|
ff-site Links GET TO KNOW WHO REPRESENTS YOU |
A New Wiki with Data on Lawmakers. |
Who is Receiving Federal Loans & Grants? |
Who's Giving Money to Your Elected Officials? |
Who's Giving Money to Your State Elected Officials? |
Does Your Opinion Match the Polls? |
|
Legislation News & Report (TM) TheWeekInCongress.com (TM) Supplement Page to Hr 1585 |
|||||||||||||||
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MEMBERS REGARDING HR 1585, THE FY 2008 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF RANKING MEMBER DUNCAN HUNTER OF CALIFORNIAMr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for your hard work in crafting H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We can be proud of this legislation that supports funding for unique and innovative foreign language training for our brave military men and women. The FY 2008 base budget included $10.4 million for the Defense Language Institute in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), specifically for satellite communications language training activities (SCOLA). SCOLA provides television programming in a variety of languages from around the world and uses Internet-based streaming video capability; expanding the availability of its training to military and civilian linguists anywhere in the world with access to an Internet connection. SCOLA is also developing a digital archive that will allow federal government users anywhere in the world to review and sort language training on command. I am pleased that the Department of Defense is increasing its investment in these innovative language training technologies to meet the high demand for such training. The funding provided to SCOLA to improve the language skills and cultural understanding of linguists in the United States armed forces is essential to their success and should continue to be used for that intended purpose. DUNCAN HUNTER.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ AND CAROL SHEA-PORTERYesterday, the House Armed Services Committee passed legislation that made changes in the Survivor's Benefit Plan (SBP)--Dependent Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Offset, technical fixes aimed at protecting the widows of service members. Of note was the one change in that allows for the payback of a portion of the SBP that is offset by the DIC. The payback of the offset provides up to $40 dollars a month to the widows of service members. The Military Personnel Subcommittee has taken an important step to solve the larger problem of eliminating the offset that takes away a benefit, up to $1067 a month, from those who most deserve the support of this nation. The SBP-DIC offset is one of the few remaining statutes that lowers a benefit, from those who have paid out of pocket premiums, from not only those who have lost loved ones in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also retirees who sacrificed so much for this country.
Although this provision is a step in the right direction towards improving
the lives of over 59,000 widows, we still have a ways to go. For the
committee to provide full payment of both the SBP and DIC, we recommend
consideration of H.R. 1927 (Ortiz, D-TX), a companion bill to S. 935
(Nelson, D-FL), to fully eliminate the offset and thus provide benefits
that the survivors of our service men and women fully deserve.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS FROM THE MILITARY DEPOT AND INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES CAUCUSWe strongly support the provisions contained H.R. 1585 that will increase the core logistics ability of the Department of Defense centers of industrial and technical excellence and promote a skilled workforce. We are concerned that without these provisions, the centers of industrial and technical excellence will not be able to acquire the critical work skills, components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, and other items of equipment required to mitigate obsolescence on existing platforms as well as induct new core logistics work on future weapon systems. Specifically, we endorse the following provisions: Section 321--Increase to Capital Asset Authority. This provision would increase the authority for the acquisition of capital assets through the Working Capital Fund from $100,000 to $250,000. By raising the working capital fund threshold, maintenance depots would be able to acquire critical components quickly to enable the military services to accelerate technology refreshment of critical warfighter equipment. Section 322--Authorization of Availability of Working-Capital Funds for Certain Product Improvements. This provision would give limited authority to the Department to use Defense Working Capital Funds to make limited product improvements for weapon systems, major end items, and components. The Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence (CITEs) need to be able to incorporate commercial technologies into existing components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, and other items of equipment based on the lessons learned in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the weapon system platforms used in combat today have exceeded the projected average age for use. The ability to use technology insertion and refreshment during depot maintenance availabilities to change the performance capability of the end item to mitigate obsolescence and improve performance is critical to the reset and recapitalization of our warfighting platforms. Section 323--Authorization of Use of Working-Capital Funds for Acquisition of Certain Items. This provision would establish dollar thresholds for the Defense Working Capital Funds to acquire items that support maintenance and technology refreshment and ensure the viability of core logistics capabilities. This provision would provide limited flexibility for the Department of Defense Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence to replace obsolete components with newer technology replacements to perform weapon system modifications, improvement and service-life extensions during maintenance availabilities. These technology insertions would improve reliability and maintainability, extend the useful life, enhance safety, lower maintenance costs, provide performance enhancement or expand the performance capability of weapons system platforms by the acquisition of critical new components, assemblies, spares and repair parts, and other items of equipment during depot maintenance availabilities. Section 331--Reauthorization and Modification of Multi-Trades Demonstration Project. In 2003, the Department of the Navy was ordered to carry out a demonstration project under which three Naval Aviation Depots (now `Navy Fleet Readiness Centers') were to be given the flexibility to promote, by one grade, level workers who are certified at the journey level as able to perform multiple trades. (PL 108-136 Sec. 338) However, the Navy did not implement a depot maintenance multi-trade pilot program that met the statutory requirements. Instead, the Navy's report on the project was less than two pages and stated that the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) would provide the adequate vehicle for the project. Since the federal courts stayed implementation of NSPS, the Navy implemented an old model which garnered little support from the employees. This new program will reauthorize the Multi-Trades Demonstration Project and expand it to include the Air Force Air Logistics Centers and the Navy Fleet Readiness Centers. This Project must be separate from the NSPS.
We believe these provisions provide the needed flexibility to reset the
forces used in Iraq and Afghanistan, using technology insertion and
product improvement during depot maintenance availabilities. These
provisions also facilitate the expansion of core logistics functions and
competencies and the skilled work force required for our national defense
at the centers of industrial and technical excellence.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ AND LORETTA SANCHEZThis letter is to raise concern with the Southwest Border Fence Section proposed in the Chairman's mark of the Department of Defense 08 Authorization. Having the honor of representing the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS Yuma) in Yuma, AZ I am greatly concerted with regards to Southwest Border Fence section. I ask that you reconsider the recommendation to construct 10 miles of double fencing at MCAS Yuma. The terrain surrounding MCAS Yuma and BMGR include Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tohono O'odham Nation. The respective representatives and leadership from the federal agencies and sovereign tribe have opposed fencing. On August 2, 2006, the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing regarding Southern Border Security. The primary focus was of Operation Jump Start, among the witnesses was Commanding Officer of MCAS Yuma, Colonel B D Hancock. Colonel Hancock took the opportunity to focus on the impact of a fence to the local military installations. Highlights of his testimony include: MCAS Yuma range coordination between Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Barry M. Goldwater West Range (BMGR) has improved and the number of vehicle entries and impacts to military training has decreased significantly. Creation of a 1.5 mile `Interdiction Zone' would create conflict with management requirements and the overall mission of the BMGR in collaboration with the other agencies. Furthermore this Zone would not meet the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) missions and would create additional risks to readiness. An `Interdiction Zone' is not required to meet CBP and Marine Corps mission requirements but would create additional risks to readiness. A relinquishment of the land to CBP for an `Interdiction Zone' would generate strong pressure for the overlying airspace to support the CBP ground activities permitted within the zone and impact upon the ability to maintain readiness. In addition, Colonel Hancock has prioritized vehicle barriers and along with the Arizona Commanders summit publicly opposed construction of the fence in July 2006. A requirement to construct double fencing at the MCAS Yuma will undermine the work that MCAS Yuma and BMGR personnel have done in cooperation with the Border Patrol, federal land managers, and local stakeholders for several years to plan for the installation of vehicle barriers. A number of other groups have voiced strong opposition to the construction of this fence.
In light of the opposition of these numerous and disparate groups to the
construction of the Southwestern Border Fence, I hope that you will
reconsider this section of the Authorization.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF TRENT FRANKS AND JEFF MILLERWhile we support the Committee passed version of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, I remain concerned about the way in which the amendment offered by Mr. Kline was considered. Using the proper procedure set up and enacted by the Democrat majority on the Committee, Mr. Kline submitted his amendment in a confidential manner. When Mr. Kline's amendment was considered, members of the majority, who establish the committee procedure because of their control as the majority, then made numerous complaints about Congressman Kline's amendment. The Democrat arguments against it were procedural. The Democrat majority argued they did not have time to read it, yet the Chairman of the Committee would not recognize a legitimate motion from one of his own Democrat members (and seconded by a Republican member) to adjourn until 1 a.m. to read and consider the amendment. This amendment was simple, and was exactly as Mr. Kline originally described it. His amendment did two things: (1) This amendment authorized a clean Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations (minus the pork and issues that would cause a sequential referral), and (2) included the text of Congressman Johnson's bill H.R. 511. In an attempt to be bipartisan, references to the words `Commander in Chief' were removed from the version that Mr. Kline submitted. After utilizing procedural tactics to delay consideration of Mr. Kline's amendment, the majority submitted a handwritten substitute amendment that gutted Mr. Kline's amendment, by omitting any authorization of Emergency Wartime Supplemental appropriations language, and the amendments were immediately brought to a vote, not allowing time for the minority to offer a second degree amendment to the Chairman's substitute. We believe it unfortunate that this amendment did not receive what I considered to be the due consideration it deserved. In particular, Mr. Kline's amendment represented a unique opportunity to do exactly what the current majority demanded to do when they occupied the minority in the 108th and 109th Congresses--authorize and exert jurisdiction over Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations. It is unfortunate that we did not take this opportunity as the committee of jurisdiction. Should Mr. Kline choose to offer it for floor consideration, we would urge the House Rules Committee to make it in order.
We are including a copy of Mr. Kline's amendment as part of my additional
views because we believe his amendment clearly enunciates the principles
that we, and the majority of our Committee, would support if a vote on his
amendment had been allowed.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES THELMA DRAKE AND J. RANDY FORBESMr. Chairman, we would like to express our deep concern about Title 22, Naval Master Jet Basing, and its attempt to revisit the 2005 BRAC process. We steadfastly refuse to make any endorsement as to the effectiveness of the 2005 BRAC process. Yet, we believe that it is in the interest of the military, affected communities, and Congress to accept the results of the 2005 BRAC round given the Department's consideration of basing decisions just two years ago. Whether the Committee encourages a study involving the relocation of naval air assets, submarine berthing capacity or ship repair functions, it is not in the best interest of the Committee or the Congress to reconsider the BRAC decisions. Congressional involvement in this issue distracts from substantive policy issues as Members seek to protect, expand, or defend the communities and military installations within their districts. We are further concerned that while the report language is truthful, it is incomplete and does not accurately reflect the situation at NAS Oceana. For example, the language readily includes a description of the encroachment situation surrounding the East Coast Master Jet Base, but omits a recently signed Memorandum of Agreement reached between the City of Virginia Beach and the Navy that is common knowledge to those who follow this issue. The decision phase of the 2005 BRAC round has concluded. As we continue in the implementation phase of BRAC, we support the Chairman and his efforts to ensure that the BRAC round is fully implemented by the military in accordance with the law. We are also concerned about the Committee's conflicting language concerning an Outlying Landing Field near the East Coast Master Jet Base. Under Title 22, Naval Master Jet Basing, the Committee identifies several factors it believes contributes to the `unsatisfactory situation' at Oceana Naval Air Station, including the difficulty in securing land for an outlying landing field. We are perplexed as to why the Committee--with its concern about the need for an outlying landing field to support fleet readiness--would take proactive steps in the legislation to eliminate the opportunity for the Navy to secure land for an outlying landing field. It is the strong opinion of these Members that regardless of what may have previously impeded the establishment of an outlying landing field, the most significant impediment to the establishment of an outlying landing field now is the lack of congressional authorization for such activity.
While we are disappointed in these provisions, we remain optimistic in the
future because the Committee has consistently demonstrated a level of
cooperation and bipartisanship capable of producing sound military policy.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERSAs I was on leave from the House of Representatives the week of May 7, 2007 due to the birth of my son, I would like to state how I would have voted on the roll call votes during Committee markup of H.R. 1585: Roll Call #1--Akin Amendment to restore $200 million to the Future Combat Systems. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #2--Drake Amendment #70 to strike directive report language entitled `Naval Master Jet Basing' that appears in Title XXII of the Subcommittee on Readiness report. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #3--Thornberry Amendment #88 to increase funding for GPS III by $100 million. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #4--Tauscher Amendment #136, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the amendment offered by Mr. Hunter, a sense of Congress regarding missile defense. Vote `No.' Roll Call #5--Franks Amendment #156 to restore $10 million to the Space Test Bed. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #6--Franks Amendment #157 to restore $100 million to the Airborne Laser. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #7--Franks Amendment #151 to restore full funding to the President's budget request for the Missile Defense Agency by adding $764 million. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #8--Skelton Amendment #147, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the amendment by Mr. Miller, a sense of Congress regarding detainees at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay. Vote `Aye.' Roll Call #9--Mrs. Davis of California Amendment #12 modifying conveyance authority at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton. Vote `No.' Roll Call #10--Final Passage of Committee report on H.R. 1585. Vote `Aye.' I applaud the Committee and support this mark overall. It offers critical support to our men and women in uniform. Though no amount of money can justly compensate them for volunteering to serve and make the sacrifices we ask of them, the Committee's authorization of a 3.5% pay raise is needed progress toward closing the gap between military pay and the private sector. In addition, our Committee acted wisely in rejecting perennial administration attempts to hike TRICARE fees, copays and premiums for military retirees. Our service men and women have earned access to quality health care. Budgetary problems should not be fixed at the cost of those who served. The Committee also maintained oversight by adding language reinforcing the 2005 NDAA, preserving critical search and rescue capability at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, WA. The 36th Rescue Flight also supports the Air Force Survival School. Since its establishment, the 36th Rescue Flight has made over 600 saves. I appreciate the collaboration and support of the entire Washington State delegation and Members from Idaho and Oregon, in addition to the Governor of Washington and hundreds of members of the Eastern Washington community. The Committee's decision is in the best interests of the Air Force and the people of the Inland Northwest. It is not, however, a perfect mark. By cutting $200 million from the President's Budget request for KC-X procurement funds, the mark further delays the recapitalization of an aging fleet. Air refueling tankers are central to nearly every military operation involving aircraft. The KC-135s are holding up due to the fine maintenance crews in the Air Force, but readiness and operational capability is being diminished while maintenance costs grow rapidly. I will continue to advocate for acting now to take responsibility for the future. We must aggressively prepare for replacement of KC-135s as the Air Force completes their fair and open selection process for the KC-X. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS. |
|
||||||||||||||
