John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, as I noted during the December 8, 2006, debate on H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, this legislation reflects the final version of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as passed by the House and Senate. H.R. 22 passed the House on July 26, 2005 by a vote of 410-20, and the Senate then passed H.R. 22 with an amendment by Unanimous Consent on February 9, 2006. Given that H.R. 6407 is the blended result of the two Chamber's versions of H.R. 22, I believe it is important to make note of the Committee on Government Reform's report on H.R. 22, 109-66, part I, as reported on April 28, 2005. This committee report is relevant to understanding the provisions of H.R. 6407, particularly because many of the provisions of H.R. 6407 are unchanged from H.R. 22 as reported by the Government Reform Committee. For those looking for additional legislative history on H.R. 6407, the Government Reform Committee report accompanying H.R. 22, 109-66, part I, will provide useful explanations and information.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I had a friend of mine say the other day, gee, 11\1/2\ years dedicated to one issue, that is a long time. My observation was, there are people in certain jurisdictions in this country that have spent less time for committing murder than I have spent on this bill. I am not sure what the parallel there is, but if there is any truth in the old adage that anything worth having is worth waiting for, this is a very, very good night. This is an excellent bill. It is not a perfect bill, but the fact that you can take the mix of interests that is represented in this piece of legislation, unions, mailers, postal dependents and postal competitive industries, the postal service itself, and have them virtually uniformly and universally support it suggests that it is a remarkable achievement. In that regard, I want to thank so many people: former Chairman Bill Clinger who first presented me the challenge and the opportunity of advancing this initiative; then, of course, Dan Burton, the follow-on chairman, the gentleman from Indiana, who kept it alive; and most recently, most importantly, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) who really pushed it over the goal line. We are all deeply in his debt. The minority as well: Henry Waxman; Danny Davis, the gentleman who tonight is managing this bill very appropriately, as he has managed the affairs from the minority side on this issue so very, very ably; Chaka Fattah, who was the ranking member when we really got into the meat of this issue; Barbara Rose Collins, the first ranking member, and on and on and on. But most of all, those who had the greatest stake in this initiative, the unions, the postal service, Jack Potter, the mailers, the mailing dependent mailers, those in the competitive industry, those who understood that for whatever their differences might be, their need for a common cause, their need for reform should override all of it. And at the end of the day, as we see here tonight, they put that aside. Special thanks to the staff. They are the folks who, whatever the endeavor in this House, are really the ones who do the lion's share of the work. Of course, Dan Blair who is the chief of staff and the person who headed up the Postal Subcommittee for the Government Reform Committee when we first began this initiative, and foremost, most importantly, Robert Taub, a man who as I have said on this House floor so many times before brings such compassion, such passion, such patience, really embodied in any individual that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. I am proud to call him a colleague. I am proud to call him my friend, and today, it is perhaps the finest hour of his work because of the effort he has put together. This bill represents 80 percent, probably more than 80 percent, of the first bill we introduced some 11\1/2\ years ago. That is a pretty remarkable achievement. The postal service is the kind of endeavor that touches the lives of virtually each and every American each and every day, and while it may not garner the kind of attention and passion and interest that some other issues do, at the end of the day, it is one of the most important activities. Most of all, this is for the postal workers, those 800,000-plus strong who go out every day and do their job so effectively, so efficiently that for the vast majority of our constituents, the last thing they think of when they walk to their mailbox or go to their post office is will the mail be there. It will. And through this legislation, through this advancement, hopefully it will continue in that regard. Mr. Speaker, it is a great night, a great day for all Americans, and I thank all of those who have endeavored so hard for more than a decade to make it a reality. It has been more than 36 years since President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. The Post Office Department was transformed into the United States Postal Service, an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States. The universal service mission of the Postal Service remained the same, as stated in Title 39 of the U.S. Code: ``The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.'' The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971. In the intervening 35 years, the commercial environment in which the Postal Service operates has changed. In 1971, UPS had a much smaller percentage of the parcel market, FedEx didn't exist, and the Internet had not been created. As we know, these developments have drastically altered the postal and delivery sector of our economy. Yet, in the last three and a half decades our Nation's postal laws have changed very little. I do not know of any entity in the United States today, public or private, that is still operating with such an outdated structure. A report by the President's Commission on the Postal Service concluded that without a new approach, the future of universal mail service is in peril. According to the Secretary of the Treasury, ``We really need to get it done now . . . the business model of the Postal Service just doesn't work anymore. It's not sustainable in light of all the technological changes and changes in the marketplace.'' Today we have a choice . . . whether to vote to preserve universal postal service at uniform rates to every stretch of this Nation, or whether to instead vote ``no'' and assign the Postal Service to an almost certain future of ever escalating increases in postal prices and devastating post office closures. The bill we have before us is the product of extensive bipartisan/bicameral efforts with the Government Reform Committee Chairman, the Committee's Ranking Member, the Committee Member from Illinois (i.e., Mr. Danny Davis), and me, together with our colleagues in the other body, particularly Senators Collins, Carper, and Lieberman. I want to take a moment to underscore my appreciation for the hard work that each of them took to bring about a proposed solution, in close collaboration with the Administration. This bill is truly a consensus document, having built upon H.R. 22 as it passed the House in the last session 413-20, and then the Senate by unanimous consent in February of this year. I have heard it said, time and time again, and it is absolutely true, this is not a perfect bill. I cannot imagine any person, short of someone suffering from multiple personality disorder, who would sit down and, by themselves, craft this particular piece of legislation. But I think that is true of any product that comes about after 12 years of negotiations; of any product in this legislative body that attempts, as this bill does, to effect sector reform or reform of a system that while touching every American's life, 6 days a week, at a minimum, has not been changed in any meaningful way, in more than 35 years. So what we have tried to do, with the enormous, enormous support and patience and input of: the Government Reform Chairman; of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis, who started on the Postal Subcommittee, who served so honorably and so diligently with me; and over the past years, the Ranking Member of the Government Reform Committee--all of whom I hold in great esteem, and to whom I express great appreciation. I would be remiss if I also didn't note the work and commitment of the two previous Government Reform Chairmen, Dan Burton and Bill Clinger, to this task. We have come up with a bill that embodies the input of literally hundreds of organizations that either compete against or rely upon this system we call the post office in America today. It does, as well, advance what, at least for me, was always the primary directive, and that is, that the interests of the Postal Service, under this legislation, would be better served than the status quo. That is an opinion, by the way, that is held by corporate and non- profit mailers, competitors, postal unions and management groups, and the Administration. All of these groups, I think it is fair to say, are particularly interested in seeing this House, and ultimately the Congress, advance the issue; an issue that I hope all of my colleagues understand is one of great urgency, and one that we continue to ignore at our extreme peril. So it is a positive moment. The patient work on postal modernization has proceeded steadily even though, in all this time, ``postal reform'' has not once been featured on the Sunday talk shows. Balanced, nonpartisan postal reform may not be the stuff of political glory, but it is the sort of legislative work that will earn the long-term gratitude of the American mailing consumer--for I can think of no other government agency that touches the lives of all us, nearly every day, at home and at work. We've said it before and we'll say it again--that the Postal Service is the center of a nearly $900 billion industry, employing 9 million workers nationwide, and representing nearly 9 percent of our nation's gross domestic product. The ``Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act'' affirmatively responds to all of the Administration's 5 principles for postal reform, and incorporates most of the 17 legislative recommendations made by the President's Commission on the U.S. Postal Service. The bill mandates transparency in the Service's finances, costs, and operations. The legislation creates a modern system of rate regulation, establishes fair competition rules and a powerful new regulator, addresses the Service's universal service obligation and the scope of the mail monopoly, and institutes improvements to the collective bargaining process. While the bill provides some of the pricing flexibility recommended for the Postal Service by the President's Commission, the bill also imposes controls to protect the public interest from unfair competition. This is well-refined legislation that reflects the input and feedback from the more than three dozen hearings and nearly 125 witnesses that the Government Reform Committee and its former Postal Service Subcommittee held over the course of the last 12 years. Make no mistake that today is indeed a day to choose. The Comptroller General of the United States has reported that the Postal Service's current business model, formulated as it was in 1970, is no longer sustainable in the 21st century. Our Postal Service is in trouble and requires reform to preserve universal service and prevent a worsening crisis. To understand the challenges at hand, one needs simply to read the testimony the Committee received regarding the: Serious declines in first-class volume, changes in the mail mix, increased competition from private delivery companies, sub par revenue growth, rising costs, significant financial liabilities and obligations (including roughly $60 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits alone), insufficient increases in postal productivity, and uncertainties regarding how well the Service can streamline its outdated network of facilities under existing law. Take declining first-class mail volume as one example of a fundamental challenge to the Service's long-term viability. First-class mail volume has declined annually for the last 5 years--not since the Great Depression has the Postal Service seen declines in first-class mail. The Service's core business of first-class mail has historically been the ``bread and butter'' that makes the system operate: first- class mail generates about half of the Service's mail volume, more than half of its revenues, and covers more than two-thirds of the Service's overhead costs. About half of overhead costs are comprised of universal service costs of maintaining postal delivery and retail networks. Declining first class mail volume is causing a loss of first-class mail revenues to cover overhead costs, which will be difficult to recover from other classes of mail. While the problems are dire, I believe the strong bipartisan bill we are presenting today--based as it is on the President's principles for legislative change--identify a path to some solutions. The Postal Service is simply too important an institution--too important to the people of this nation; too important to our economy--to await the full brunt of a crisis that is clearly upon the doorstep. Indeed, there is good reason why this is the first Administration since President Nixon's to call on Congress to modernize our Nation's postal laws. I remain hopeful that as Congress did in 1970, we too today will answer the President's charge and challenge. The Postal Service, its 750,000 dedicated employees, and the nearly 300 million American citizens who depend on universal service at affordable rates are counting on us.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Marilyn Iverson, the Chief Operating Officer of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). She is retiring after more than 34 years of service to our men and women in uniform. Ms. Iverson has been an exceptional leader and has played a key role in lifting AAFES to new levels of excellence in providing service members and their families with quality products and services. I am proud to honor Ms. Iverson for her superb accomplishments and outstanding service to Army and Air Force military communities around the globe. Marilyn Iverson began her career with AAFES in May 1971 and held many positions before becoming the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in 2002. During fiscal year 2005, AAFES revenues reached $8.7 billion worldwide and are expected to exceed $9 billion during fiscal year 2006. During her tenure AAFES generated more than $793 million in direct support for the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs that are so highly valued by military members and so critical to combat readiness. After a number of visits to Iraq and Afghanistan and other locations where U.S. forces are deployed, I have been most impressed with her efforts to provide unparalleled support to our deployed military with operations at 120 exchange facilities in 13 countries including many austere and hazardous locations. Under her leadership, AAFES also achieved a steady growth in sales, invested in a record 93 major construction projects on military installations, and developed a program to hire and develop a more diverse workforce. Our men and women in uniform have benefited from Ms. Iverson's unfailing work ethic, outstanding professionalism, and superb leadership. Her efforts have enabled our military leaders to provide essential quality of life programs and service to our deployed soldiers and the families they leave behind. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank her for her service to our country and wish her well in retirement.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Hefley, I am sure the chairman will yield you some more time. Let me start off by associating myself, as I know all of us do, with the comments of the esteemed chairman. But, Mr. Chairman, I know you would agree with me that it is appropriate to recognize that, after so many years of loyal and dedicated service to the House Armed Services Committee, this is Subcommittee Chairman Hefley's final authorization bill. He has been a lion in defense of the men and women in uniform. He has a been a guiding light to more junior 14-year Members such as myself. I just wanted to let the record show how much we are going to miss him and how much we all appreciate the great service he has provided to this committee, to the people of this country, and, most importantly, to the men and women in uniform of the United States of America. Thank you, Joel.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and it is a great bill given the times we live in, the challenges that our men and women in uniform and their families face in, frankly, the economic environment in which we find ourselves. I know my ranking member Vic Snyder with whom I worked so closely, he and I both feel a great deal of pride year after year that when a majority of Members of this House will speak kindly about this bill, which they will, they will refer to many of the provisions in the personnel mark. We owe thanks to the chairman, Duncan Hunter, and to the ranking member for allowing us to have the opportunity to try to do better by the most important part of a great military, the most important part of the greatest military the world has ever seen, that of the United States of America; and I know, Mr. Speaker, many that have gone before and others that will follow have talked about the terrific things in this bill, the 2.2 percent pay increase that diminishes that gap between military and pay that had existed down to 4 percent from a high of about 14 percent. We increase end strength, adding tens of thousands of soldiers into the Army and the Marine Corps to lessen the pace of deployments and the operations tempo. Most importantly, in my judgment, at a time of war, when our men and women in uniform are sacrificing, when we have made commitments to our veterans, we rejected to the tune of $486 million, that the conferees had to find the increases proposed by the Department of Defense to the military health care system in both the TRICARE program, as well as the pharmacy program. None of those increases will occur. I also want to add my words of thanks, indeed, to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for their work in ending the scourge of predatory payday lenders who get rich on the backs of the men and women in uniform and their families. This is a terrific mark from top to bottom; but we are particularly proud of the personnel marks, and I would hope all of our colleagues would vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just make a few comments based off that statement. This is a great country when we can have, as we had moments ago, an individual come into the people's House and express, perhaps out of order but very passionately, their concerns about how we are being unfair. Let me be very clear. As someone who has for 14 years visited our troops in virtually every combat theater in which they have been located, if our troops were to be taken prisoner, they would be well served by the enemies of this Nation, such as Sudan, such as North Korea, and, as was mentioned, Iran and others, to be treated under the provisions of this act. We are extending to these terrorists, and make no mistake about it that they are terrorists, unlawful combatants, the rights and protections that all of us as American citizens enjoy under the fifth, the eighth, and the fourteenth amendment. I have heard my good colleagues, and they are good Americans, express concerns about somehow changing our obligations under the Geneva Conventions under common article 3. Make no mistake about this as well. The language that we are incorporating into our basic domestic criminal law uses the language of the commentaries on common article 3 and the Geneva Conventions. We simply harmonize that common article 3 with our United States laws, requiring that only grave breaches of that common article, as provided in the Geneva Conventions' commentaries, are subject to criminal prosecution. International law has traditionally provided, time and time again, that it is the signatory to an international convention that is responsible for making it clear what the violations of law may be, and that is what we are doing here today. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Members of the other body who have had experience in these matters, either as being prisoners of war or as having the opportunity to go through as a Judge Advocate General in prosecuting, understand our responsibility is to not throw away the conventions that we have committed ourselves to as Americans and to not abandon the leadership we have shown for more than 200 years in the question of human rights. This bill meets that standard. It is not sufficient to say that convictions may be overturned if the answer is not to convict at all. We have to recognize that it is our responsibility to the American people and to the brave men and women that I have visited as a member of the Intelligence Committee who we ask to interrogate these people that we will do the right thing by them, respect international conventions and respect the basic tenets upon which this Nation was built, that of human rights. This bill does it, and I would hope all my colleagues would support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6166. This bill is vitally important for securing America and ensuring that accused terrorists are tried for war crimes in an open and transparent court that will apply justice swiftly and fairly. There is more to this bill than military commissions, however. H.R. 6166 addresses an issue that Supreme Court created in the Hamdan case. The Court in Hamdan decided that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions--a article that many assumed only applied to regular armies--applies to terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda. As a result of this decision, our brave personnel in the military and other national security agencies are faced with' an unpredictable legal landscape because the meaning of certain elements of Common Article 3 are vague--the standard? An outrage against personal dignity. The question, would a female interrogator of a male Muslim detainee be guilty of violating Common Article 3 because the mere scenario constitutes an outrage upon personal dignity? That kind of situation is untenable. It's unfair to our personnel out in the field trying to protect lives here at home. It is Congress' responsibility to draw the lines of what conduct will be judged criminal. As a result, we need to amend the War Crimes Act to make clear that only grave breaches of Common Article 3 constitute a war crime under U.S. law. Let me be clear, under international law a party to the treaty is responsible for incorporating only grave breaches of Common Article 3 in its penal code. My point is simple: Today the Congress is complying with our treaty obligations under Geneva Conventions and today the Congress is following the guidance of the Supreme Correct in Hamdan (even though many believe that the Court's decision was ill construed). Now, some have suggested that H.R. 6166 condones torture or that this bill implicitly permits ``enhanced torture techniques''. These suggestions are absolutely false and they fly in the face of the very words that appear on the pages of this bill. First--it is illegal under U.S. law to torture. This was true before H.R. 6166 and it will remain true. Moreover, H.R. 6166 makes torture a war crime that can result in the death penalty. This means that under the War Crimes Act, any U.S. personnel that engages in torture will be subject to prosecution for committing a war crime. Additionally, in the context of military commissions, a statement obtained through torture is not admissible. Second--this bill makes clear that the way we treat our detainees is guided by treatment standards set by the Congress--last year--in the Detainee Treatment Act, also know as the McCain amendment. This standard is based upon the familiar standards of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment'' under this section means the cruel, unusual, inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, as defined by the U.S. reservations to the UN Convention Against Torture. Don't we all agree that the Constitution, which provides the fundamental, underlying protections for the citizens of the United States, provides more than sufficient protections for unlawful enemy combatants? Why should an accused terrorist enjoy protections that exceed what the Constitution provides every to every one of us as United States citizens? Let me close by saying that this is an important bill for the American people--we will bring the masterminds of 9/11 to justice, and this is an important bill for the brave men and women fighting this battle--they can do their job in theater without the fear of frivolous prosecution here at home.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, as a New Yorker, this past Monday had a particular impact on me and on my fellow New Yorkers. It is obviously a time of great sorrow and sadness and reflection for each and every American. But of the 2,997 who perished that day, a large number and obviously the main focus of the attack was in our State. There is little we can do to rewind that as a day and as the circumstances that led up to it. I noted my good friend, the gentlewoman from California's remarks about intelligence failures, and she is right. They are real and they were longstanding. You heard the majority whip of the House speak of the attacks that were levied against this country that, frankly, the intelligence systems were not up to providing long before this particular era, long before we were in Iraq: the USS Cole, the attack on our two embassies, the first World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers, and on and on and on. If 9/11 teaches us anything, it is that as Americans, and particularly as ones who have the great honor and great responsibility of representing the people of this Nation, we must continue as we did on that day, September 11, to work together to make us safe. We are safer. We can never be safe. This land is too free, too open, too many opportunities that we enjoy and our basic liberties to ever be fully safe, but we can be, as I would argue we are today, safer. I would hope we would be even safer tomorrow and the day after that, but to do that, we are going to have to continue our joint initiatives. We have come a long way. We have instilled leadership and coordination of multiple agencies. We have addressed how terrorism information gets to the analysts and the policymakers who need that information most. We have had to change the culture of the FBI from one of being single-minded in a criminal investigation agency to one that pursues those who wish to harm us through proactive intelligence investigations. We have done these things. We need to continue. We must make 9/11 a rallying cry for a safer tomorrow.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to make a couple of observations. To my colleagues on the minority side, ladies and gentlemen, debate what you wish to debate. No one is telling you what to debate here today. All I have heard you do is complain about what you can and cannot say. I very much want to hear your strategy. Ms. Harman talked about we have a strategy for success. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel, talked about we want to take the fight to the terrorists. I would love to hear how. That is what we are doing at this moment. There is an old country and western song that teaches you, you know, while I was busy dreaming about yesterday, tomorrow hit me right between the eyes. What you are doing is dreaming about yesterday. We are in Iraq. Mr. Holt had it right. It is today a training ground, a recruiting ground for terrorists. It is interesting, it is instructive, and we should talk about how that happens so we don't repeat it in the future. But it is the reality for the moment. What do we do to end it? Where do we draw the line? Where do we say this is where we have to win? It is Iraq, and we better get it right.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I happen to think this is a good debate, even when I vigorously disagree with some of the statements being said. This is the hall where discussions, concerns, where analysis and counterpoints need to be expressed. I wanted to start, if I may, Mr. Speaker, with a couple of counterpoints. I have heard my good friends on the other side of the aisle repeatedly refer today to comments and observations made by clearly one of the greatest fighting generals this Nation has known in recent era, General Barry McCaffrey; things he has said about our current involvement and engagement in Iraq. Perhaps as a mere oversight, perhaps conveniently, those good folks omitted the following, and I am quoting directly. I noticed most of those folks quoted from their own notes. These are from General McCaffrey's own reports after his return, in this case to Iraq. He did similar analysis in Afghanistan. Under the bottom line observations from Iraqi Freedom, written in April of 2006, before Zarqawi, before the appointment and the filling out of the entire permanent government. ``The morale, fighting effectiveness, and confidence of U.S. combat forces continue to be simply awe inspiring. In every sensing session and interaction, I probed for weakness and found courage, belief in the mission. Belief in the mission. Enormous confidence in their sergeants and company-grade commanders, and understanding of the larger mission, a commitment to creating an effective Iraqi army and police, unabashed patriotism, and even a sense of humor.'' He goes on to say, ``Many have reenlisted to stay with their unit on its return to a second Iraq deployment. Many planned to reenlist regardless of how long the war went on.'' He then went on to observe, ``The Iraqi army is real, is growing, and is willing to fight.'' And then on the last page of his analysis, Mr. Speaker, he said, and I quote, ``There is no reason why the United States cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state under the rule of law which does not enslave its own people, threaten its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction.'' The last sentence of General McCaffrey that my friends also failed to quote: ``The American people are far safer today than we were in the 18 months following the initial intervention.'' I think, in fairness to General McCaffrey, if we are going to quote from him we should quote the entirety. I heard also some comments about how we are not doing right by our forces in very recent debate. I would refer again to General McCaffrey's observations, but I have here a listing, five pages, bullet points of what this committee and this House and this Congress has done for our men and women in uniform in just the last four National Defense Authorization Acts. There are 51 points, and I won't read all of them, but let me account for some. In 2001, we provided $500 a month to assist the most economically challenged members, to take them off food stamps. A national disgrace, and we did it. We did it. This Congress. In 2002, we improved permanent change of station requirements to reduce out-of-cost moving expenses for military families. There is now no out-of-cost expense. In 2003, we gave them assignment incentive pay, and in 2006 increased that maximum from $1,500 to $3,000 a month. We increased hostile fire and imminent danger pay from $150 to $225 a month. Family separation allowance from $100 to $250 a month. We completed, as I said, that 5- year program to eliminate out-of-cost housing expenses. We have eliminated the requirement to pay subsistence charges for those brave members of the military who are hospitalized. We now pay an allowance to reimburse for the cost of life insurance. And in the bill we passed this year, that cost will be totally paid for by the Federal Government for the first time in our Nation's history. We authorized a new payment of $430 a month to combat wounded servicemembers who are hospitalized, and on and on and on. The chairman mentioned that in each of the last 8 years we have increased pay to our military men and women in uniform by more than half a percent over what the civilian sector in this country has received, whether it is TRICARE for every Guard and Reserve member; hospitalization, better coverage. We have cared for these troops. The chairman noted, and the figures show it, though I have heard about a strained force, and we are concerned about them. We worry about them every day. I know I have in my six trips to Iraq and twice to Afghanistan. But let me read you the recruitment figures we have thus far this year. The Army, 104.3 percent of goal. The Navy, 100 percent of goal. The Marines, 101.5 percent. The Air Force, 100.5 percent. A DOD total of 102.1 percent. Lastly, retention. Those brave members that General McCaffery talked about. Retention in the Army, 113 percent; Navy, 106 percent; Marines, 145 percent; and Air Force, 109 percent. My friends on the other side say they support the troops, and I believe them. They are all patriots, some extraordinary patriots on the other side that I have the honor of serving with. But I don't think they are serving the troops in some of this debate tonight like the troops want to be served. They want to see this mission through, because they understand the terrorists believe this is the real deal. This is where they have drawn the line in the sand, and the troops understand if we don't take the commitment they have made there and win this war on terror in Iraq, where will we fight next? It will be right here at home. It is a proud Army, we have a proud Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We are doing right by them and we need to do better because they are doing so right by us. I hope all my colleagues will support this resolution.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if I may, either the Clerk designated the wrong amendment or the gentleman is on the wrong script.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, and, first of all, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that I wish the record to show I am not only willingly here, I am eagerly here in support of this program. I know one of the legitimate concerns and criticisms about the process of so-called earmarking has been that where funds are being sought too often they are done anonymously. That is not the case here. I am proud to have penned my name to it, and it is also not the case in any project I have ever sought. I believe it is in the taxpayers' interest to have transparency, and I am proud to be associated with this project. It is the right thing to do. I am also happy to try to help the gentleman answer some of the questions that he asked. I have to be frank, I am more than a little confused by the assertion on these kinds of motions to strike, and this one in particular, that somehow there is no local participation. In fact, the locals have placed over $1 million in a very small community in support of this. There will be more to follow. Also, under EDI, as I understand the process, a 40 percent local match is required. And I would note as well that this is an authorized program. The gentleman may have a concern about the authorized program, but this has been an effort that has culminated over more than 12 months to try to qualify under the EDI accounts, which were first authorized back in 1974 under section 108 of the Community and Housing Development Act. So authorization is not the issue. This is a program that has had congressional votes and presidential signatures over the years, and it has evolved into the current form. This project finds itself on the floor today in virtually every other way over the past 5 years that each and every EDI program has come before us. It does not find itself on the floor at this moment by a process of whim or political leverage or whatever other nefarious means the gentleman lies behind it. It is quite the opposite. I think it is important to note this project was rejected under the EDI process just a year ago. It could not demonstrate that it met the qualifications, that it met the requirements under that program. And there are a number of them. You have to provide proof of resulting job creation. Your funding is restricted so you can have no personnel expenses. You cannot pay for program operations. You cannot reimburse expenses at any level, including debt service. For more than the past year local citizens who have worked so hard on this initiative have hired professional consultants, have conducted a menu of analysis and feasibility studies, all of it part of the public record and all of it designed to meet the requirements and the initiatives under the EDI account. I have to say the folks who have put forward that effort and worked so hard would be very, very surprised to hear the gentleman's concern.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind comments and for the very generous allocation of time. I also want to thank my other colleagues who deferred to me to allow me to kind of go out of order because of another appointment I have. Gracious, as always. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the full committee is absolutely right. We have the honor on this subcommittee to deal really with what I think all of us believe are the very core issues of fielding any effective military, and that is caring for the men and women who proudly wear this uniform, of course, under our system voluntarily, and, equally important, ensuring that the kinds of programs that are necessary to take care of their loved ones, their families, as they deploy into such dangerous places as Iraq, Afghanistan, and the literally hundreds of other places across this planet in which our military and men and women serve today, protecting our freedoms, find themselves. This is, as we have heard here, as is reflective of the entire committee, a truly bipartisan effort, and I want to thank, of course, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, for his amazing leadership in very, very difficult times; the support that he has so graciously acknowledged, and rightfully so, from the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton; and on the Personnel Subcommittee, for the support, for the leadership, for the guidance of our ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder. It is tough in this day and age, as others, including the gentleman from Pennsylvania, have suggested, to put aside partisan politics at all times in this Nation's Capital, particularly in this, an even- numbered year. But if it is being done anywhere, it is being done most successfully, perhaps not perfectly, but most successfully on this Armed Services Committee, and I would argue, most strongly on this Personnel Subcommittee. The name ``personnel'' can confuse some folks. It doesn't send a very clear message. But what we try to do is the best we possibly can, within limited resources, to care for those folks who have done such an amazing job. We are all, very collectively, very proud of the fact that when members of this committee come and talk about the achievements, significant achievements, of this bill, they generally more often than not talk about the provisions that first started in this Personnel Subcommittee: The pay increase, the eighth consecutive year that it exceeds the general average pay increase in the Employment Cost Index, and the help that that provides, closing the gap between the civilian and the military sectors, down to a low now of 4 percent should this pay increase proposal prevail; The kinds of things we have done in trying to take the next logical step towards controlling and keeping the cost of the military health care system affordable, but not doing it in a way that immediately inflicts what I would argue and I think my colleagues would agree is unnecessary and excessive pain in terms of the hundreds of percent of increase in copay and in enrollment fees and such through the TRICARE program; The efforts we have made, at great expense, by the way, to add to the military end strength, recognizing that the demands we have placed upon our men and women in uniform are so significant. And one of the challenges we face is to ensure that there are sufficient numbers in the military, in the uniform, to try to assure a better and reasonable level of operations and personnel tempo, so folks who are coming home from theaters like in Iraq and Afghanistan have time to recoup, have time to unwind and spend time with their families. The only way that can be done is through a reasonable extension and expansion of the numbers that we authorize in terms of putting men and women into particularly the Army, the Guard, and, of course, the Marine Corps as well. Casualty assistance programs, recognizing that we are in a time of war, that there are difficulties in terms of those programs, and we have to ensure that the remains of military personnel who give their all, their ultimate in times of combat or who die of noncombat-related injuries in the theater of combat are moved and dedicated and brought home by military-leased aircraft and are processed in a timely and a humane and a respectful way, and on and on and on. This is just a good bill from top to bottom. I would certainly, with a sense of pride, suggest that the 61-1 vote I think clearly illustrates that in the personnel sections this is a truly beneficial and truly progressive bill. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jack, for your very gracious remarks and for this recognition. Thanks to all of you for being here this morning. We want to thank you, Jack, and the officers and staff for the great work that you do in leading the association and in making those programs that we heard about this morning work so well. On a personal note, I also want to say on behalf of my wife, Alanna, and myself how much we admire you and, as the Speaker said, our thoughts and prayers are with you and Charlie during these very tough times. I also want to express appreciation to my wife and my family, some of whom are here in the gallery this morning. As we all know, politics is an exhilarating, serious profession with a lot of rewards and satisfactions along the way. But most of those rewards go to the candidate and the officeholder and precious few go to the spouse and the family. They make enormous contributions, but they are very seldom recognized. So today is a day to say thank you to Alanna and to my family for their patience and understanding and support at all times in my life, but especially during those very hectic political years that we are all so familiar with. As I said, I am grateful for this recognition, but I am very much aware that the honor could as easily go to anybody sitting here. As I look around the Chamber, I see so many people who have contributed so much to our country and to the Congress. One of the great things about our association is that it gives us an opportunity to continue to serve an institution that we love. I see so many of you who have done that, during your years here and afterwards as well. The association brings us together for a variety of reasons. We get to see old friends. We reflect upon some of the experiences we shared together here. We learn something new about what is happening in the world today. But most importantly the programs of the association give us a chance to continue to serve in some small measure the institution that we do love and that is so important to the lifeblood of this country, the Congress. We are able in some small measure to increase public awareness of how important Congress remains to the country. We have heard many of the programs described this morning, some of which serve that purpose very well but none more important, I think, than the Congress to Campus Program. I know many of you have participated in those campus visits that have been already described. Bill Goodling and I went together recently to Amherst College, and as always we were really touched by how impressive the young generation is, idealistic, bright. But at the same time given the kind of coverage that government and politics gets today and the other distractions and pressures young people have in their lives, there is a real risk that many of them will not really take a real serious interest in public service. Of course, that would be a great tragedy for the country because clearly the future of the country rests with them. It rests with young people like my own granddaughter who is here today who is going off to college in the fall. And so the Congress to Campus Program gives us a chance to reach out to those young people to explain why public service is important and rewarding, to demonstrate among other things that Republicans and Democrats who serve together can actually talk and discuss issues thoughtfully and constructively, and to encourage them to really engage in public service and community service when their school days are over. I think we can be grateful to our association for giving us that opportunity, not only in the Congress to Campus Program but in many other ways as well. I know that we are very limited on time. We are almost ready to abandon the Chamber, so I would like to close simply by thanking all of you for your work with the association, for your continuing service to the Congress and the country, for the recognition that you have given me today, and for being with us to share this very special moment. Thank you so much.

Mr. McHUGH. Thanks so much, Jack.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his work, his effort, and all Members', to bring this product to the floor here today. I certainly associate myself with the comments of previous speakers about perfection. I am one of the newer members of the committee, I have to be very frank. As a long-term member of the Armed Services Committee, I was shocked at the condition, or lack of positive condition of our intelligence resources coming out of the 1990s. Let us be honest about it. Congress, particularly the administration, did a terrible job in maintaining the kind of infrastructure programs and resources necessary to do adequate intelligence. The good news is I think this bill continues the recent efforts, particularly since post-9/11, to try to rebuild those communities. It has not been an easy job, and it has been a bipartisan one, and I can hope that will continue. With respect to this bill, I would say that it does, indeed, help meet the President's goal of growing our analytic cadre by 50 percent. It continues efforts that were begun with the Intelligence Reform Act to rebuild the community. As I said, after it was literally devastated by what I would categorize as irresponsible budget cuts in the 1980s, the passage of this bill would provide the DNI with the necessary resources to best identify practices for analysis, and will fund use of experts from across the spectrum, academia, the private sector, to supplement the intelligence community expertise. More than that, it will support fundamental assessment of the community's analytic resources, and that can serve as the ``yellow pages'' for intelligence community analysts, and it will serve as well to illustrate what skills and expertise the community still needs as we continue that very, very important challenge. In addition, H.R. 5020 provides our intelligence community with resources and authorities necessary to win the war on terror. It shakes off the last vestiges of the Deutsch doctrine, which tied our hands for all intelligence officers. It is a long road back. This bill takes us a long way down that path and I strongly support its passage.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional officer in the United States Army, Lieutenant Colonel Victor H. Samuel, upon his retirement after 20 years of distinguished service. Throughout his career, Colonel Samuel has personified the Army values of duty, integrity, and selfless service across the many missions the Army provides in defense of our Nation. As a Congressional Legislative Liaison Officer in the office of the Secretary of the Army, many of us on Capitol Hill have enjoyed the opportunity to work with Colonel Samuel on a wide variety of Army issues and programs, and it is my privilege to recognize his many accomplishments. Lieutenant Colonel Victor H. Samuel, the son of Mr. Hasker B. and Sylvia P. Samuel of Silver Spring, Maryland attended Eleanor Roosevelt Senior High School in Greenbelt, Maryland and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after graduating from Hampton Institute in 1984. Colonel Samuel's first assignment was in Bad Hersfeld, Germany as an Engineer Platoon leader. He was subsequently assigned duties as the Executive Officer and Assistant G3 in the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment that was charged with defense of the Fulda Gap in Europe during the Cold War. Colonel Samuel went on to Command an Engineer Company in the 31st Engineer Battalion at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. In 1992, Colonel Samuel was selected to complete advance studies in Civil Engineering at the University of Maryland where he received a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering (Construction Management). In 1994, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel served as the Project Engineer for the Vicksburg, Mississippi District. He was subsequently assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps, Airborne Combat Engineer Brigade, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where he served as the Brigade Logistics Officer and Battalion Executive Officer. Thereafter, Colonel Samuel was assigned to the Army Staff in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, where he honed his expertise in the field of personnel management. In 2002, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel was assigned to the Office of Chief of Legislative Liaison, Programs Division where he assumed duties as a Legislative Liaison managing the Personnel and Human Resources portfolio. Colonel Samuel served as the Policy Branch Chief for Programs Division where he oversaw the promulgation of legislative policy initiatives in operations and logistics, depot maintenance, personnel, education and training, medical, and military construction. Through these varying assignments, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel has provided outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to both the Army and Congress. His actions and counsel were invaluable to Army leaders as they considered the impact of important issues. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank Colonel Samuel, his wife, Janice, and his entire family for the commitment, sacrifices, and contribution that they have made throughout his honorable military career. Congratulations on completing an exceptional and successful career.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the distinguished chairman for his kind comments and for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, I have a full statement that without objection I would like to enter into the Record in its entirety and just make a few brief comments if I might. The hour is late. Fortunately it is not too late. I listened very carefully to the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas. I think we could all pick any part of any process by which any bill comes to the floor of this House and have objections. I understand his perspective but I was heartened to hear him say he strongly supports this bill, as he should. Because the bottom line, the most important question is, what is the quality of this legislation. The gentleman from Arkansas seems to think it is very good. I agree with him. I can in fact state without hesitation that in my 13 years of having the honor of serving on this committee, this is the best personnel provision package I have seen. If we look at the components of it, a 3.1 percent pay raise, the seventh year in row we have raised pay, reducing the gap between the private sector and our hardworking men and women in uniform, an increase in the hardship duty pay, a doubling in the assignment incentive pay. We require that the government pay for the servicemembers' group life insurance when people are deployed into theaters like Operation Iraqi Freedom and the OEF theater. We double the enlistment bonuses. We add by $30,000 to the reenlistment bonuses. On and on and on. We provide for an accelerated enhancement for concurrent receipt payments for 100 percent of disabled veterans. We provide a program for the first time that ensures that every member of the Guard and Reserve has access to some form of TRICARE, of the military health care program. Benefit after benefit. It is important that we have a broad range of military programs, the best equipment, the most modern technology, but at the end of the day as in the beginning of the day, the key to the success of the American military are the men and women that put that uniform on and today as we speak are serving so bravely. This is a terrific bill for them. I want to thank the chairman for his great leadership and I certainly urge all the Members of the House to strongly support it. It is the right thing to do for some absolutely amazing people. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H. R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The military personnel provisions of H.R. 1815 address many problems and issues that the men and women in uniform have brought to us. Additionally, the conference report will help to relieve the tremendous pressure being placed on the military services--active, guard, and reserve. To those ends, H.R. 1815 contains these key initiatives: A military pay raise of 3.1 percent. The raise is 0.5 percent above private sector raises and reduces the pay gap to 4.6 percent from 13.5 percent in fiscal year 1999 culminating seven years of enhanced pay raises. We recommend continued growth in Army and Marine Corps end strength. Under the conference agreement, the Army would increase by 10,000 and the Marine Corps by 1,000, bringing the Army end strength to 512,400 and the Marine Corps to 179,000. This bill also provides recruiting, retention and pay initiatives that would, for active component recruiting and retention: Increase the maximum active duty enlistment bonus maximum from $20,000 to $40,000. Increase the maximum active duty reenlistment bonus from $60,000 to $90,000. Provide the Army with unprecedented flexibility to initiate new recruiting incentive programs following 45 days, notice to Congress. Authorize the Army--active duty reserve, and National Guard--to pay $1,000 to servicemembers who refer recruit candidates for enlistment and those candidates complete technical training. Increase the maximum enlistment age from 35 years of age to 42. Authorize the payment of matching contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan for new recruits. For the Reserve Components, the conference agreement would: Authorize the same basic allowance for housing as active duty members when mobilized for periods greater than 30 days. Authorize a critical skills retention bonus under the active duty program up to a maximum of $100,000 over the course of a career. The conference report also provides for an expanded death gratuity of $100,000 for all military deaths--not just combat-related deaths--and two retroactive payments: $100,000 for all military deaths that occurred on or after October 7, 2001; and $150,000 to survivors of all military deaths, not just combat-related deaths, to compensate for the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance coverage from $250,000 to $400,000 that became effective for all military members on May 11, 2005. For wounded servicemembers, the conference agreement would provide a special pay of $430 per month while the servicemember is in rehabilitation. In addition, family members would be provided greater travel and transportation allowances to visit wounded and injured servicemembers. The conference agreement expands eligibility for TRICARE to all members of the reserve components, and their families, who continue service in the Selected Reserve. Under the agreement, there would be three eligibility categories: Involuntarily mobilized reservists--as in current law: 1 year TRICARE eligibility for every 90 days of mobilized service. Persons without employer provided health care, unemployed, self- employed, and Any person not meeting the above criteria. This conference agreement also provides enhancements to military justice that would: Establish the offense of stalking, and Clearly define the offense of rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct in title 10, United States Code, and pattern the elements of the offenses after the Federal statute. All in all, the conference report on H.R. 1815 is a significant package of legislation directed at providing maximum assistance to the men and women who are fighting the Global War on Terrorism. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the conference report.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just so I understand, is the gentleman from Maryland saying that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, does not have that information available to her, because that is what the gentleman very strongly suggested? I do not see the gentlewoman from California on the floor tonight. I do not think she would agree with that kind of assertion.

Mr. McHUGH. The gentleman's very kind but very inaccurate, but in any event, the motion to instruct, as I understand it, has nothing to do with this Defense bill. It has everything to do with the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, as I think the only Member in the House tonight who is both a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, I listened to what the gentleman said. The gentleman said that he felt the information should be known to the Intelligence Committee, and I agree with the gentleman, and also to the House. Would the gentleman help me understand, because based on the language of the instruction, I see no requirement that the information reported to the Intel Committee be reported to the full House, is that his understanding, that somehow that very clandestine, very important information, very secretive information, should be shared to the whole House? Because that is not contained in the instruction.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, why are we here tonight? The fact of the matter is, as I believe the chairman of the Intel Committee suggested, the oversight activities associated with these kinds of facilities is being conducted by the Intel Committee and is in fact available to those Members of the House who wish to come here. Why is this instruction necessary?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I cannot either. I have not talked to the gentlewoman from California, but I feel very confident, and certainly if the chairman of the full committee would like to stand forward to the microphone and take this, I would be shocked, I would be stunned, if the gentlewoman from California, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, did not have that information. The point being, at the end of the day, and there is no one, no one I respect more and feel more affection toward, in all areas but particularly in the area of defense, than the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), but it just seems to me that these are activities that are already occurring. They are activities that, as a 13-year member of the Armed Services Committee, in spite of my loyalty to that committee, I feel are beyond the bounds of this committee and are not necessary, and I am confused as to why we are here as members of the Armed Services Committee trying to instruct the Intelligence Committee to do something that is already being done.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.