National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 25, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague, the chairman, for his leadership on this committee, for the by and large strong bipartisanship that we have had on this bill. I thank him and all the members on both sides of the aisle, the chairman, the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. They have all worked so well and so hard.
This is a $440 billion bill, and it means so very much for the national security of our country.
So we again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his participation, for his friendship and for being a strong colleague in national defense.
I am pleased that this year's defense budget represents a real increase in defense spending over last year's level. The committee made good use of the money in recommending vital readiness, modernization, infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best trained and best equipped in the world.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must say that I am so very proud of every man and every woman who wears the uniform of the United States. It is up to us, in the Constitution, to provide and maintain them, and, that is, from all of us who serve on this committee, it is a labor of love. Those young men and young women putting their hearts and souls, their bodies, their careers on the line for our country. So the least we can do at this moment is say a special thanks to them by passing an excellent bill which does help them in their duties.
I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), ranking member, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Mr. McHugh) for increasing the Army and Marine Corps end-strength. I have been saying since 1995, Mr. Chairman, that we needed 40,000 more troops in the United States Army, and this year we are authorizing an additional 30,000 for the Army and an additional 4,000 for the United States Marines.
However, they are paid for out of the supplemental that we are authorizing. Nevertheless, it is happening. It should be paid for out of the base bill, but it is happening because they are stretched, they are strained.
I also want to commend the efforts to reform the purchase of Navy ships. If we are ever going to get to the point where we can afford to buy more than just a few ships a year, we are going to have to do things differently, and I think that buying the number of ships that we are doing, the additional three ships, is a major step in the right direction.
I do, however, want to raise two matters of concern. The bill authorizes almost $50 billion in fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are separate and apart from the $440-plus billion we are authorizing. My concern is that the conflicts for which we are authorizing this additional money are mature enough that their costs are foreseeable and could and should be included in the base bill. In my view, budgeting in this fashion has adverse consequences.
Secondly, the "emergency" designation that goes along with supplemental appropriations hides the true extent of the Federal deficit. Although we may disagree on the practice of funding operations in the Iraq war and the Afghanistan conflict through supplemental appropriations, if we are going to go down this road, then we should not short-circuit the authorization process. And that is what we are doing. We are authorizing, as we should, rather than leave it up to the Committee on Appropriations; and I think that is a move in the right direction.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about the Hunter amendment. This deals with the women in uniform. At the outset I must say I am proud of every man and woman who wears the uniform and the duty that they perform.
In the Military Personnel Subcommittee, the amendment was adopted on a party-line vote, which had the effect of freezing out and causing to be closed some 21,950 positions. That was not a good move. That would be disruptive, not just to women; it would be disruptive to our national defense because so many of them are serving all over the globe in such superb fashion.
In the full committee, another amendment was adopted that was an attempt to codify Secretary Les Aspin's 1994 women issue language. It was not full and complete, and there were some serious problems with that, and the United States Army opposed that. That is the way the bill is at this moment.
I understand there is an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that will wipe that out and that will call for a special way of counting notification to Congress and call for a study. Should that pass, it will wipe out the onerous language that is there that is causing a great deal of concern not just with women in the uniform, but those others who work with them and for them.
The process in this regard has been, I think, unfair to Democrats. So as a matter of fact, we have come out on the issue regarding women. If the new Hunter amendment is adopted, possibly those two amendments are behind us and we do not have to worry about their being concerned; and that is the major victory in this issue of personnel.
I feel constrained to mention that the committee adopted an amendment that would have extended TRICARE coverage to Reservists. Unfortunately, the provision was technically defective, and the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to right that wrong, and they did not do so. So we look forward to discussing that at a later time. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I am sure, will address that situation.
By and large, this is a good bill. We have worked hard on it. The subcommittees have worked hard on it. And so often we have serious problems, as we have with the issue regarding the women in uniform, but I do not want those issues to detract from the fact that this is a solid piece of legislation that helps fight the war against terrorism and helps fight against the insurgency in Iraq and also funds the men and women in the performance of their duties all over this globe.
So I will say that we have a tremendous military that we should be very proud of.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in reference to the gentlewoman from New Mexico's (Mrs. Wilson) remarks, the women in the military issue is past. There were some trying moments, there were two amendments, one quite onerous and the other just onerous. I thank the gentlewoman.
I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), for their work, along with the chairman and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for gluing together a piece of legislation that replaces the onerous language.
Mr. Chairman, we have a remarkable military. History will prove that we have the finest young men and young women who are in uniform ever. As it was pointed out a few moments ago, they are all volunteers. They are all dedicated. They understand duties. They understand service. They understand professionalism.
And today when we pass this bill, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) joins me, we hope this will be a tribute to them and their hard work, their dedication and their patriotism. For without them, without the young men and women who wear the uniform of all the services today, our country would not be safe and secure.
Mr. Chairman, I admire and appreciate those who serve in our military today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone in this Chamber that understands the border and the business at the border, it is the former border patrol chief, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). His expertise is beyond question.
At a time when we are stretching our young people in uniform, particularly the United States Army, at a time when 40 percent of those in Iraq and Afghanistan are Reservists or National Guardsmen, at a time when we are having a difficult time in recruiting and problems rising in retention, we just cannot afford to put additional troops on the border. That is the purpose of the border patrol, and it is up to this body in other amendments and other bills to authorize and appropriate more border patrolmen for that necessary job.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, there are magic moments in a person's life. One of those magic moments happened to me in April 1948 in Kansas City, Missouri, at the Music Hall Auditorium, where I manned the stage with a good number of other Boy Scouts, my mother walking up the steps with me, a rose being handed to me which I handed to her, and I shook hands with the sponsor of the Eagle Scout class, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, the then-president of Kansas State University. It was a moment to remember. That was my Eagle Scout Code of Honor. Of course, I am pleased to say that we have a son also that is an Eagle Scout.
Scouting builds good citizenship. I have been around it all my life. Looking back, I have so much to thank my scoutmaster, John L. Marchetti, old Troop 418, for the young men he worked with and molded into good Missouri citizens.
It is important that young Scouts have the finest places to camp, the finest places to learn the skills, the camping, the frontiering, learn the active parts of the Scout law: to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. They can learn these on reservations that are and do belong to our military. As a matter of fact, a good number of Scouts that come through the Scouts ranks volunteer and become part of the military, many of them for a career.
So it certainly is fitting that the gentlewoman from Virginia offers this amendment. I thoroughly endorse it. I certainly hope it passes overwhelmingly. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) again for giving me this opportunity to speak in support thereof.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I stand in full support of this amendment. ROTC has been an integral part of college life for many, many, many decades in our country. Land grant colleges across the Nation are required to have ROTC, as they should. But I think those colleges and universities, institutions of higher learning, that have Federal funds flow into them for any number of reasons, any number of grants, for good purposes, of course, should also support the ROTC programs and allow recruiters free access to those that wish to inquire of and join the ROTC.
ROTC is not just a proposition whereby someone may become an officer in the United States Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines. It also is a character builder for young people. They learn about obligations, about duty, about patriotism. I think ROTC has certainly played an important part in so many young lives in our country.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly support this amendment, and I think it is wrong not to allow ROTC on such campuses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, let me add a thank-you and it is a job well done to Robert Rangel. Your professionalism, your friendship, your integrity, your hard work have served this institution well. You love this institution, we know that, and we are most appreciative of all you have done for us in a bipartisan way. You understand politics; but on the other hand, you understand this institution and help make it work very, very well.
I might say, Robert, back in Lafayette County, Missouri, the highest compliment you ever get is, You done good. So Robert Rangel, you done good.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov