Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007

Madam Chairman, I think we only have about 2\1/2\ minutes left on this side. I would continue to reserve and ask my good friend from Missouri to recognize some more of his speakers.

I want to thank all Members who participated in the general debate, and all the great subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, and the chairman of the committee for putting together this great bill, and will now enter the amendment process.

There is just one point that I wanted to make in listening to my colleague finish up in talking about the mental health of America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

One observation that I have made over the years in being around people that wear the uniform is that while a number of the stresses and the difficulties that have been spoken of are real, it is also real that the coolest, calmest, most balanced, most stable American citizens, I believe, are the folks that wear the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while it is true that enemy fire can hurt you and damage you mentally as well as physically, it is also true that that fire can make you stronger.

Having spent time with guys like Chuck Yeager, guys like the great Vic Taylor, many others who have been under fire and in various situations in real combat in the world's wars, it has always occurred to me that the people who have the greatest mental stability are people that come out of the combat zones.

So I want to make sure that this debate doesn't send the message that somehow Americans who wear the uniform are victims, and that the inevitable result of their wearing the uniform and serving in combat is that they are going to somehow be damaged mentally, because that is not the case.

And I would just conclude by reflecting on the fact that I take a number of folks who are wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan hunting, which the Hunter family likes to do, and I take them hunting with my grandchildren. And there are few people that I will trust my grandchildren with, but the people I will trust my grandchildren with out in the great outdoors, with loaded weapons, are members of the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps who have been to combat. Those people have the greatest sense of balance and sense of judgment.

And, again, in my mind, America's citizens who are the coolest and the calmest under fire and have the greatest sense of balance and judgment are people that wear the uniform and have been in combat.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak about the amendment. I don't rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would like to take the time and address the issue.

Madam Chair, we've looked over the amendment. It's really an adjustment of a part of the base bill that we have that allows for this memorandum of understanding between these three primary entities, State, DOD and AID, to make sure that they have an understanding of authorization of the carrying of the weapons by contractors, the rules of engagement, coordinating movement of contractors, collecting information relating to offenses under UCMJ and also, additionally, what the gentlelady has offered in her amendment, the issuance of guidance on all equipment, including uniforms, body armor, weapons and the collection of information related to casualties suffered by contractors.

And our only concern, of course, is that we have enough time for this memorandum of understanding to be put together after the bill becomes law, which in some cases is late December, hopefully long before then. And so what we do need is to have the ability of the administration, if they don't have that together. And one thing we all agree on is you've got to do this right when they do it, when they issue this memorandum of understanding. So they need to have time to do it; that we do have a waiver or an extension of time that would be allowed.

And so I've talked this over with the gentlelady, who is the author of the amendment. She's amenable to extending the time period for this memorandum of understanding to be worked out, and the chairman has graciously agreed that he also supports that.

And so just in a simple informal colloquy, I'd just ask the chairman if it's his agreement that, in conference, we would work to extend the time wherein the memorandum of understanding could be worked out if, in fact, it can't be done within 90 days of the first of January 2008. Would the gentleman agree to effect that in conference?

Absolutely.

I would further ask the gentlelady if that's fine with her, if she would be in accord with that.

Thank you very much. In that case we support this amendment and would not object to its adoption.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I just wanted to thank the gentlelady for, respectfully, for her addition to this amendment and her concern about the contractors. And you know, just reflect for a second, that our contractors who go over to the warfighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan undertake enormous danger, and a large number of them have been killed and wounded. And many of them, the ones that I have met, are largely American veterans who have, they go for two reasons; one is they do make good money. It's a job, it's a worthwhile job. They feel like they're supporting our country. They also have a great, the ones I've talked to, have a great deal of concern for the troops. They have a feeling of partnership with the people that wear the uniform of the United States, and they are a great asset to this country. And I think it's appropriate that we follow, we carefully watch how they're treated and how they're protected. I think that's absolutely appropriate.

I thank the chairman for embedding this base provision in the base bill, and

members on the Republican and Democrat side who've worked to put this together, and I thank the gentlelady for her thoughtful addition.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and on our side we think this is an excellent amendment. And I want to thank the gentleman whom I've traveled with to the warfighting theaters, and thank him for his concern for our troops, and we support the amendment strongly.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I just want to say that we on this side are in total agreement with her amendment. We thank her for bringing it in such a thoughtful way and we support it.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, we appreciate the gentleman and his amendment on this side and thank him for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman. What an essential and important amendment this is.

We recognized and have embedded in law the remedies for a service person who may be overseas and may lose his house or may have a judgment taken against him, a civil law liability judgment, and we have tried to protect him from that. And the idea of having a child taken from you while you are serving overseas can only have a demoralizing effect on members of the armed services.

So this protection is very much needed, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio. We have total support on this side for his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for the purposes of a colloquy with myself and Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman and I will support the gentleman's request for a study by the GAO after 1 year to assess the impact to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the DOD of providing Federal pricing to DOD to purchase drugs in a retail pharmacy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for my great friend from New Jersey, who has shared and fought on common ground with this Member for many years on items of interest and national defense that we shared support of.

In this case, I must oppose this amendment strongly for this reason. The nation that he's talking about, Iran, borders obviously one of our important warfighting theaters, that is, Iraq. We have seen evidence, it has been reported by our warfighting commanders that Iran has participated in moving instruments of death; that is, extremely effective IEDs that have been used against American troops and will prospectively be used against American troops, into Iraq from Iran.

The idea that we are saying that in this piece of the budget we cannot plan for interdiction of those items, of those weapons that are moving across the border, that we can't plan, for example, for Special Forces operations that we might need to implement or to move into action, to preempt this movement of deadly devices across the border, that we can't plan to extract hostages if they should be taken by Iranian militia or Iranian members of the armed forces is just not practical and it's not reasonable.

You have an Iranian military and intelligence body which has decided to become involved in the war in Iraq. They have moved across the border, and they have moved effective weapons across the border that are being used against American troops. I think it is not wise for us to advertise to our adversaries and to the world that we are establishing a policy that we will not even use money to contemplate or to plan for a reaction against us. I think we have to let them know that we have license, as Americans, to take any actions that might be necessary to protect American troops.

I would object very strongly to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield an additional 3 minutes?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to my friend from New Jersey in this way: It says that you can't plan for a major contingency. I am looking at scenarios, and if you have a scenario where you have convoys of IED material being moved from Iran into Iraq and you want to send a team over and make a strike and close a canyon or close a mountain pass or hit that convoy with a major strike, I think many people would classify that as a major action, a major contingency.

So I think that we blurred the line here in that we may have to take what I would consider and many Members here would consider to be major contingencies. The problem is, you have to take those things very quickly.

This war against terror is an era when time is truly of the essence, when hours are important, when minutes are important, when days are important. The idea we have to come back, if you have got to close a pass to keep IEDs that are killing Americans in Iraq from going across that line, we have to come back and get permission from Congress to do that, I think that is not a good advertisement or a good statement of impunity to communicate to the other side, where they think they now have an insulation between an immediate reaction by American Armed Forces.

That is the essence of our resistance to this amendment, and I think it is still very solid.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my friend, I just reviewed it the other day, and I don't need to look at any statements by George W. Bush about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, because the most damning statements about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, the most conclusive statements that indeed he must have them and that he must be brought to justice quickly, were not made by George W. Bush. They were made by people with the last name of Clinton, of Gore, of Kerry. I reviewed all of the videotapes of their speeches in which they absolutely laid out a case against Saddam Hussein.

So I hope we don't replow the ground of who shot John here in terms of statements with respect to the state of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.

I think we need to get back to the substance of this debate, and that is, are we foreclosing an immediate response if it is necessary.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to explain again why I think it is impractical to put this dividing line between this funding.

If there has to be a strike, if there has to be preemption because IED material is moving across the border that could injure our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, probably the reactive force is going to be led by one of the combatant commanders who is in the Iraqi theater and who is being funded by money under OEF or OIF. It is probably not going to come. And the idea you can't have uniformed personnel expending his time and his staff's time planning what it is going to take to defend his soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines from interference from the Iranian side of the border, is, in my estimation, not practical.

Those are the forces that are going to be responding, and I think we have to let them put together that contingency plan.

Notice to Alter Order of Consideration of Amendments

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We have been at war with the radical Islamic jihadists ever since they supported and fomented that storming of our embassy in 1979. They held Americans hostage and they held them for 444 days, and every President since President Carter has renewed the national emergency with respect to Iran, most recently on March 8 of this year.

If you look at the War Powers Act, Mr. Chairman, it states that a national emergency does justify the President utilizing his constitutional powers as Commander in Chief. My reading of this amendment is that this proposal, this amendment, changes the War Powers Act and extracts that power from the President of the United States. We have had Democrat and Republican Presidents renewing that finding and that national emergency status with respect to Iran.

Just to say further, Mr. Chairman, we all know, and I just talked about this, we know that Iran through its proxies helped and aided in the attack against Americans at Khobar Towers, which killed 19 Americans and injured 372 other Americans and other people who were in that area. We know that the Iranian-backed insurgents are killing American troops with IEDs, and some of that IED expertise and the materials themselves are being transferred from Iran. We know that they are assisting in attacks against Americans in Afghanistan.

A couple of weeks ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, said, ``We have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran. The arms included mortars and C-4 plastic explosives.''

So, Mr. Chairman, every Member of this body should be strongly opposed to this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would just offer to my colleague who just spoke and my other colleagues that there are the strongest statements for invasion of Iraq that took place before President Bush came into office, and those were the now famous speeches that were made by three Senators by the name of Kerry, Clinton, and Gore.

Mr. Chairman, the War Powers Act clearly calls for the ability of the Commander in Chief to introduce American military force where an emergency with respect to a nation has been declared. That emergency with respect to Iran has been declared by every American President since President Carter in 1979. This is not extra-constitutional. The law as it presently exists is consistent with the Constitution. This would infringe. In fact, this would roll back the War Powers Act. Every Member should vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are in strong opposition to this amendment. In fact, the Armed Services Committee under the very able chairmanship of the gentleman from Missouri has finished a number of oversight hearings. The subcommittees that are involved in the Armed Services Committee and in Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have undertaken extensive hearings and analysis of every weapons system that we have. And, of course, you have many weapons systems that were built 20-30 years ago that were highly relevant, like the C-130s that Members fly on, that are the backbone of the transportation system, the intratheater transportation system in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bradley fighting vehicles, M-1 tanks. There is no weapon system that comes out of a production line with the word ``Cold War'' on it, so the relevance and the importance and the use of weapons has been carefully and closely analyzed by the important committees, the oversight committees, and we are aided in that by the Quadrennial Defense Review that is done by the administration where they make their case for what they think that we need, and the President makes that proposition which is manifested in his budget. And after hearings, the members of this committee and the full body, this House of Representatives, respond with our cut on what we think we should do with respect to arming and maintaining and equipping our military forces.

So I would just strongly oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and say I have great respect for the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

Madam Chairman, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of House Resolution 403, and as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 1585 in the Committee of the Whole and following general debate, the following amendments be considered in this order: amendment No. 33, amendment No. 29, amendment No. 49, the en bloc package, and amendment No. 8, amendment No. 14, amendment No. 21, and amendment No. 38.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) who is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side on general debate, please.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is deadly serious business, Madam Chairwoman. I have witnessed here the number of procedural motions, which I have refrained from commenting upon, but this is deadly serious business.

This is a bill to authorize funds for the United States military. That is our constitutional job to do. And procedural motions are fine, but let's get on with taking care of the troops and giving them their pay raise and the medical care and the equipment that they need.

As we say back in Missouri, ``'nough said.''

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And first I want the gentleman from Texas to know how much the committee appreciates his strong support for our Nation's Armed Forces, particularly for the United States Army. He is just superb. The Army is bearing the brunt of the burden of military operations in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, and our committee has worked to ensure that soldiers on the ground have the equipment they need to accomplish their mission and come home safely.

Beyond taking care of the needs of the warfighters in the field today, we must address the Army's long-term modernization and readiness requirements. That is why the bill before us here today fully funds the most critical elements of the Future Combat Systems program, which will keep the program on track to conduct the limited user test next summer.

While the bill cuts some funding for some redundant programs and overhead costs, along with parts of the program which are not scheduled to be fielded until 2015, the $2.8 billion in the bill includes full funding for all Spinout 1 activities, allowing them to continue as planned.

I want to assure the gentleman from Texas that we will continue our efforts to balance the Army's immediate near-term as well as long-term needs as we work through the conference process. As Congressman Abercrombie said last week during consideration of the bill in the committee, finding that balance is a work in progress.

To the gentleman from Texas, you have my assurance that we will provide funding for the FCS program so that the Army can move forward with modernizing its equipment and its networks.

As we focus our efforts, as we focus our dollars on today's soldiers, we can't shortchange our future forces.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlewoman from New Hampshire, Ms. Shea-Porter.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, Mr. Marshall, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

At this time I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

Madam Chair, may I inquire on the time, and may I also inquire if the gentleman from California has additional speakers.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chair, we are nearing the end of the general debate portion of the consideration of this bill.

I want to thank my ranking member, my friend, Duncan Hunter, for his hard work and for his cooperation in getting us to this point. And it was difficult at times, but we have gotten here. So I just want him to know that I am appreciative.

And I also want to say that the purpose of our affection and attention is the young men and young women in uniform. Despite all of the procedural motions that we have had, out of all of this at the end of the day, and maybe

at the end of tomorrow, we will have done an excellent job, because this bill is basically a very good bill for the defense and for the young people of our Nation in uniform.

So let's not forget the purpose of what we are doing here. Let's not forget that we are doing this in a bipartisan effort. Let's not forget that, at the end of the day, we will make America one major step safer by passing a good piece of legislation for our country.

Yes. If the gentleman would yield.

I certainly do agree. I think that's a reasonable request, and I think the gentlelady from Illinois also would agree to it.

Madam Chairman, let me take this opportunity to compliment the gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky, and also Mr. Price, the gentleman from North Carolina, and thank the ranking member, Mr. Hunter, for working this out. It's a step in the right direction. It's also an example of bipartisanship, and we appreciate it.

Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I will not oppose this amendment.

Madam Chairman, actually I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this amendment forward. It would provide cost free vouchers to allow mailing of packages to members serving in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, and the committee has no objection and appreciates the thoughtfulness on this issue.

Madam Chairman, I yield back.

Madam Chairman, may I make an inquiry?

Would it be possible, Madam Chairman, to bring forward the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania at a later moment as opposed to what was announced earlier?

Yes.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Skelton

Madam Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chairman, I urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by both the majority and the minority.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. Thompson).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing the issue forward. And I assure the gentleman we do not want to raise the price of drugs for America's veterans and neither do we want to raise the price of drugs for men and women in uniform and their families. I will be pleased to work with the gentleman and my ranking member, Mr. Hunter, to request that the GAO conduct a study of the impact of Federal pricing on both the Department of Defense as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and report back to Congress on its findings.

Well, it is certainly kind of you to make mention of that, and I appreciate it very much. I thank you for your friendship, of course, through the years. I do agree that we have been good friends and we have worked together so well. So that, of course, is all behind us. Thank you very much.

I do look forward to working with you and Mr. Hunter on the issue as we move forward to protect not only our Nation's veterans, but our military personnel as well. And I think we will get there in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if you are a young man or young woman in either Iraq or Afghanistan in American uniform, you would like to know that monies authorized and appropriated from this body for Iraq or Afghanistan will not be diverted to planning any operations elsewhere. That's what this is. This simply ensures that funds that Congress approved for other purposes are not diverted to planning operations against Iran. It's that simple.

It increases the ability of Congress to provide oversight for planning of military operations, and it would not restrict the Department of Defense from planning any necessary contingencies regarding Iran using the base defense budget.

This is a good amendment, and I compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for offering it.

I certainly do.

I understand that the gentleman from California requires additional time; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

All you have to do, Mr. Chairman, is read the amendment. This amendment does not preclude any effort of expending funds from the base Defense authorization appropriation. This merely makes sure that the moneys meant for Afghanistan, meant for Iraq, go to those soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen there. It is that simple.

As my old law school professor once said: read it. What does it say?

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of House Resolution 403, and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 1585 in the Committee of the Whole and following consideration of amendment No. 38, the following amendments be considered in this order: amendments en bloc No. 2 and amendments numbered 20, 49, 31, 15 and 32.

If the gentleman would yield and answer how it would raise the cost to veterans and explain how it would, that would be helpful.

According to whom?

Well, I am sure the pharmaceutical industry would tell you that because they have a lot to lose by expanding it.

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their good work on this bill.

This authorization has very strong provisions on mental health, a number of them addressing the stigma issues regarding mental health, identifying the reintegration needs of our Reservists. Our Reservists make up nearly half of those fighting on behalf of the war on terror.

Mental health nurse practitioners: It establishes a nurse practitioner graduate education program in the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences program that includes psychiatric mental health practices.

It has mental health counselors who can now be reimbursed by TRICARE for services provided to our troops and their families. These counselors are cost-effective and ready to serve the families of our servicemembers as well as our servicemembers themselves.

Also, we have the Mental Health Initiative that will coordinate the Department of Defense's research and development programs and provide opportunities for researchers to better improve identification and diagnosis of mental health problems.

Finally, we have the Psychological Kevlar, which will help us begin to prevent the post-traumatic stress disorder problems that we are seeing many of our soldiers come back from Iraq suffering from. It is important that we include in our basic training, before our soldiers go abroad, not only physical resiliency and training but mental resiliency and training, so that they are as prepared to defend themselves mentally as they are physically before it is too late, before they suffer the terrible psychological wounds that yield them so disabled in many respects after the war, when it is too late.

Finally, Madam Chairman, this bill includes provisions that will take account of measuring the quality and satisfaction of our military men and women in our military hospitals. We cannot wait for more of the kinds of Walter Reed anecdotal stories to rise to the surface before we begin to measure the quality and satisfaction in our military hospitals, and I am pleased to see this amendment adopted in the bill.

The authorization has very strong mental health provisions that will help address the stigma our troops confront in seeking mental health care, increase the number of mental health professionals to serve the mental health needs of our troops and their families, and advance research developed from the nation's academic and medical base to better improve DoD's mental health research and treatment programs.

Addressing stigma issues among reservists: The Secretary of Defense will establish a working group to identify the reintegration needs of our reservists. The working group will examine different programs operated by different services, States, and commands to help reservists. From there, it can identify best practices and develop plans to incorporate these practices across the military.

Mental health nurse practitioners: The establishment of a nurse practitioner graduate education program at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. The program's specialties would include psychiatric mental health practice.

Mental health counselors: Mental health counselors can now be reimbursed by TRICARE for services provided to our troops and their families. The counselors are a cost-effective force ready to serve and help our service-members and their families.

Military mental health initiative: This initiative would coordinate the Department of Defense's mental health research and development programs and provide an opportunity for researchers to better improve the identification diagnosis, and treatment of mental health issues.

This plan will help incorporate evidence-based preventive and early intervention strategies into pre-deployment training, combat theater operations, and post-deployment service to strengthen our warfighters' psychological resiliency.

Introducing our soldiers to mental health care only after they have been exposed to combat is far too late. We need to familiarize our soldiers and their families with how to recognize and deal with the symptoms of combat stress and trauma--and the benefits of mental health care--from early on in their military career.

Our soldiers are trained from the moment they enter basic training or boot camp on how to physically protect themselves from harm.

We need to ensure that they are just as well trained in protecting themselves psychologically as well.

Madam Chair, when speaking about mental health, we should be speaking about it in terms of a positive. That is what makes us stronger. I think when the gentleman says that when we speak about mental health, we want to be careful so as not to make people feel like they are victims, looks at it in a negative way.

Frankly, I am proud that at John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg the Green Berets have insisted that they have psychiatrists on call 24 hours, 7 days a week, not because they are the weakest branch of the military, but because they are the strongest and they want to remain the strongest. And they know that if they are to remain the strongest, they don't want to be thinking about anything else in their mind when they use their sharpshooter and they are called to duty for this country, where they are going to parachute in and use their technical expertise they have been trained to do. They know that they want to be able to do that job sufficiently, and that is why they have had this important mental health allowed for them, and that is why I think it is so important to have these facilities available for them.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from California.

My amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to examine a process by which they would further add for the collection of data by which our servicemembers could rely on an apples-to-apples comparison of our military health care system, so that they could get a proper evaluation of the status of our health care system, so that we could avoid the kinds of anecdotal stories that we found out through the Walter Reed scandal.

We shouldn't be finding this out through stories. We ought to be able to find this out through the garnering of data. And this is one of the ways that we seek to do so. By garnering this information just like we would through our regular health care system, we should do so through our military health care system, and that is what this amendment would do.

I support the gentleman's amendment, and I would just point out if this country has learned anything from the last 6 years, it has learned that there must be checks and balances in our government.

We have a war that has been proclaimed based upon lies. We have had a war that has been proclaimed based upon faulty intelligence. And we have had a war that has been proclaimed upon intelligence that has been manufactured. Now we have a public that has repeatedly felt that it has been lied to, and that they want to be heard by their Congress. All we are asking in this amendment is that their Congress have a chance to voice their own through the Representative's opinion before a Commander in Chief throws this country back into another war headlong without the American people having a voice in it.

Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment ought to be called the ``George W. Bush Amendment,'' because if it were any other President, I don't think we would have to worry about this. But this President has so undermined the confidence of the institution of the Presidency, it has brought this amendment to the floor; because I think this President has so jeopardized the confidence in the Presidency of the United States that the people, after the experience of this President, have become so distrustful that this President is going to drag them into another war under unwarranted circumstances that they would support an amendment like the one of the gentleman from New Jersey. And that is why I would call it the ``George W. Bush Amendment,'' for no other reason than it is because of George W. Bush that this amendment seems to be necessary.

Madam Chair, I come to the floor once again to defend veterans and the country. And I'm also equally disappointed that there are not many veterans willing to stand in the well against provisions in the Defense bill that would increase the price of prescription drugs in the VA.

Now, why don't I have enough friends in the well? Well, they're going to have to answer for themselves for that question.

But what is occurring here in the House is an assault upon drug manufacturers in the country. There is this quest and design that, let's get what available drug there is out there to everyone at the lowest price. How wonderful that would be.

We, in this country, have a unique system. It's called the free market. It's called capitalism. We say unto the world, bring your greatest minds to America. You can go to the capital market, you can make an investment at risk to press the bounds of science that will increase the quality of life of our people and those around the world.

Yet, there's an assault upon that system. The assault continues. It began in January whereby the Democrat majority wanted to extend Medicare drug pricing by saying, let's take the VA Federal Supply Schedule and extend that into the Medicare. Bad idea. Democrats tried that back in 1990 and found out that, whoa, that increased drug prices to veterans, and repealed it. But they passed it again in January.

Now, what did they do in the Defense bill? In this Defense bill they've now taken the extension of the Federal Supply Schedule and extended it into the retail drug pharmacy benefit.

When I did the redesign of the TRICARE pharmacy benefit in the Department of Defense, I created not only the retail network pharmacy benefit, I created the out of retail network pharmacy benefit, and at no time did I ever, ever, believe that we would extend Federal Supply Schedule into the TRICARE pharmacy.

So what is about to happen? When you take the system in the VA and you extend that, and you create the pool and make it larger, you are cost shifting. And when you cost shift, you're going to increase these prices in the VA.

Now, in the VA that's about 7 million veterans. It's about 1 percent of the market. You say, oh, Steve, that's not a big number. Well, it is ironic to me how Members will pound their chests and say, well, you know, I said no to an increase in a pharmacy copay, but they're about to vote ``yes'' to increase drug prices for veterans when they vote for this Defense bill. This is wrong, and it should not be done, and I'm appealing to Members not to do this.

And I am disturbed, disturbed that my good friend, Ike Skelton, denied two of my amendments. I've worked for 15 years with Chairman Skelton on many, many different issues, and I am stunned that he would deny my opportunity to offer two amendments.

One was very simple. It would be to have the Secretary certify that before he could implement this program you have to certify it will not increase prices on the VA. Why would you deny that amendment?

They are going to deny the amendment because they know, going into this, that the creation of this program is going to increase prices on veterans. I just cannot believe we're about to do that here.

Secondly, we should listen to the experts. If you're about to deny a particular drug under the formulary on TRICARE, you'd better have a pretty good reason, and we ought to be able to go to the committee to do that. But they're not going to do that. At this point I am pretty disturbed.

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I do not.

Thank you very much for yielding.

I am back on the floor, and I am here to make an appeal to my good friend, Ike Skelton. I am here to make an appeal, Mr. Chairman, because I need you to help me. Help me understand why I shouldn't be so upset here today. You have a provision in the bill that is going to open up the Federal Supply Schedule and extend that pricing into DOD whereby when you do that we expand the pool. When you expand the

pool, you cost shift. Not only do you cost shift, you are going to increase pharmaceutical costs onto 7 million veterans.

So our history here is that it was a Democrat-controlled Congress back in 1992 that said we are going to create the Federal Supply Schedule and we are going to do this cost control. Why? Because if anyone is entitled in our society to have this benefit, it is our disabled veterans. Then what happened? Then in the 1990s we sort of reformed eligibility with regard to the VA and expanded that criteria so the Federal Supply Schedule expanded beyond the disabled veterans now to all veterans.

And now what has happened, you want to expand it, Chairman Skelton, into the DOD TRICARE pharmacy benefit program. When you do that, we are going to increase the price of prescription drugs for veterans.

Do not go home and pound your chest and say I am denying increase in copays when you are about to vote for increases in drug prices for 7 million veterans.

Chairman Skelton, I offered two amendments before the committee, and they were both denied.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Madam Chairman, I offered two amendments directly to the Rules Committee asking one of my colleagues, who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to do these amendments, and they were denied. It was dumbfounding to me.

Sure. If Federal discounts expand, price levels would be pushed up, the VA would pay a higher price for the drugs it provides to veterans. So this would place an increased pressure on the funding of veterans health care.

GAO even did an analysis of the expansion.

We asked them to look at it with regard to Medicare, when you tried to do it on Medicare, and pass the House. We know that any time you expand Federal pricing and you increase the pool, drug prices in fact will go up.

As a matter of fact in 1990, talk to Chairman John Dingell because he passed that back in 1990, and they realized they made a mistake and it increased the price on veterans, and we had to repeal it. I ask you to talk to Chairman Dingell.

I reclaim my time. Who has a lot to lose? We all have a lot to lose. If you want to open up and do price controls in pharmaceutical manufacturing, we all lose as a society. We will all lose.

Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Buyer

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Hunter and Chairman Skelton.

I am deeply concerned about the unintended consequences that section 703 may have on the price of drugs for America's veterans. I rise today and

ask for your help to request the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the impact of the proposed provision to provide Federal pricing authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I ask the chairman if he would be willing to request the GAO to conduct such a study.

I yield to Chairman Skelton.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his support of this quest, and I believe that such a review will help alleviate any uncertainty with regard to this proposal, and I want to also thank Ranking Member Hunter.

To my good friend, Chairman Skelton, you and I have had a great history together in this body for the last 15 years, and I consider you a personal friend. I apologize to you for when I let my passion get to the side of me. I am deeply sorry if in any manner you took my words directly personal to you because I would be offended if you felt that way.

You are a genuine human being, and we all recognize that your passion and your support for the men and women who serve in the military is real and, more importantly, it is genuine; and equally, my passion with regard to the men and women in the military and our veterans.

You and I will agree more than we ever disagree, and this is a moment where we may find ourselves in conflict. If I crossed the threshold to my good friend, I deeply apologize to you. I hope you accept my apology.

Madam Chairman, on Monday I was proud to visit with sailors at Naval Station Norfolk, the largest military station in the world. When the 78 ships and 133 aircraft home ported at Norfolk are not at sea, they are alongside one of the 14 piers or inside one of the 15 aircraft hangars for repair, refit, training and to provide the ship's or squadron's crew an opportunity to be with their families.

As I looked into the eyes of our brave men and women in uniform, I felt sick knowing that instead of getting the support they need in this fight, this Democratic Congress is pulling the rug out from under them. Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee rejected Republican efforts to adopt an amendment to H.R. 1585 that would have authorized emergency supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to condemn the Democratic plan to fund the war on the installment plan. Failure to pass an acceptable long- term supplemental appropriations bill for FY07 is a clear and present danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Department of Defense institutionally, and to its national security mission to defend the homeland.

Tomorrow marks the 100th day since the administration asked Congress to provide funding for our troops. Because Congress has not sent the President an acceptable supplemental funding bill, DoD will notify Congress today of its intent again to transfer an additional $1.4 billion from Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to fund on-going Army operations in the War on Terror. This funding will last about a week.

This latest transfer request is the fifth one necessitated by the lack of supplemental funding. In sum, two have been necessary to fund Army operations, one to fund procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, one to bolster the Iraqi Security Forces, and one to counter improvised explosive devices.

In addition to these transfers, the Army has moved funding originally allocated for fourth quarter expenses into the third quarter. The Army Operations and Maintenance account--the principal account that covers day-to-day Army operations--no longer has any funding available for the fourth quarter operations.

Moving money around like this creates uncertainty and inefficiency, ultimately costing the taxpayers more money in the long run and wreaking havoc on existing contracts.

The funding delay has already caused disruptions. Delays have limited DoD's ability to properly contract for the reconstitution of equipment for active and reserve forces. This increases the readiness risk of our military with each passing day. Needless delays in accelerated fielding of new force protection capabilities such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle and counter-lED technologies. Depletion of funds necessary to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces.

Without relief soon, the Department of Defense will be forced to take further drastic steps like halting training, delaying deployments and re-deployments, and/or resorting to the use of the Feed and Forage Act, which permits obligation of funds prior to appropriation in emergency situations, an extremely poor and disruptive way of waging a war on terror.

Madam Chairman, our troops need funding and they need it now.

2007 Reprogrammed funds for the Department of Defense

DoD has $4.5 billion in General Transfer Authority. All

transfers in excess must come from other sources. War-related

reprogramming includes: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

(MRAP) Vehicles: $32 million from emergency funding for

Humvees and radios; Iraq Security Forces Fund: $800 million

Under General Transfer Authority as well as various Army

military personnel, procurement, and research and development

programs (includes helicopter modifications, ammunition, and

communications equipment); IED Defeat: $825 million Under

General Transfer Authority from 4th quarter Navy and Air

Force personnel accounts funding; and Army Operations: $3

billion under General Transfer Authority from 4th quarter

Navy and Air Force personnel accounts funding.

Total Requested Transfers: $4.918 billion.

Total General Transfer Authority Remaining: $342 million.

Letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Congressional leadership

on incremental funding proposals:

Delays have limited DoD's ability to properly contract for

the reconstitution of equipment for active and reserve

forces. The readiness risk of our military increases with

each passing day. The funding delay has caused needless

delays in accelerating fielding of new force protection

capabilities such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

(MRAP) vehicles and counter-IED technologies.

The delay has caused a depletion of funds necessary to

accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces. ``The

prospect of segmenting and further delaying funding that is

urgently needed can only result in additional disruption and

uncertainty in department operations . . . An organization

the size and complexity of the Department of Defense needs a

certain measure of funding stability and predictability.

Without it, compensatory measures are required that cause, at

best inefficiency and at worst a reduction in the

Department's ability to carry out its national security

mission.''

Secretary of Defense Talkers (we received these from a friend that

asked we not identify the source):

Because Congress hasn't sent Congress an acceptable

supplemental funding bill, DoD will notify Congress of its

intent again to transfer an additional $1.4 billion. This

funding will only last about a week. The latest transfer

request is the 5th one necessitated by the lack of

supplemental funding. The Army has moved funding originally

allocated for fourth quarter expenses into the third quarter.

The Army Operations and Maintenance account--the principal

account that covers day-to-day Army operations--no longer has

any funding available for fourth quarter operations. Without

relief soon, DoD will be forced to take further drastic steps

like halting training, delaying deployments and re-

deployments, and/or resorting to the use of the Feed and

Forage Act, which permits obligation of funds prior to

appropriation in emergency situations, an extremely poor and

disruptive way of waging a war on terror.

From April 16 Heritage Memo titled, ``Funding Needs Prompt Army

Spending Constraints.''

Beginning in mid-April, the Army will slow the purchase of

repair parts and other supplies, relying instead on existing

inventory to keep equipment operational. Joint Letter to

Chairman Obey from Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Adm. Michael G.

Mullen, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, and Gen. James T. Conway:

``Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the

Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive

measures in order to sustain combat operations. The impacts

on readiness and quality of life could be profound.''

Gen. Peter Pace: After mid-April, ``the army has told us

that they will have to begin curtailing some training here at

home for Guard, Reserve, and for units, which means that the

baseline for those units will be reduced as far as their

capability, and when they're called, it will take them longer

to be ready and could, over time, delay their availability to

go back into combat.''

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: ``This kind of disruption

to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the

readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers

and their families. I urge the Congress to pass the

supplemental as quickly as possible.''