorandum of Agreement
This MOA is between the Boeing Company, a Delaware
corporation having offices at Ridley Park, Pennsylvania,
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, a United Technologies Company,
having offices at Stratford, Connecticut, Bell Helicopter
Textron Inc, a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Textron having offices at Hurst Texas, the
Kaman Aerospace Corporation, having offices in Bloomfield,
CT, the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association (RITA)
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Keystone Helicopter
Corporation, having offices in West Chester, PA, The
Pennsylvania State University, located at State College, PA,
The University of Maryland, located in College Park, MD, the
Georgia Tech Research Corporation, located in Atlanta, GA,
the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation having offices in
Essington, PA, Augusta Aerospace Corporation having offices
in Philadelphia, PA and the American Competitiveness
Institute, having offices in Philadelphia, PA, hereinafter
which may be referred to individually as ``party'' or
collectively as ``parties''.
I. PURPOSE
Sec. 1: The parties to this agreement agree to provide
oversight for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation (the
``Center''), which will be established by the American
Competitiveness Institute (ACI), a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, PA.
Sec. 2: The Center's mission will be to administer and
conduct rotorcraft pre-competitive research and development
with the participation of rotorcraft manufacturers, their
suppliers, operators, support providers, academic
researchers, government laboratories, industry associations
and other non-profit organizations. Research projects will be
conducted both at the Center and the participants'
facilities, including subcontractors as appropriate.
Sec. 3: ACI will administer, at no cost to the parties, the
acquisition and expenditures of federal, state, local and
private funding for the creation of the Center by:
(i) establishing and implementing a business plan to
acquire the necessary funding for the creation and
sustainment of the Center; and,
(ii) establishing and implementing a plan for the Center's
design, operations and final incorporation into a rotorcraft
organization governed by industry and academia.
Sec. 4: ACI shall provide oversight consistent with the
mission stated above. Such oversight shall include
participation and guidance associated with formation of the
Center, and such other Administrative support as mutually
agreed to by the Parties. Technical oversight, including
Program selection and monitoring of projects performed by the
Center shall be provided by the other Parties to this
Agreement.
Sec. 5: A Center Director will be appointed by ACI to
oversee the daily operations of the Center.
II. BACKGROUND
There have been several initiatives to facilitate joint
government, industry and academic collaboration to address
technical challenges facing the rotorcraft industry. Despite
this, tight government budget constraints and a shift in
emphasis to other programs, the rotorcraft program has
suffered and funding has failed to materialize. Advanced
rotorcraft systems for military applications and the emerging
needs for homeland security clearly demonstrate a need for
advancement through an investment in research and
development. The unique capabilities of rotorcraft are
indispensable in both national security and emergency
response situations. The highly competitive commercial
rotorcraft industry and its worldwide proliferation make it
an ideal candidate for technical cooperation and
collaboration. The intent of the Center is to centralize and
refocus the attention, technology and expertise of industry
and academia to achieve adequate and sustainable funding
through government and commercial sources. The goal is to be
a recognized Center of Excellence in rotorcraft technology to
support and coordinate research and development, education,
training and outreach to expand and strengthen the U.S.
rotorcraft community.
III. TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD
Sec. 1: The organizations that are parties to this
agreement shall provide technical oversight to the Center
through a Technical Advisory Board.
Sec. 2: The Technical Advisory Board shall be comprised of
a representative from each of the initial organizations who
sign this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Georgia Tech Research Corporation is a cooperative
organization of the Georgia Institute of Technology (``GIT'')
and may identify a GIT employee as a representative to the
Technical Advisory Board.
Sec. 3: The Technical Advisory Board shall utilize its
collective expertise in various aspects of the Rotorcraft
Industry to establish and maintain a technical roadmap to
guide Center activities consistent with its mission. It is
recognized that inputs from industry, academia, and
government sources are essential to creating and maintaining
a dynamic and relevant Center agenda.
Sec. 4: Additional representatives may be added to the
Technical Advisory Board subsequent to the execution of this
agreement by majority consent of the initial parties to this
agreement.
IV. MEETINGS
Sec. 1: The Technical Advisory Board will meet a minimum of
four (4) times a year at a time and location determined by
the Center Director.
Sec. 1a: The Center Director shall preside over Technical
Advisory Board meetings, and with the advice and consent of
the Technical Advisory Board, shall set the time, place, and
agenda.
Sec. 1b: Each Technical Advisory Board member may
designate, by notifying the Center Director in writing, a
qualified alternate to attend and participate in Board
meetings in his/her absence.
V. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
Sec. 1: No membership fees or dues are required to be paid.
Sec. 2: The salaries and expenses of representatives of the
Technical Advisory Board shall be the responsibility of their
respective organizations.
Sec. 3: Any contractual relationship entered into between
Technical Advisory Board members shall be solely the
responsibility of those members, and the Center shall
expressly have no performance or fiscal obligation.
Sec. 4: In no event shall the parties be liable to each
other or any third party in privity with any party for any
special, indirect, exemplary, incidental, or consequential
damages arising out of or in connection with this agreement.
VI. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to
constitute, create, give effect to, or otherwise recognize a
joint venture, partnership, or formal entity of any kind
between the parties. No party shall have the authority to
bind any other party or the Center except to the extent
authorized in this Agreement. Each party shall bear sole
responsibility for its own actions in furtherance of the
Center.
The parties agree to execute appropriate confidentiality
agreements prior to disclosing any proprietary information.
No intellectual property right or license, either express or
implied is granted to any other party as a result of this
Agreement.
VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
An organization may terminate its participation in this
agreement at any time by notifying ACI in writing.
This Agreement shall terminate upon the intended transfer
of the administration of the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation
from ACI to the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association
(RITA) or another suitable third party, and/or the execution
of subsequent Agreements by the parties relative to the
formation of the Rotorcraft Center.
VIII. ASSIGNMENT
No party may assign or transfer this agreement, its
interest, or obligations hereunder without the written
consent of the parties to this agreement.
The Boeing Company Integrated Defense Systems; Bell
Helicopter Textron Inc.; The Kaman Aerospace
Corporation; The Pennsylvania State University; Georgia
Tech Research Corporation; Keystone Helicopter
Corporation; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation; American
Competitiveness Institute; Rotorcraft Industry
Technology Association; University of Maryland;
Piasecki Aircraft Corporation; Agusta Aerospace
Corporation.
Bell Helicopter Textron: Fort Worth, TX--Lloyd Doggett,
26th district; Kay Granger, 12th district.
The Boeing Company: Philadelphia, PA--Robert A. Brady, 1st
district, Robert A. Brady, 1st district, Chaka Fattah, 2nd
district, Allyson Y. Schwartz, 13th district.
The Boeing Company: Mesa, AZ--Jeff Flake, 6th district.
Sikorsky-UTC: Stratford, CT--Christopher Shays, 4th
district.
Kaman Aerospace: Bloomfield, CT--John B. Larson, 1st
district.
BF Goodrich: Vergennes, VT--Bernard Sanders, 1st district.
Armour Holdings: Phoenix, AZ--Ed Pastor, 4th district, John
B. Shadegg, 3rd district.
Smiths Industries: Grand Rapids, MI--Vernon Ehlers, 3rd
district.
Endevco: San Juan Capistrano, CA--Ken Calvert, 44th
district.
Lord Corporation: Erie, PA--Philip S. English, 3rd
district.
Georgia Tech: Atlanta, GA--John Lewis, 5th district,
Cynthia McKinney, 4th district.
Penn State University: State College, PA--John E. Peterson,
5th district.
University of Illinois--Chicago: Chicago, IL--Bobby Rush,
1st district, Jesse Jackson, Jr., 2nd district, Dan Lipinski,
3rd district, Luis V. Gutierrez, 4th district, Rahm Emanuel,
5th district, Danny K. Davis, 7th district, Janice D.
Schakowsky, 9th district.
University of Maryland: College Park, MD--Steny H. Hoyer,
5th district.
University of Texas--Arlington: Arlington, TX--Joe Barton,
6th district.
UCLA: Los Angeles, CA--Henry A. Waxman, 30th district,
Xavier Becerra, 31st district, Hilda L. Solis, 32nd district,
Diane Watson, 33rd district, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 34th
district, Maxine Waters, 35th district.
Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ--J.D. Hayworth, 5th
district.
[[Page H4298]]
West Virginia University: Morgantown WV--Alan B. Mollohan,
1st district.
Ohio Aerospace Institute: Cleveland, OH--Stephanie Tubbs
Jones, 11th district.
Mississippi State University: Starkville, MS--Charles
``Chip'' Pickering, Jr., 3rd district.
Syracuse University: Syracuse, NY--James T. Walsh, 25th
district.
Ohio State University: Columbus, OH--Deborah Pryce, 15th
district, Patrick J. Tiberi, 12th district.
KSR, LLC: Newport Beach, CA--John Campbell, 48th district.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and I rise speaking as the ranking member on Mr. Weldon's committee.
Mr. Weldon, as my good friend from Arizona now knows, has a deep and
abiding interest in this activity. And he is my good friend, that is to
say Mr. Weldon, as well as you, Mr. Flake.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I certainly will yield to the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I simply want to respond to the allegation that I did not
know that some of the beneficiaries were in my district. I stated that
in my statement. I know they are. I live less than 2 miles from them. I
spoke with the Boeing representative this morning, and I knew full well
that it would impact them.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I accept you at your word, and reclaiming my time, I
hope that this is instructive in the end for us.
One of the reasons I like working with Mr. Weldon is I think we bring
a certain amount of passion to our work. And as with many other things
in our lives, sometimes your virtues are also your vices, so I
understand that very, very well.
My request is that you think perhaps about withdrawing this
amendment. It is not to argue with you about your premises. Believe me,
Mr. Flake, I don't do that. I understand exactly what you are saying,
and I understand your concerns with regard to whether or not there are
full and complete understandings of what we are doing and why we are
doing it under the general aegis of earmarks. My point is that this
particular designation has had thorough, and I assure you nonpartisan,
thorough, complete briefings and hearings. That is the way our
subcommittee works on Armed Services. I assure you of that.
Again, as I say, everybody's virtue is also their vice; but let me
tell you, if it is a vice to go into exquisite detail as to what you
are dealing with, then Mr. Weldon, and I guess by extension myself, is
guilty of that.
I can assure you that if there is an argument on the floor against
what we want to do with rotorcraft innovation in research, then I could
understand why you wouldn't want to vote for it. But I can assure every
Member here, Republican and Democrat alike, that in the Armed Services
Subcommittee, on which I am privileged to serve with Mr. Weldon, that
we go into the details of what we are doing and why we are doing it.
The final point here. The reason that I support this and the reason
Mr. Weldon recommended it to the subcommittee and that he succeeded is
that the big companies, the big companies don't do the innovation and
the research. They really don't.
Mr. Hunter in particular, and, again, I have had my differences with
Mr. Hunter, but Mr. Young recognizes and Mr. Hunter recognizes that
true innovation in this country comes from the small companies. It
comes from the research areas that don't necessarily get the big
contracts, nor are they sought out by the big companies. They are like
the Titanic. They go right down there. And they can be told there's an
iceberg, but, boy, they head there anyway by kinetic energy.
I can assure you, Mr. Flake, if you would at least consider
withdrawing the amendment, this is one time when the research has been
done, the background has been done, the hearings have been held, and we
are trying to support the true innovative research side with regard to
rotorcraft that might not otherwise get the attention that it deserves
and what we need to have for our Armed Forces.
I can assure you that the ideological content or premise that forms
the philosophy upon which you are making these inquiries I have no
argument with, and I give you credit for standing up. It is not easy to
stand up against the tide coming at you. It is a lot easier to vote
against you and walk off and claim victory. I don't do that. I don't
take any shots like that at you. I respect you and I understand what
you are doing and why you are doing it. But in this instance, my
request to you as a ranking member on this subcommittee is that you
consider whether or not this might be an instance in which the House is
well served and the Nation is well served by its adoption as
recommended by the Appropriations Committee.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, because I can see he has
something to say real quick.
Mr. FLAKE. Well, thank you, and I simply want to reiterate if I were
to stand here and offer amendments that had no impact on my district at
all, if I ignored those that had an impact, then I could be accused of
hypocrisy and doing things that simply have no impact on me.
I have tried to make a point to offer amendments that do have an
impact, and I have offered them in other bills as well, those that have
an impact on both my district and on my State. I simply think that this
process is out of control and we have to start on it.
And I appreciate the gentleman from Hawaii. That was a very good
explanation. I appreciate that hearings have been held on this,
certainly more thoroughly than some of the other earmarks. But the case
I would make is that simply I have made my case.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. It would be an honor to yield to the gentleman from
Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. That is why I am hoping that you would
consider in this instance possibly withdrawing it.
When you say the process is out of control, I am not going to argue
with you about that. I really don't. But this process with this
project, I can assure you was totally in control, thoroughly vetted,
and the decision that came out of it was I believe unanimous in the
committee, and I don't believe received any opposition on the basis
that it was done capriciously or arbitrarily or because of the
influence of a Member for reasons other than the merits.
I can assure you of that, and I make my request once again, and thank
you for your time and thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues, and now I
want to claim my time to oppose this amendment, but I wanted to talk
about the bigger picture.
Each year, the House Appropriations Committee receives about 35,000
requests for individual projects in all the appropriation bills. Just
to give one example, on the Labor-HHS bill there were 10,272 different
requests. That is about 25 projects per Member. Yet this committee has
worked very hard to scrutinize those requests and to decide which ones
are good and which ones have less of a case and we eliminate all of
them.
To give you some of the numbers, it is incredible. This bill alone is
$1 billion below last year's in terms of Member earmarks. The Ag
Committee, which I sit on, is $35 million below last year's. The Energy
and Water Committee is 16 percent, or $197 million below last year's in
Members' earmarks. The Interior Committee is $89 million, or 32 percent
less than last year. Military Quality of Life, $40 million below last
year's. The Labor-HHS is $100 million, Transportation-Treasury is $2.1
billion below last year's, and Science, State and Justice is $1.3
billion less than last year's.
And this is a sign of the committee doing their work on a bipartisan
basis. We are going to continue to work for earmark reforms. The House
Appropriations Committee is the first committee that wants to have
earmark reform, something Mr. Flake is a great advocate of, in all
committees, not just appropriations.
For example, the infamous ``bridge to nowhere'' did not come from an
appropriation bill. We need to have earmark
[[Page H4299]]
reform. The Appropriation Committee supports that, but we support it
for all committees, if we are going to make it complete. If it is good
for one, let us do it for all.
We also have Member scrutiny and Member criteria requests. And this
year, more than ever, we are asking for local grant money, State money,
matching money so that if we do appropriate something back home, the
folks back home have skin in the game, not just something that the
Federal Government is paying for.
I have also, Mr. Chairman, a 2\1/2\-page list of some of the programs
which the Appropriations Committee has terminated. Now, Ronald Reagan
said, if you don't believe in resurrection, try killing a Federal
program.
{time} 1930
Indeed, that is the case. It is hard as the dickens to kill programs
here, and yet Appropriations remains the only committee on a consistent
level that is eliminating spending and terminating programs.
In Agriculture, there were about eight eliminated, including the
Classical Chinese Garden at $8 million. Mr. Flake, I am sure, would
have approved of that. In Foreign Operations we eliminated the Asia
Pacific Partnership for $46 million. I don't know what it did. Does
anybody here?
We eliminated the Congo Debt Relief, $160 million.
In Homeland Security, we eliminated $21 million for the SURGE
initiative, and a new Coast Guard headquarters for $50 million.
In conclusion, Mr. Flake is not the only one applying the big
magnifying glass to spending. This committee is doing it, and we need
to be talking more about it. I appreciate the gentleman for what he is
bringing up, but he is trodding on turf that a lot of us have already
driven on at the committee level.
Continued Earmark Reforms for 2006
(1) Include all Member project funding during the House
consideration of appropriations bills.
(2) Sharply limit the number of Member project requests.
Curtailing the number of Member requests per Appropriations
subcommittee would dramatically improve oversight and lead to
a reduction of earmarks. Last year, the House Appropriations
Committee received nearly 35,000 individual project requests.
In the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, 417 Members requested
10,272 projects, or nearly 25 projects requested per Member.
(3) Require that all project requests be submitted in
writing to the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction
via a Member-signed request letter or form.
(4) Establish clearly defined criteria for all project
requests and require Members to specify how each project
meets those criteria. Member requests would also be required
to be strictly germane to the spending bills in which they
are contained.
(5) Increase the proportion of projects that have a dollar-
matching requirement. HUD economic development initiative
grants are among those that ought to be considered for a
local matching requirement.
(6) Require all congressionally approved projects go
through a formal Executive Branch contracting and auditing
process.
(7) Require that all other committees adopt similar
earmarking reforms. Earmarks are not unique to the House
Appropriations Committee. The most notable earmark in recent
history--the so-called ``Bridge to Nowhere''--had its origins
elsewhere.
FY07 Member Project Funding
FY07 Agriculture Member Project Funding: The House bill
includes $435 million in Member project funding which is $35
million below last year's House bill level of $460 million
and $277 million below last year's conference agreement of
$812 million.
FY07 Defense Member Project Funding: The bill includes a
little less than $5 billion which more than $1 billion below
last year's House bill and $2.7 billion below last year's
conference report.
FY07 Energy and Water Project Funding: The bill includes
$1.04 billion in Member project funding which is 16% or $197
million below last year's House level of $1.24 billion.
FY07 Interior Member Project Funding: The bill includes
$188 million in Member project funding for 246 projects. This
is an $89 million or 32% reduction compared to last year's
enacted total of $277 million in Member project funding.
FY07 Military Quality Member Project Funding: Total Member
project funding in the bill is $572 million which is $40
million below the last year's House bill level of $612
million and $804 million below the enacted level of $1.376
billion.
FY07 Labor-HHS Member project funding: The bill provides
approximately $1 billion for Member projects, $100 million
less than previous, comparable levels and less than 1% of the
total funding in the bill.
FY07 Transportation-Treasury, HUD Member Project Funding:
Total Member project funding in the bill is $986 billion
which is $2.1 billion below last year's level. This is an 70
percent reduction from the previous year. In addition, for
the first time ever, the bill requires a 40 percent matching
requirement for grantees receiving Economic Development
Initiative funding.
Science-State-Justice: The bill provides approximately $387
million for Member projects, $1.3 billion less than the
enacted level and less than 1 percent of the total funding in
the bill.
Program Terminations
Agriculture includes 8 terminations for a savings of $414
million.
Healthy Forests Reserve: $3 million.
Invasive Species Grant: $10 million.
Wildlife Air Safety initiative: $3 million.
Classical Chinese Garden: $8 million.
Financial Management Modernization Initiative: $14 million.
Child Nutrition Program, contingency reserve fund: $300
million (new mandatory).
P.L. 480 Title I program: $64 million.
Ocean Freight Differential Grants: $12 million.
Energy and Water includes 3 terminations for a savings of
$4ll million.
Geothermal R&D technology: $23 million.
Natural gas R&D technologies: $20 million.
Construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Plant: $368 million.
Foreign Operations includes 4 terminations for a savings of
$286 million.
Conflict Response Fund: $75 million.
Asia Pacific Partnership: $46 million.
Africa Housing Facility: $5 million.
Congo Debt Relief: $160 million.
Homeland Security includes 6 terminations for a savings of
$154 million.
Office of Screening Coordination and Operations: $4
million.
SURGE initiative: $21 million.
Maritime security response team shoot house: $2 million.
Fast Response Cutter: $42 million.
Citizen Corps: $35 million.
New Coast Guard headquarters: $50 million.
Interior includes 4 terminations for a savings of $54
million.
Stateside Land and Water Grants: $30 million.
Forest Service economic action program: $9 million.
BLM rural fire program: $10 million.
Asia Pacific Partnership: $5 million.
Labor-HHS-Education includes 56 terminations for a savings
of $1.66 billion.
Responsible Reintegration for Youthful Offenders: $50
million.
Women's Educational Equity (FIE): $3 million.
Math Now for elementary schools: $125 million.
Math Now for middle schools: $125 million.
Science-State-Justice includes 8 terminations for a savings
of $96 million.
Grants for Televised Testimony: $1 million.
Forensic Science Grants: $18 million.
Crime Identification Technology Act Grants: $28 million.
Cannabis Eradication: $5 million.
Public Television Facilities, Planning, and Construction:
$22 million.
Microloan Technical Assistance: $13 million.
Microloan Subsidy: $1 million.
PRIME: $2 million.
Transportation-Treasury-HUD includes 6 terminations for a
savings of $742 million.
Rural Housing and Economic Development: $17 million
FTA Small Starts: $200 million.
Housing Counseling Assistance: $45 million.
National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program: $74
million.
Open Roads Financing Pilot Program: $100 million.
New Coast Guard Headquarters: $306 million.
Denali Commission: $7 million.
Prisoner Re-entry: $20 million.
Community College Initiative: $150 million.
Work Incentives Grants: $20 million.
Management Crosscuts: $2 million.
Working Capital funds: $7 million.
NY State UI: $50 million.
Tech Asst. Nat Activities: $2 million.
HRSA--Health Career Opportunity Program (HCOP): $4 million.
HRSA--Faculty loan repayment: $1 million.
HRSA--Public health/dental training: $8 million.
HRSA--Delta Health Initiative: $25 million.
HRSA--Denali Commission: $39 million.
HRSA--ER 1 Administration earmark: $25 million.
CDC--Pandemic Flu base activities: $168 million.
CDC--Bulk Monovalent Vaccine Purchase: $30 million.
CDC--Mind-Body Institute: $2 million.
CDC--Special Olympics Healthy Athletes: $6 million.
CDC--Diamond Blackfan Anemia Program: $1 million.
CDC--Arctic health program: $0.3 million.
CDC--Hanford study: $1 million.
CDC--Pfiesteria program: $8 million.
CDC--Volcanic Emissions program: $0.1 million.
CDC--ALS Registry: $1 million.
SAMHSA--Access to Recovery: $98 million.
[[Page H4300]]
CMS--Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control: $118 million.
Health admin: $1 million.
ACF--Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals: $5
million.
ACF--Sex and other severe forms of trafficking program: $5
million.
Early Learning Fund: $36 million.
Embryo adoption campaign: $2 million.
Alcohol Abuse Reduction: $32 million.
Dropout Prevention Programs: $5 million.
Close Up Fellowships: $2 million.
Education Technology State Grants: $272 million.
Foundations for Learning (FIE): $1 million.
Whaling trading partners (FIE): $9 million.
Javits Gifted and Talented Ed: $10 million.
Mental Health Integration in Schools (FIE): $5 million.
Parental Information and Resource Centers (FIE): $40
million.
Ready to Learn TV: $24 million.
Ready to Teach (FIE) $11 million.
Star Schools (FIE): $15 million.
Teacher to Teacher (FIE): $2 million.
Language Teacher Corps (FIE): $5 million.
State scholars (FIE): $8 million.
State Grants for Incarcerated Youth Offenders: $23 million.
Underground Railroad: $2 million.
Byrd Scholarships: $41 million.
Demonstration in Disabilities: $7 million.
Thurgood Marshall Legal Educational Opportunity Program: $3
million.
Interest Subsidy Grants: $2 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to initiate military operations against Iran
except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, the background is obvious and well known
to all of us. The fact of the matter is we are now living in a moment
which is among the most difficult and dangerous periods in the modern
history of our country. It came about as a result of the administration
sending our military to attack Iraq. There was no justification,
certainly no adequate justification, for that attack. The rationale for
doing so as it was presented to the Congress was falsified,
unjustified. I think that we all see that today very clearly.
The consequences of that action are afflicting our country very
decidedly. We have now lost 4,500 American servicemen and women killed,
tens of thousands others very seriously wounded. The dollar cost to our
country is now approximately $400 billion. By the end of this year it
is anticipated to be $450 billion.
The costs to Iraq are even more severe. The loss of life in that
country may be as many as 100,000 people. Circumstances of life in that
country are worse than they were 3 years ago when the invasion occurred
in March 2003. And we have now been engaged in an occupation of that
country for more than 3 years.
The fact that we all have to face is that it is becoming increasingly
apparent that the administration has no plan for ending that
occupation, and so it will continue. The loss of life will continue,
the loss of funds will continue, and the deterioration of our
reputation in the world will continue to decline.
This Congress has been derelict in its duty. We have not examined the
administration in its activities related to the attack on Iraq, the
falsified way in which it presented the rationale to this Congress, the
way in which it failed to adhere to the recommendations of the military
with regard to actions taken prior to the attack and subsequent to it,
right up to the present moment.
So now we are faced with another potential problem that would magnify
the one that we currently confront, and that is we have come to
understand that there have been serious considerations within this
administration to engage in a military attack on Iran. The rationale
for that attack as it has been presented to us is that Iran is engaged
in a nuclear weapons development program. Of course, that was part of
the falsified rationale that was presented for the attack on Iraq.
We also know, of course, that the President in his State of the Union
Address here, the address that attempted to justify by presenting false
information to the Congress, attempted to justify the attack on Iraq,
associated Iraq with the phrase ``axis of evil'' with two other
countries, North Korea and Iran.
We now learn that there are discussions within the administration for
a potential attack on Iran. And in the context of those discussions, it
has also been suggested that the administration has the authority to
engage in such an attack based upon the vote that was taken here to
authorize the attack on Iraq based upon falsified, misleading
information, information that was presented to us intentionally
falsified and misleading.
So the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that none of the
funding in this defense appropriations bill is used to engage in any
military operation against Iran without a full vote of the Congress of
the United States in accordance with the Constitution of the United
States.
It is a very simple, very straightforward amendment, and I hope that
this Congress will live up to its obligations and this House of
Representatives in accordance with its responsibilities will pass the
amendment.
While our Chamber is on track to complete another lightning round of
spending bills during this appropriations cycle, we have abdicated our
oversight responsibilities across the board in the process. We are
writing blank checks for bankrupt foreign policies without having
sufficiently robust debate on the administration's actions abroad.
Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a terrible mistake resulting in an
inextricable quagmire. And regardless of what our friends across the
aisle claimed during our waste of a discussion last week, we are still
not on the road to success in that country.
Now that other legitimate hot spots in the world, such as Iran, are
heating up, we are a passive audience sitting on the sidelines as the
Bush administration uses its damaged credibility and poorly-conceived
diplomacy to try to head off a nuclear crisis within the most volatile
area of the world.
We should be an active participant in the formulation of our foreign
policy.
The Bush administration must be held accountable by Congress for its
failings on the world stage. In addition, the administration must work
with Congress before it stretches our already-depleted defense
capabilities to the breaking point in another ill-conceived engagement.
And while the administration's recent efforts to engage with the
European community in diplomacy on this issue are a welcome change,
their international dealings have not proven to be trustworthy--another
cause of our diminished credibility abroad.
This administration is tone-deaf when it comes to understanding the
diverse religious beliefs and cultural principles of countries in the
Middle East. It does not sufficiently support the troops that are
already engaged abroad, and it does not understand the damage that this
engagement has done to our armed services. We must rectify these
problems, and Congress must be an active participant.
Iran presents our Chamber with the opportunity to right past wrongs,
and to assume the responsibility for oversight and management that we
tragically abandoned in the months leading up to our invasion of Iraq.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I read the amendment about Iran, but I heard the debate about Iraq.
The gentleman's debate made it appear that we just indiscriminately
decided to attack Iraq.
I would remind the gentleman that there were not only United Nations
resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, but there was also an
overwhelming vote in the House and in the Senate to authorize the
President to take whatever military action was necessary.
He talked about Iraq, and so I want to talk about Iraq. I want to
talk about the June 25, 1996, bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
We were not in Iraq, nowhere near Iraq. Khobar Towers was bombed, and
19 of our airmen who were living there lost their lives.
In August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed
with a loss of life, including Americans. And by the way, we were not
in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.
October 12, 2000, the USS Cole offshore of Yemen was bombed by
terrorists, and 17 sailors lost their lives, and many others were
seriously injured.
And then there was September 11, and I don't have to explain what
happened there because everyone knows
[[Page H4301]]
what happened there. It was the Pearl Harbor of this century.
So what does that have to do with Iraq? Information continues to be
uncovered where Saddam Hussein, who was the dictator of Iraq until we
removed him, Saddam Hussein had contacts with the terrorists of
different stripes, not only al Qaeda, but other terrorists. And that's
why, and Congress reacted to that, and Congress approved the President
making whatever military move he thought was necessary. So that goes to
the issue of the gentleman's debate on the Iran amendment relative to
his comment about Iraq.
The vote on the Iraq resolution was 296-133. That is a pretty sizable
majority.
I have a copy of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article I is a very
long article, a very long section, and I am not sure which provision in
here that the gentleman's amendment is talking about unless it gets
down to the part of section 8 that says to declare war. I assume that
is what he is talking about.
To declare war in today's world, previous wars you had a little time.
Even after Pearl Harbor, we had time to recover and react. Today's
world you don't have that. So I would think you would want to be very,
very careful about tying the hands of this Congress in authorizing
whatever was needed to defend and support the United States and the
security of the American people.
I do not want another September 11 on my hands. I don't want
something else to happen that is going to kill innocent Americans, and
then have people come to me and say, Why didn't you do something about
it? Why weren't you prepared for it? Why did you have to wait and go
through all of the political charades?
I don't think that the American people would be very, very happy with
this Congress if we didn't take every step necessary to prevent another
aircraft hijacking and flying into the World Trade Center or something
similar, or hijacking an airplane that landed in Pennsylvania or at the
Pentagon. I think we better think very carefully before we, on an
appropriations bill, make a major decision like this.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Just to remember, Khobar Towers, of course, was perpetrated by Saudi
Arabians. The Cole and the embassies were attacked by al Qaeda, which
was based in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden, who is still at large
and still based in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But I am not going to
revisit the debate of last week about Iraq.
What we are going to talk about here is the Constitution and the
authority of the United States Congress. There seems to be a new-found
respect for that among the Republican leadership, and I appreciate
that.
Recently Speaker Hastert said: ``We need to protect the division of
powers in the Constitution of the United States. We want to make sure
that we protect the Constitution.''
Majority Mr. Leader Boehner said: ``Every 2 years I stand in the well
of the House and raise my right hand and swear to uphold and defend the
Constitution.''
So there is a new-found and growing respect on that side of the aisle
for the Constitution. Unfortunately, all of that umbrage was about a
search with a warrant of a Member's office, a Member of Congress who
had $90,000 cold cash in his freezer.
Now I don't agree with their concerns and don't feel that it is an
abrogation of the Constitution, but I do feel that ceding our war
powers is.
In the case of Iraq, the United States Congress, I believe,
unconstitutionally ceded its authority. We didn't declare war, we just
said the President should do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted,
however he wanted. And it hasn't worked out real well.
Article I, section 8, is quite specific about the authorities
reserved for the Congress. They were worried, the Founders were
worried, about the wont of kings to engage in foreign adventures, so
they wanted to restrain the king and retain the authority to raise the
armies, fund the armies, and declare war to the Congress.
They are very clear in Article II, section 2, which says, ``The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, and of
the Militia of the several States, when called into actual service of
the United States.'' That is, the President had the authority to repel
sudden attacks, but not launch a offensive military actions without a
declaration of war.
Now, unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales, the President's former counsel, now
head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General, has said he finds
new inherent powers in the President in times of war, and he says the
President has constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, as the
sole organ of the Federal Government in foreign affairs, to deploy the
Armed Forces of the United States. A formal declaration of war or other
authorization from the Congress is not required to enable the President
to undertake the full range of actions.
This is a total denial of all previous jurisprudence of the writings
around the Constitutional Convention and basically rendering Congress
meaningless.
Now, in this House we did have a proud moment after 9/11. On
September 14, we voted with near unanimity, one person dissenting, to
go after, essentially a declaration of war against the Taliban, the
perpetrators of 9/11, al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden.
{time} 1945
Now that was a proud moment. And we should look back to that, and we
should retain those authorities, and we should safeguard those
authorities to this United States Congress. This would not tie the
hands of the President in any way that isn't tied by the Constitution
of the United States. If there was an imminent attack, if they had a
missile on the pad and they were fueling it up to shoot at the United
States of America, with a nuclear weapon on it, the President would
have authority to repel a sudden attack. But if they are contemplating
a preemptive or preventative or whatever they want to call it war,
similar to the one launched under false pretenses in Iraq, then they
should come and make the case to the people's House, the United States
House of Representatives, and to the Senate and get the legal authority
in order to conduct those actions.
So I would urge our colleagues to stand up for our constitutional
rights here in the United States House of Representatives. I know it is
a lot easier to have plausible deniability sometimes and give the
President a broad grant of authority; and if in the end it is skewed,
then you can say, they really didn't exactly tell us the right stuff
when they launched that war. It would be better for us to be very clear
about the delineation of these authorities, and the House should
approve this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Illinois Technology Transition Center.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds in this
bill from being used for the Illinois Technology Transition Center,
which receives $2.5 million in this legislation.
The Illinois Technology Transition Center's objective is to stimulate
enterprise growth by helping technology companies realize their
commercial potential. The center offers entrepreneurial services,
technology transition support, and commercialization support.
Again, this is a defense bill, yet we are offering this funding.
I support the technology center. I encourage growth in it. I think
all of us do. It is a great source of entrepreneurship and innovation.
The United States has the largest and most technologically powerful
[[Page H4302]]
economy in the world. Technological progress is responsible for one-
half of the growth of the U.S. economy.
Competition is a driving force in this innovation. We all know that
free markets flourish when there is less government involvement.
I am all for seeing the technology sector in Illinois grow, just as I
do hope that it grows in Arizona or any other State.
However, in this defense bill the American taxpayers are being asked
to pay for support services for the private sector. I don't think that
that is appropriate in a defense bill.
Our troops are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We ought
to be spending money in the defense bill on equipment, on helmets, on
body armor, on other things, rather than subsidizing the technological
center in one particular State.
I should note I believe the Illinois Technology Transition Center was
established by a contract with the Department of the Navy, the Office
of Naval Research, in 2005. But it is also my understanding that the
Office of Naval Research did not request this earmark for $2.5 million
in funding.
With that, I request support for the amendment.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the opportunity to speak
against the amendment.
I wonder if the gentleman would take a question.
Mr. FLAKE. You bet.
Mr. LaHOOD. Do you know who earmarked this money?
Mr. FLAKE. I was told by a reporter this morning who it might be.
That was the first time I learned it after I had already agreed to
offer it.
Mr. LaHOOD. And the answer to my question is?
Mr. FLAKE. I was told that it was the Speaker who offered it.
Mr. LaHOOD. And so when you were told that, did you think that maybe
you might look into the earmark to see if it had merit and to see if it
was a set-aside that might merit further consideration?
Mr. FLAKE. Well, seeing that I had already agreed to offer it, I
thought that had I agreed to pull back now, I would be looked to
favoring one particularly powerful Member of my party.
Mr. LaHOOD. The Illinois Technology Transition Center is a public-
private collaboration between academia, industry, and government. It
collaborates with the Department of Defense, and it has identified
innovative technology applications that meet DOD mission requirements
and strives to take technology from the laboratory to use by DOD within
12 to 18 months.
This is an extraordinary opportunity for the public and the private
to come together. The lion's share of the money that funds this is
private dollars. It is not Federal dollars. It comes from people who
have businesses and people who want to invest in smart people and smart
ideas.
And the answer to your question about Iraq is that one of the
technologies that is being developed is being developed in my hometown
of Peoria by a company called Firefly. And they are developing a
revolutionary battery that will have the opportunity to withstand huge
amounts of heat and not become the kind of traditional batteries that
are currently used.
Now, this would not have been able to come about if it hadn't been
the collaboration of a private business and the Federal Government
coming together in a collaboration.
So are some of the technologies that are being developed in this
center being used in Iraq? The answer is yes, they are.
So the point is that there are many innovative approaches that are
being taken here. And this kind of collaboration really takes the smart
ideas that people in the private sector are using and trying to develop
them with the public sector. And some revolutionary things have really
come about. And I could name at least six or eight of them, but this is
an opportunity for the private sector to take the lion's share of the
money and collaborate with the public sector.
Many of these innovative approaches are being requested by the
Defense Department. Try them out, test them out, see if they work, and
then send them out to the private sector to be funded. And some of
these could not come about without this center. They would not come
about without this center.
So I wish the gentleman would have looked into this a little bit
further, and I wish he would appreciate the idea that what is being
developed here could not be developed without the opportunity for the
public and private sector to work together.
This is an appropriate appropriation for the defense bill. That is
why it is not in any other bill. And it is appropriate, because many of
the things that are being tested, many of the innovative approaches
will be used by the Defense Department.
Now, I don't know if the Department of the Navy requested this or
not. I don't know the answer to that. But I know that some of the
innovative approaches have been requested.
The company that I mentioned, Firefly, is in direct collaboration
with the Defense Department on a regular basis. And they did ask for
Firefly to help them develop this. Eventually Firefly will be spending
all of the money, and hopefully, what will happen is that once the
battery is in full development, it will create jobs in central
Illinois, in my district.
And when people say to me, Congressman, what are you going to do
about the erosion of the industrial base? It is to think outside the
box. It is to take smart people to get them to think outside the box to
create opportunities that eventually will create jobs that no one ever
thought could exist in central Illinois because in my district people
worked at Caterpillar for years and worked in other industries for
years. This is the kind of thing that creates opportunities and jobs
and could not come about without a collaboration between the Defense
Department and this company that exists in my district.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LaHood was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LaHOOD. This kind of collaboration could not come about, and
these jobs, very few at this point, but an opportunity for expansion.
And the truth is, the reason that the Speaker asked for this kind of
set-aside is because it helps all of us in Illinois. It creates not
only opportunities in central Illinois but all over the State, and it
does give hope and opportunity to people that there are going to be
innovative approaches and people can think outside the box and they can
collaborate.
I yield to the gentleman if he has a question; or if he would like to
withdraw the amendment, I would certainly entertain that.
Mr. FLAKE. I would not like to withdraw the amendment. I would simply
say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, this is the private
sector. I would submit that companies in Phoenix and in St. Louis and
in a number of cities and centers around the country are facing
difficulties and are having drawdowns, or technology is shifting. The
world economy is shifting.
But we can't simply at any time like this say, all right, we are
going to give an earmark to that industry or to that region. If we do
that, there is simply not enough money in the Federal budget. There is
not enough money in the Federal budget to do what we are doing. We are
in a deficit.
Mr. LaHOOD. I agree with that, Mr. Flake. And that is the reason that
this opportunity exists.
It is not a significant amount of money. When you look at the overall
defense budget, this is an insignificant amount of money in terms of
what it does in terms of the expansion of jobs, the expansion of ideas,
the expansion of technology, and it does create hope and opportunity
for people who really want to do business with the Federal Government
and have opportunities for creating new opportunities for people.
And listen to me, this is a no-brainer. And I hope that we can get
the House, when we come back in to vote on this amendment, to vote down
this amendment. This is a very, very good technology center and it has
created lots of opportunities for many, many people. And I urge the
House to vote against the Flake amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.
[[Page H4303]]
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for any contract with the communications and
public relations firm known as the Lincoln Group.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, late last year a number of American news
agencies blew the cover off a covert propaganda operation pursued by
the Department of Defense in Iraq. Through this operation, members of
our Armed Forces write articles and have them planted in Iraqi
newspapers. They also engage with private contractors to do that as
well.
DOD works with a contractor, the Lincoln Group, who actually pays off
Iraqi journalists and publications to get their words printed in Iraqi
newspapers and other media.
According to a November 30 Los Angeles Times report, many of the
articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts
written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet
the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-
led efforts to rebuild the country.
By December 2005, the Lincoln Group had paid to plant upwards of
1,000 of these articles in the Iraqi and Arab media. I was shocked by
this revelation, which is completely antithetical to what we should
really be doing in Iraq. In fact, it is completely antithetical to what
other U.S. agencies are doing in Iraq.
With one hand we are trying to develop a free, fair and independent
news media in that country. But with the other, we are manipulating
that media and breeding distrust among Iraqis of their democratic
institutions and our efforts at reconstruction. That distrust is a
direct threat to our troops in Iraq and a direct impediment to efforts
to end our involvement in Iraq.
This revelation shocked a lot of people across our country. Both
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush were reported as being
concerned about the effort. In fact, National Security Advisor Steven
Hadley predicted that the program would soon end.
A USA Today-CNN Gallup poll taken immediately after the program was
exposed showed that nearly 75 percent of Americans thought it was wrong
for the Pentagon to pay Iraqi newspapers for made-up articles.
In early March, General Casey announced that an internal review
conducted by DOD had concluded that its own activities were legitimate
and would continue.
Mr. Chairman, these efforts need reconsideration and careful
scrutiny.
{time} 2000
With the Internet and the round-the-clock news reporting, as well as
the unfortunate development of media consolidation, the boundaries
between international and domestic news are increasingly fuzzy. There
is no guarantee that articles sold by the Lincoln Group to the Iraqi
press will exist alone, in a bubble, ignored by other media outlets.
There is an ever-increasing likelihood that these stories will make
their way into our media, which directly contradicts our own laws.
These reports are strangely similar to stories that we were seeing
here in the United States last year about the administration's
developing packaged news articles that they paid to have placed in our
own news outlets. I want to know if the Lincoln Group effort is a
continuation of that behavior, which was strongly condemned by this
House.
The program appears to violate a directive that was signed by
Secretary Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, which restricts psychological
operations, or PSYOPS, from targeting American audiences, military
personnel, and news agencies or outlets. DOD's decision to continue
this effort in one country could easily lead to a decision to expand
the effort to other countries, a wholly inappropriate idea that is very
plausible in the current environment. That needs to be stopped.
And DOD is conducting this program with a company called the Lincoln
Group, whose beginnings, current activities, and partnerships are
cloaked in confusion and deception. This amendment prevents the
Department of Defense from spending any of the money it receives in
this bill on contracts with the Lincoln Group, its coconspirator in
this inappropriate and damaging program.
I believe this amendment will send a clear signal to the Department
of Defense that Congress and the American public do not agree with this
administration's continued efforts to manipulate the media, especially
when those efforts jeopardize the safety of our troops and the always
shaky trust that we are fighting to maintain with the Iraqi people.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the Hinchey-Kucinich amendment, which would
prohibit funds from being used in this bill to fund Pentagon contracts
with the Lincoln Group.
The Lincoln Group is a controversial PR firm that has been awarded
major Pentagon contracts, worth over $100 million, to help the Pentagon
covertly place dozens of pro-U.S. stories, written by U.S. military
``information operations'' troops in Iraqi news outlets. Lincoln would
help write and translate these stories and then have them placed in
Iraqi newspapers, without revealing the Pentagon's role. Staff for the
Lincoln Group would even at times pose as freelance reporters or
advertising executives when delivering propaganda stories to Iraqi
media outlets. That is according to the L.A. Times of November 30,
2005.
There has been much controversy over the Pentagon's dissemination of
propaganda to foreign media outlets. We appear hypocritical when on one
hand we advocate democracy and freedom in Iraq, including freedom of
the press, and on the other hand, we manipulate the Iraqi press to
achieve our own aims. This hypocrisy not only damages the United
States' reputation abroad, but it places our soldiers in greater harm's
way when we come to believe our own propaganda.
Yet the contract with Lincoln also goes beyond this controversy and
is symptomatic of the familiar problems with the Pentagon's use of
private contractors in the war: waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Lincoln Group earned its Pentagon contracts partially by
misrepresenting its contacts to the Pentagon. The group has claimed to
have partnerships with major media and advertising companies, former
government officials and former military officers. According to the New
York Times, some of those companies and individuals say their
associations were fleeting or even nonexistent. For example, Lincoln
Group said that it worked with the ad conglomerate Omnicom Group, but
Omnicom has no knowledge of such a relationship.
The Lincoln Group has also run into problems delivering on work for
the Pentagon. After earning a contract in 2004 to get Iraqi
publications to run articles written by the U.S. military, Lincoln
admitted to the Pentagon that it had not yet fully staffed and had not
yet acquired necessary media monitoring software.
According to a former strategic adviser for the Lincoln Group, they,
and this is a quote, ``The Lincoln Group appear very professional on
the surface; then you dig a little deeper and you find that they are
pretty amateurish.''
Well, not only has this amateurish work come to this country, it has
come at a not-so-amateurish price of $100 million. It is also likely
that the Lincoln Group's contract is in violation of a Pentagon
directive and maybe even in violation of U.S. law.
A recently classified Pentagon directive, signed by Secretary
Rumsfeld on October 30, 2003, prohibited U.S. troops from conducting
psychological operations targeting the news media. According to one
senior Pentagon official, based on the language of the 2003 directive,
the Lincoln Group operation seemed to violate Pentagon policy. That
from the L.A. Times, January 7, 2006.
While the Pentagon has initiated two investigations into the Lincoln
Group's work in relation to this directive, the group's contract, get
this, has not even been temporarily suspended. Moreover, if the
Pentagon's dissemination of propaganda for Iraqi media is picked up by
other foreign news organizations, like Reuters, for example, it could
then
[[Page H4304]]
easily be picked up by American news organizations. Yet U.S. law has
banned the Pentagon from propaganda activities in the United States
since the mid-1970s. The Lincoln Group's work could be in violation of
this law.
Now, this is a question of tens of million of dollars being misspent.
It is also a question of official deception, of a real effort to try to
fool the American people, to try to fool the people of Iraq, to try to
fool the foreign press.
Our soldiers know what is going on in Iraq. They know when they read
these stories or the stories come to them of a totally different
situation than what they are living with. They know it is a lie.
We should make our decisions in this Congress based on the truth, not
on fiction written by individuals who never have to deal with the real
reality. Think of how unconscionable this is. They reveal a garden in
the Iraqi media while our soldiers are in a desert of hell. How wrong
that is.
That is why the Hinchey-Kucinich amendment is important. That is why
we must prohibit funds in this bill from going to the Lincoln Group.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a good amendment at all. Earlier in the
debate earlier in the day, I said we should not be tying our hands
behind our back with a specific amendment. This amendment would disarm
part of our arsenal against the enemy.
If you do not like the Lincoln Group, I do not care about that
because I have no idea who they are. And maybe they are amateurish, as
my friend from Ohio suggested. If that is the case, maybe we ought to
fire the Lincoln Group. But let us not stop the ability of the United
States and our story to be told to the Arab world.
You have a hard time turning on television and news stories around
here that you do not see some of the propaganda from al Jazeera put out
by Zarqawi, the former Zarqawi, and his cohorts. Those messages get
spread all over the world.
In war, psychological war is very important. Is anybody here old
enough to remember Tokyo Rose? Mr. Hastings says he is, and so am I.
Tokyo Rose, who broadcast radio propaganda to our troops, trying to
demoralize them every day, 24 hours a day. Well, are you going to just
ignore that kind of warfare, or are you going to fight back?
We have a story to tell. Mr. Kucinich talked about the soldiers. Let
me tell you something. I have seen and talked with a lot of wounded
soldiers and marines in our hospitals right out here north of the city,
and many of them complain, Why isn't our story getting told? They do
not believe that our story is getting told. They hear the trash that
comes out of al Qaeda on al Jazeera that spreads out to all of the Arab
worlds and finds its way back here to America, as the gentleman
conceded. Are we just going to sit back and take those blows, just sit
back and let the enemy throw all of the lies and all of the trash that
they want to at us without fighting back? Not me. Not me.
Do not take away one of the tools in our arsenal: the ability to
fight back in a psychological way, because fighting for the minds of
the people involved are a big part of our issue.
If you want to fire the Lincoln Group, do it. If this amendment
should pass, and I hope that it does not, and the Lincoln Group doesn't
get funded, what is to say that they do not hire some other firm to do
the same thing? Specifying a particular company is not what we do in
appropriations bills. We do not specify companies for contracts or
projects. We just do not do that. If you want to fire the Lincoln
Group, put in an amendment that says fire the Lincoln Group, but do not
take away one of the tools in our arsenal of fighting the battles that
we have to fight.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As I noted earlier today, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, who is
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is not here today due to an
important personal commitment, and he asked me to state his opposition
to this amendment.
The issue of authorization and funding for public affairs and
information operations in Iraq has been monitored and discussed by the
Armed Services Committee to some length. Information operations are
vital, as our good chairman from Florida just pointed out. In Iraq the
United States faces a determined enemy that attempts to manipulate the
media, often with the purpose of further endangering U.S. forces.
Chairman Hunter, in fact, has pledged to hold hearings on this matter.
But let me just point out, as Chairman Young just so eloquently
stated, information dissemination on the battlefield and in the
countries that are affected in a direct way by warfare such as Iraq is
extremely important. Earlier today we had that in mind when Chairman
Young led us in opposition to an amendment proposed by another Member
because of the message it sent. Messages in Iraq and other countries
torn by war are extremely important. As a matter of fact, we devote a
great deal of time, effort, and money to train members of our military
forces in operations called psychological operations. As a matter of
fact, we used them extensively during the invasion of Iraq, not through
the contractor that is in question here, but through our military
personnel who are trained to do just that. The use of broadcast has
traditionally been an important part of information operations as well.
So Chairman Hunter and the rest of us on the Armed Services Committee
and the Defense Appropriations Committee have paid a lot of attention
to this matter for many reasons. I am sure the committee will continue
to do so if necessary. And Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England
has informed us on the Armed Services Committee that he is reviewing
this matter very closely. In the meantime, General Casey in Iraq and
the Department of Defense inspector general are both investigating the
use of funds by the Lincoln Group and by the Rendon Group. The results
of the Casey investigation are expected to be released in the near
future.
I could only say on behalf of Chairman Hunter that the Armed Services
Committee will continue to monitor closely and will take appropriate
action as needed.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
{time} 2015
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the
bill from being used for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, which
receives $2.5 million in this defense bill.
What is the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative? Where is the money
going? To the northwest of what? Of the United States? Of Arizona? Of
Washington, DC.?
There is no description of this project in the committee report. It
strikes me again, why can't Members get more information on these
projects beforehand? We made calls to the Department of Defense, which
funds this earmark. They knew nothing. They didn't get back to us with
anything. Calls were unanswered. We asked the Appropriations Committee
as well, and we couldn't get anything from the Appropriations Committee
before we filed the amendment to be offered here. It was only after the
amendment was filed that those who are sponsoring the earmark called to
tell us what the amendment is about.
It is the Northwest portion of the United States, I come to
understand, and it is a manufacturing initiative, but we don't know
much else about it.
[[Page H4305]]
A few of the Members have been kind enough to share with me today what
they are seeking to do. My understanding is that businesses in the
Northwest, particularly those that contract with the United States
Government, the Department of Defense and others, some are having
difficulty, as they are in many parts of the country.
My question is, why in the defense bill are we offering help to
manufacturing companies in the Northwest? What about the Southeast or
the Southwest? What about companies in Arizona or California or
Colorado? Why don't they get similar treatment? How does the Federal
Government decide, all right, we are going to help manufacturing
companies there, but not here? Again, we are picking winners and losers
here. It is not the job and should not be the job of the Federal
Government.
I appreciate the fact there are Members here willing to defend this
amendment. My good friend Mr. Blumenauer is here to do so and others,
and I appreciate that. In this way we can actually have a dialogue.
Again, sometimes this is the only oversight, the only explanation.
This is it. This is all we get on some of these earmarks. I feel it is
important when we are spending taxpayer dollars, particularly $2.5
million in the defense bill, that it is important to know what it is
going for. So I am glad the authors of the amendment are here, and I
look forward to the explanation.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman's opportunity to engage in
what, in fact, the proposal is about, because there was a rather
detailed proposal that was extended to the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. It is cosponsored by the entire House delegation, 10
Northwest Representatives and Senators, a bipartisan effort, and it is
dealing with the need to be able to have a bistate program to help
support a strong defense industrial base.
It contributes directly to our national defense. We have outlined how
it helps in terms of providing research and development on the
reliability, cost-effectiveness and environmental performance of
products designed specifically for the defense marketplace. It
increases the ability to deal with workforce, to provide the products,
to expand the reach of high-performance manufacturing techniques, and
create more efficient and competitive companies in the defense sector,
and to build the capacity of small and medium-sized companies to
participate in this marketplace.
This is precisely the sort of thing that I think we would want to
have to help the defense opportunities, not just in the Pacific
Northwest, but to be able to scale it and take it in other parts of the
country.
I could go on at great length. I will not, because I have been
admonished that time is short and because others from the Northwest who
are part of this are here.
But let me just say that I have been struck by, and one of the
reasons I have been working on this for some time is the ability of
small companies that I work with to make a difference, and that we have
great difficulty in terms of scaling and being able to help them
perform in this arena.
In my district we have Danner Boots, which far exceeds the capacity
of the specifications that the Department of Defense requests. Our
soldiers would be safer. In fact, that is the boot of choice for people
who have young men and women going to Iraq.
We have had the same consortium develop HemCon Bandages, which have
an amazing capacity to accelerate the clotting. In fact, it is the
consensus that our troops should all be provided with this when they go
overseas.
We have got small companies that are dealing with technology that
others are going to speak to that I won't go into that are all a part
of this consortium.
Last but not least, the notion here is having skin in the game. Well,
this is matched by a 50 percent match by local sources. It is a public-
private partnership where we are not looking for something that has
dropped out of the sky, but is matched by the Federal Government. I
think anybody who reviews this proposal will find that it is cost-
effective, that it is important for the Defense Department, that it
builds on proven technologies and opportunities and speaks to gaps that
need to be filled, and will have application not just for the
Department of Defense, but for others that work to serve it.
So, in the interest of time, I will conclude on that point and invite
anybody to look at this proposal that has been offered by my colleagues
from the Northwest. I think they will be satisfied that there will be
full value offered, and it is worthy of support.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona to strike the funding for the Northwest
Manufacturing Initiative.
The Northwest Manufacturing Initiative encompasses Oregon and
southwest Washington. The initiative is organized as a regional
coalition, and its purpose is to make the Northwest region's diverse
manufacturing sector a stronger contributor to the Nation's defense and
national security.
The initiative seeks to provide to the Defense Department a
coordinated, regional resource for assessing products and services
being offered by the private sector that meets our Nation's future
defense needs. A key goal of the initiative is to increase the
contribution of the Northwest coast to the Nation's industrial
preparedness and security. A focus of this project is to assist small
and medium-sized manufacturers to become providers of products to
defense contractors.
My colleague talked about HemCon; he talked about another company,
Danner Boots. I could name several companies. There is another company,
Hydration, which allows you with a membrane to fill water into this
CamelBak and give you clean drinking water from the filthiest water you
can find. Those are the kind of companies. These are small, innovative
companies. This is where we get our innovation.
The Oregon Manufacturing Initiative is a key component of the Oregon
business plan and economic development plans in communities across
Oregon and southwest Washington. Local, regional and State funding has
been used to plan and develop the initiative.
As manufacturing has declined in many parts of the Nation, it has
become more urgent that small to medium-sized companies are mobilized
to provide the necessary goods demanded by a modern military and the
Nation's security. Through the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, the
Defense Department will have a one-stop resource when it needs
information on what companies are providing to meet defense needs or
when it seeks critical manufacturing research and development.
The Northwest Manufacturing Initiative is a regional model designed
to create efficiencies and cost savings. While I appreciate the
intentions of the gentleman from Arizona, I must urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment and ask they support this worthwhile project.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intent of the gentleman from Arizona,
but I rise to join my colleagues in explaining why this is so
important.
We have talked about boots, we have talked about hydration systems.
This same coalition is involved with making some of the finest combat
knives in the world; laser sights, laser devices that can help protect
aviation or even possibly one day shoot down missiles; adhesive armor,
to up-armor Humvees in 4 hours to save our soldiers' lives.
The gentleman from Arizona said we don't pick winners and losers. In
fact, we do. If you vote against this provision and for your amendment,
you will pick our soldiers as losers. This is about providing resources
to help small businesses and medium-sized businesses get state-of-the-
art equipment to our soldiers.
I don't know if you have had the occasion to meet with a midsized
growing business that makes this kind of equipment, but talking to them
and the challenges they face in working with defense procurement
proposals, defense procurement procedures and other needs are very
difficult challenges. I think it is entirely appropriate that the
Federal Government participate in this, along with the match that was
described earlier, because this is a program that could well be a model
for the
[[Page H4306]]
country, that will produce more effective business results and better
products for our soldiers.
One final statement I would just make: We talk in this body a lot
about dynamic scoring of tax cuts. There is also dynamic scoring of
expenditures. I would submit to the gentleman from Arizona and to all
my colleagues that for a small amount of money, we are going to
stimulate manufacturing of state-of-the-art devices and equipment that
will save our soldiers' lives and save this government money over the
long run.
This is a good proposal, an innovative proposal, and good products
that will save the lives of our soldiers will result from it. I urge a
``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is about public-private partnerships. It is
about cost-effective and innovative production. The large defense
manufacturers are not exactly known as paragons of innovation or cost-
effectiveness, so diversifying into the small and midsized businesses
in the Pacific Northwest is a great investment for the Federal
taxpayers, and we are providing vital products to our troops. Hydration
technologies was already mentioned, based in my district. Body armor is
produced in my district. We have a stealth boat manufacturer, missile
silos up in Darlene's district. These are all members of the coalition.
Night vision goggles, critical to our troops.
So if you support cost-effective, innovative and effective equipment
for our troops, you will oppose this amendment and support the
initiative.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona seeking to cut all $2.5 million
for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, NMI.
I, along with all members of Oregon's bipartisan House and Senate
delegation as well as House and Senate members from Washington, asked
for funding for NMI because of its goal to improve the Department of
Defense's industrial base by strengthening the Northwest's diverse,
value-added manufacturing sector.
Through research and development to enhance the reliability, cost
effectiveness and performance of defense related products and through
increasing our ability to train and deliver work-ready employees to
defense related manufacturing companies, NMI will increase and improve
the contributions of Northwest companies to the nation's industrial
preparedness and security.
We have seen what innovative and cutting edge technologies can come
out of the Northwest to benefit our military:
HemCon, located in my Congressional district, has developed a new
bandage technology that has already saved the lives of dozens of U.S.
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the Army Surgeon General has
requested that every soldier deployed to a combat zone carry a HemCon
Bandage in their first-aid kit.
Similarly, through work being done at iSense in my district, military
doctors will have the technology to quickly detect severe blood loss or
internal bleeding. There is no doubt in my mind that these technologies
have and will save the lives of Americans at home and abroad.
Another company, InSport, is ensuring that our service members have
the best products available in combat. InSport has developed base layer
t-shirts for our military that resist the build up of bacteria that
adversely affects performance on the battlefield.
Yet, despite these innovative companies, challenges remain. Many
small defense companies, especially those in manufacturing, have
trouble finding skilled workers.
The NMI will help train manufacturing workers and increase
participation of innovative companies. It will allow an entire region's
companies to learn from each other, and more Oregonians to learn to
earn.
More importantly, it will save the Department of Defense, DOD, time
and money by making these manufacturers more efficient and competitive
and, consequently, able to provide better and less expensive products.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative and I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Norton:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1001.
None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
enter into or carry out a contract for the performance by a
contractor of any base operation support service at Walter
Reed Army Medical Hospital pursuant to the public-private
competition conducted under Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 that was initiated on June 13, 2000, and that
has the solicitation number DADA 10-03-R-0001.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment concerns the Walter Reed
Army Medical Hospital.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, we have no
problem with the amendment on our side.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the
amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for accepting my
amendment.
{time} 2030
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Lewis Center for Education Research.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding
from going to the Lewis Center for Educational Research in Apple
Valley, California.
Mr. Chairman, the Lewis Center has hosted more than 100,000 students,
teachers, and parents participating in educational activities. The
center's Web site contains a wish list for funding for three log cabins
for third graders, an amphitheater, a schoolhouse shed, a large water
wheel for panning gold during the gold rush educational fourth grade
outreach program, and similar activities to that.
Mr. Chairman, these are undoubtedly worthy educational tools. My
question is this: Why are Federal tax dollars intended for our national
defense being used to fund this type of institution? It seems that
corporate sponsors of the center abound, including corporations like
JPL, Allied Signal, Boeing, Verizon, Lucent Technologies, Lomac
Information System, Mitsubishi, RFG, Rockwell Rocketdyne Aerospace.
Surely these donations can keep the center in good stead.
The center has already received $3 million in earmarked funds in
fiscal year 2004 and an additional $2.5 million in 2005. It looks as if
the center is back for more in this bill to the tune of $4 million.
The description of the earmark in this bill provides no detail on how
the $4 million is to be spent on the Lewis Center. If there is a
defense angle for this earmark, I am simply not seeing it. Again, it
seems as if we are debating the Labor-HHS bill at this point or some
other education bill and not the defense bill. These may well be worthy
programs, but should we be funding them with defense dollars?
I would like to hear justification for the Federal defense function
in this case. Again, why are we doing this in the defense bill? These
are clearly educational functions. Why should we be taking money that
could be spent for the troops and for the operations in the military
for things like this?
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and
ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening Mr. Lewis
talked extensively in support of projects and made I think the
relationship between education for our youngsters in math and science
and the work of the U.S. Department of Defense, and I believe that his
comments are on the record and I would like to resubmit them in case
they are not.
[[Page H4307]]
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to
inform my colleagues on the excellent programs put together by the
Center for Education Research in Apple Valley, California.
First, it is important to remember that the 21st Century Department
of Defense is much more than weapons programs and soldiers in barracks.
Tens of thousands of our dedicated men and women in uniform have made a
life-long career of defending their nation. They now have families, and
it has become our responsibility to provide for those families as they
move about our nation to meet the needs of our military.
Many schools that serve the children of military families have
developed high standards of excellence. But not all schools in all
places have met these standards in the past. As the DoD worked to
translate these high standards to other schools, the Center for
Education Research came forward with a proposed discipline for science
nearly a decade ago.
The heart of this program is the Goldstone-Apple Valley Radio
Telescope curriculum, which allows 10,000 students around the world to
take part in NASA research projects by way of the Internet. This
program now reaches students and teachers in 27 states, 14 countries
and three territories.
I want to emphasize that the support of these students is valued and
sought out by NASA researchers. In fact, the students' efforts have in
many cases saved millions of dollars for Federal science programs by
freeing top researchers from process work and allowing them to do more
analysis.
The Center for Excellence was asked last year to create a
comprehensive Internet-based science curriculum and train 500 teachers
by the Department of Defense Education Activity program, which is the
primary agency helping our DoD schools achieve high levels of
excellence. The Stars and Stripes newspaper, and even DoDEA itself,
have featured this program in stories that highlight what we are trying
to do for our military families.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I once again want to point out that not
all good ideas come through the bureaucracies that oversee spending for
our federal government. Often those bureaucracies hold back ideas that
could quickly and dramatically advance the quality of services we
provide to our constituents--and in this case--the families of those
who defend us.
When this happens, these programs need an advocate who can get the
agency to engage, and see the value of these ideas. I am proud to be an
advocate for a program that continues to help tens of thousands of kids
whose parents devote their lives to protecting our nation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. Flake. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE X--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 10001. None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response
Training Program (ALERRT).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from
going to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program,
or ALERRT program, at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas.
The ALERRT program, as it is called, provides training for first
responders and police officer. It would appear that this is not the
first earmark appropriated to Texas State University for the ALERRT
program. Evidently, the program has received $300,000 in the past; now
it needs another $1 million.
I am all for the training of our police officers, although it is
primarily a function of State and local governments. However, I
understand the Federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security
grants go toward law enforcement agencies. In the defense
appropriations bill why is this a vehicle for funding for law
enforcement training? Are we not adequately training our military
troops at our Defense Department facilities? Do we now need to send
them to this law enforcement training center? If this is the case, I
would submit that we ought to hold some hearings on the subject. I
should note that the President did not request this money.
I would submit that it is time for Congress to be a little more
attentive to how we are spending and earmarking valuable defense
dollars. Again, we have other appropriations bills, and homeland
security certainly comes up here. This is a function of training local
police officers or others for a local police function. We have scarce
defense dollars, and we shouldn't be spending them in this way. I hope
that we will vote for this amendment and keep the funding for defense
in defense.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The type of warfare that we are involved in now is different than
army-against-army or squad