Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5122, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 10, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are now considering allows for general debate of the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill and also makes in order a limited number of amendments.

The annual defense authorization is one of the most critical bills Congress considers. It serves two roles. First, for national security, it is a blueprint to ensure our military has the resources and tools to meet any threat from abroad.

Second, and just as important, this bill provides for the men and women standing on the front lines of our Nation's defense. These men and women work tirelessly to protect this country. It gives me great pride to support the most professional and dedicated military in the world.

For all that we ask of them, these individuals, be they members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Reserves or National Guard, ask very little of us in return. What they ask is that we provide the equipment they need to get the job done, provide for them and provide for their family.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with these two key points in mind, our national security and our duty to our troops, that many of us were dismayed by several of the President's proposals for the Defense Department.

Our National Guard is an important source of strength for this country, both overseas and here at home. Whether they are risking their lives in combat or overseas or bringing order to a stressful situation after a natural disaster, it is clear that our National Guard is worthy of our strong support. The twin challenges we faced this year with Iraq and Hurricane Katrina could not have made this point more clearly.

I would like to thank the committee for preserving our Guard strength despite the President's recommendation to Congress to reduce the strength of the Army and National Guard by 17,100 and the Air Guard by 5,000.

From California alone, about 9,100 of our National Guard soldiers have been called to active duty. Almost 3,800 are still deployed, and another 2,300 are expected to be called up. Among those who recently returned after an 18-month tour are 350 soldiers from the 1-184 and 174 members of the 2668th Transportation Company. Both groups are from my hometown of Sacramento. Weakening the Guard in this manner only serves to weaken our security.

The strains of our current force strengths are already evident: In Iraq, too many Guard and Reserve have borne a heavy burden, some with multiple tours of duty. At home, we must have a strong responsive Guard if we are to be prepared for future natural disasters. Louisiana, facing one of the Nation's worst natural disasters, found its response efforts further hamstrung when one-third of its National Guard was serving in Iraq.

I also appreciate the committee's decision to include $300 million for equipment for the National Guard. This is a strong acknowledgment of the very real impact the war in Iraq is having on the Guard, and it is a strong signal that to be prepared in the future current preparedness is essential.

At a time when we are relying so heavily on our Armed Forces, there was also an attempt to urge Congress to allow an increase in premiums and fees for the military's health care plan TRICARE. Thankfully, this bill contains no such ideas, and I applaud the committee's decision to work in a bipartisan fashion to meet the needs of our troops. However, I am deeply concerned about one recommendation made that the committee did accept. This proposal would result in increases in TRICARE prescription drug copays.

If passed without further amendment, this legislation would double copays for generic drugs, and raises the costs of name-brand drugs 75 percent.

This potential increase in copays could be devastating to a young family. It is not enough to exempt mail orders from this hike. Our troops should have a guarantee that as they are serving on the front lines, their families back home are not presented with impossible choices because of financial hardship.

I mentioned the 2668th Transportation Company having recently returned from Iraq. During their deployment, I was privileged to sit down with the family members of these soldiers. They conveyed to me that for their family, the last thing the spouse serving overseas should be worrying about is whether their family is provided for.

The esteemed ranking member on the committee, Mr. Skelton, proposed an amendment in committee which would have blocked these large copay increases. Unfortunately, it was narrowly defeated, by just two votes. I hope that the Rules Committee allows the Skelton amendment as part of a second rule on the floor tomorrow. Such an important change should be debated in the most open manner possible on the House floor.

I would also like to highlight an additional Democratic amendment that has not yet been made in order from Mr. Israel. Today's military manual currently includes complete guidelines for the role of military chaplains, who play a critical role in the spiritual lives and health of our troops. Despite this, the underlying bill usurps that local control with language that the rear admiral in charge of Navy chaplains says will ``degrade military chaplains use and effectiveness to the crew and commanding officer.''

Mr. Speaker, I will include the letter from the Department of Navy for the RECORD.

If the language cannot be removed from the bill, the House should at least allow debate on Mr. Israel's amendment. The language should be corrected so that it more closely mirrors current military manuals. I hope this amendment is made in order before we finish the bill.

As I conclude, I would like to commend the committee for their decision to authorize funds for the costs of the first 6 months of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2007. This provision will allow Congress to resume its important oversight responsibility. Its inclusion is also an opportunity for this institution to discuss one of the largest issues facing this Nation, the war in Iraq. While we may all not agree, it is our duty as Members of Congress to discuss and debate our Iraq policy, as I know Ranking Member Skelton has urged. I hope we may have more opportunity soon. With that in mind, this bill is an important first step.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the letter from Rear Admiral Iasiello, Chief of Navy Chaplains.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2006.
Hon. Steve Israel,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. ISRAEL: In response to your inquiry regarding the Department of the Navy's position on Section 590 of H.R. 5122, the Department has concerns with the proposed language. It is the Department's position that the proposed section will lead to confusion, compromise, and loss of credibility of religious ministry and chaplains services for the men and women of the sea services.

The chaplain's role in the Navy is as naval officer, counselor and religious advisor. The chaplain is assigned to commands to help commanding officers administer their religious ministries program. The chaplain is a representative of his or her faith group and provides or facilitates for the religious needs of all members of the command. For this reason, it is essential that the chaplain possess the trust and respect of all the crew, not simply the members of his or her own faith group. The proposed language will alter this historic relationship and responsibility of chaplain's to their commanding officer and their crew.

Primarily I have three concerns with the proposed language:

The language ignores and negates the primary duties of the chaplain to support the religious needs of the entire crew and to be a faithful representative of the chaplains endorsing faith group. Current practice carefully balances establishment of religion with free exercise of the chaplain and crew's religion, by providing almost unlimited opportunity for the chaplain to pray according to his conscience and faith and providing safeguards where he or she cannot be forced to violate their conscience in all matters regarding religious ministry. It also ensures a commanding officer can balance religious needs and provide a non-coercive, non-denominational spiritual presence during command functions.

The proposed wording will compromise religious ministry for Sailors and Marines. By allowing chaplains to lead prayers in nearly all situations, potentially independent of the endorsing faith group and legitimate concerns of the command and crew, chaplains will be independent agents operating outside the military command structure. Commanders, who must ensure good order and discipline in their commands, will have no choice but to limit chaplain access to the crew to preserve such good order, discipline and morale. Commanders will have no choice but to limit chaplain access to the crew in order to ensure good order and discipline.

The proposed section will also lead to a loss of credibility for religious ministry and chaplains services to all military members. The U.S. military has always recognized that those given the high privilege of serving as chaplain do so with an obligation to meet the needs of all members of the command regardless of religious preference. It has made chaplains part of the command structure with recognized credibility. The proposed language opens opportunity to drive wedges into the Chaplain Corps due to the emphasis it puts on each chaplain doing that which is right in his or her own eyes. It also offers chaplains a role outside of the command structure, by offering him or her prerogative outside what the command needs for good order, discipline and morale.

This proposed legislation will, in the end, marginalize chaplains and degrade their use and effectiveness to the crew and the commanding officer.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue and I appreciate the support you provide the fine men and women of the Department of the Navy.

Sincerely,
L.V. Iasiello,

Rear Admiral, CRC, U.S. Navy
Chief of Navy Chaplains.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan collaboration between Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton has yielded a thoughtful, balanced defense authorization bill that seeks to meet our current and future defense needs. They should be commended for their hard work. However, there are still areas within this bill that can be improved. As we move to floor consideration, we have an opportunity to make this bipartisan bill even better.

Still pending before the Rules Committee are more than 90 amendments covering a host of critical issues. This includes Ranking Member Skelton's proposal on TRICARE prescription drug copays and Mr. Israel's correction to the guidelines for military chaplains.

Other amendments not yet allowed on the floor concern our Nation's Iraq policy, abuses of military contracting, and boosts to our critical nonproliferation initiatives.

It is my hope that when the Rules Committee reports out the second and final rule today these amendments will be made in order. Allowing these amendments to be debated on the floor will continue the committee's bipartisan precedent, something this body would benefit from, as well as show the issues addressed in this legislation, so critical to our Nation's well-being, the respect they deserve.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/