To amend the Federal Charter of the Boy Scouts of America in title 36, United States Code, to ratify the authority of the Secretary of Defense and military installations and units of the Armed Forces to officially sponsor units of the Boy Scouts of America serving dependents of members of the Armed Forces and to make facilities of the Department of Defense available for Boy Scout meetings and activities, such as national and world Boy Scout Jamborees.

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

First let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), my friend and colleague, the chairman, for his leadership on this committee, for the by and large strong bipartisanship that we have had on this bill. I thank him and all the members on both sides of the aisle, the chairman, the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. They have all worked so well and so hard.

This is a $440 billion bill, and it means so very much for the national security of our country.

So we again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for his participation, for his friendship and for being a strong colleague in national defense.

I am pleased that this year's defense budget represents a real increase in defense spending over last year's level. The committee made good use of the money in recommending vital readiness, modernization, infrastructure improvements, which will keep our forces the best trained and best equipped in the world.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I must say that I am so very proud of every man and every woman who wears the uniform of the United States. It is up to us, in the Constitution, to provide and maintain them, and, that is, from all of us who serve on this committee, it is a labor of love. Those young men and young women putting their hearts and souls, their bodies, their careers on the line for our country. So the least we can do at this moment is say a special thanks to them by passing an excellent bill which does help them in their duties.

I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), ranking member, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Mr. McHugh) for increasing the Army and Marine Corps end-strength. I have been saying since 1995, Mr. Chairman, that we needed 40,000 more troops in the United States Army, and this year we are authorizing an additional 30,000 for the Army and an additional 4,000 for the United States Marines.

However, they are paid for out of the supplemental that we are authorizing. Nevertheless, it is happening. It should be paid for out of the base bill, but it is happening because they are stretched, they are strained.

I also want to commend the efforts to reform the purchase of Navy ships. If we are ever going to get to the point where we can afford to buy more than just a few ships a year, we are going to have to do things differently, and I think that buying the number of ships that we are doing, the additional three ships, is a major step in the right direction.

I do, however, want to raise two matters of concern. The bill authorizes almost $50 billion in fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These funds are separate and apart from the $440-plus billion we are authorizing. My concern is that the conflicts for which we are authorizing this additional money are mature enough that their costs are foreseeable and could and should be included in the base bill. In my view, budgeting in this fashion has adverse consequences.

Secondly, the ``emergency'' designation that goes along with supplemental appropriations hides the true extent of the Federal deficit. Although we may disagree on the practice of funding operations in the Iraq war and the Afghanistan conflict through supplemental appropriations, if we are going to go down this road, then we should not short-circuit the authorization process. And that is what we are doing. We are authorizing, as we should, rather than leave it up to the Committee on Appropriations; and I think that is a move in the right direction.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a word about the Hunter amendment. This deals with the women in uniform. At the outset I must say I am proud of every man and woman who wears the uniform and the duty that they perform.

In the Military Personnel Subcommittee, the amendment was adopted on a party-line vote, which had the effect of freezing out and causing to be closed some 21,950 positions. That was not a good move. That would be disruptive, not just to women; it would be disruptive to our national defense because so many of them are serving all over the globe in such superb fashion.

In the full committee, another amendment was adopted that was an attempt to codify Secretary Les Aspin's 1994 women issue language. It was not full and complete, and there were some serious problems with that, and the United States Army opposed that. That is the way the bill is at this moment.

I understand there is an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that will wipe that out and that will call for a special way of counting notification to Congress and call for a study. Should that pass, it will wipe out the onerous language that is there that is causing a great deal of concern not just with women in the uniform, but those others who work with them and for them.

The process in this regard has been, I think, unfair to Democrats. So as a matter of fact, we have come out on the issue regarding women. If the new Hunter amendment is adopted, possibly those two amendments are behind us and we do not have to worry about their being concerned; and that is the major victory in this issue of personnel.

I feel constrained to mention that the committee adopted an amendment that would have extended TRICARE coverage to Reservists. Unfortunately, the provision was technically defective, and the Committee on Rules had the opportunity to right that wrong,

and they did not do so. So we look forward to discussing that at a later time. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I am sure, will address that situation.

By and large, this is a good bill. We have worked hard on it. The subcommittees have worked hard on it. And so often we have serious problems, as we have with the issue regarding the women in uniform, but I do not want those issues to detract from the fact that this is a solid piece of legislation that helps fight the war against terrorism and helps fight against the insurgency in Iraq and also funds the men and women in the performance of their duties all over this globe.

So I will say that we have a tremendous military that we should be very proud of.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished whip.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

(Mrs. DRAKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, in reference to the gentlewoman from New Mexico's (Mrs. Wilson) remarks, the women in the military issue is past. There were some trying moments, there were two amendments, one quite onerous and the other just onerous. I thank the gentlewoman.

I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), for their work, along with the chairman and the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for gluing together a piece of legislation that replaces the onerous language.

Mr. Chairman, we have a remarkable military. History will prove that we have the finest young men and young women who are in uniform ever. As it was pointed out a few moments ago, they are all volunteers. They are all dedicated. They understand duties. They understand service. They understand professionalism.

And today when we pass this bill, and I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) joins me, we hope this will be a tribute to them and their hard work, their dedication and their patriotism. For without them, without the young men and women who wear the uniform of all the services today, our country would not be safe and secure.

Mr. Chairman, I admire and appreciate those who serve in our military today.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, if there is anyone in this Chamber that understands the border and the business at the border, it is the former border patrol chief, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). His expertise is beyond question.

At a time when we are stretching our young people in uniform, particularly

the United States Army, at a time when 40 percent of those in Iraq and Afghanistan are Reservists or National Guardsmen, at a time when we are having a difficult time in recruiting and problems rising in retention, we just cannot afford to put additional troops on the border. That is the purpose of the border patrol, and it is up to this body in other amendments and other bills to authorize and appropriate more border patrolmen for that necessary job.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, there are magic moments in a person's life. One of those magic moments happened to me in April 1948 in Kansas City, Missouri, at the Music Hall Auditorium, where I manned the stage with a good number of other Boy Scouts, my mother walking up the steps with me, a rose being handed to me which I handed to her, and I shook hands with the sponsor of the Eagle Scout class, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, the then-president of Kansas State University. It was a moment to remember. That was my Eagle Scout Code of Honor. Of course, I am pleased to say that we have a son also that is an Eagle Scout.

Scouting builds good citizenship. I have been around it all my life. Looking back, I have so much to thank my scoutmaster, John L. Marchetti, old Troop 418, for the young men he worked with and molded into good Missouri citizens.

It is important that young Scouts have the finest places to camp, the finest places to learn the skills, the camping, the frontiering, learn the active parts of the Scout law: to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. They can learn these on reservations that are and do belong to our military. As a matter of fact, a good number of Scouts that come through the Scouts ranks volunteer and become part of the military, many of them for a career.

So it certainly is fitting that the gentlewoman from Virginia offers this amendment. I thoroughly endorse it. I certainly hope it passes overwhelmingly. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) again for giving me this opportunity to speak in support thereof.

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

This year, the Committee on Armed Services has put together a bill that is a true example of bipartisan cooperation, providing the men and women of the armed services with the best equipment, best training, and a benefit package that is worthy of their service and their sacrifice.

The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2006 provides $441 billion for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The bill was voted out of committee by a vote of 61 to 1 and contains significant improvements in areas of military personnel, acquisition reform, responsible defense procurement strategies, and addresses a need for continuity in funding for our ongoing efforts in the global war on terror.

But before I get into any details, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who has been my partner on this committee, for all the great work that he has done. I would also like to praise our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. This bill is a culmination of their many hearings and oversight reviews.

Almost every member of this full committee has been to the war fighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan and gathered firsthand important information that has ultimately been reflected in this bill that we have put together. I want to thank all the members of the committee and all our great leaders on both the Democrat and Republican side, the chairmen of the subcommittees and the ranking members, for their work.

This year, Mr. Chairman, we have made taking care of our troops, both now and in the future, one of our top priorities. We can do all of these things in developing great weapons systems and facilities, but the only thing that really is important, the element that drives the security apparatus of the United States, is people. It is the men and women in uniform. To recognize these sacrifices, the committee has included a number of very well-deserved changes in our MILPER system, and it starts with this 3.1 percent pay raise across the board.

Incidentally, that pulls down this difference in pay on the outside in the domestic world and military pay. There has always been a differential. If you were a military technician in a certain area, you have historically made less money than your counterpart in the private world.

But we have pulled down that differential now to a very low rate, which is now about 4.6 percent. We have increased, in fact, military pay 25 percent over the last 4 years, and that has been the result of the great work of members of our committee, Mr. Chairman.

We have also increased the death gratuity to $100,000, and understanding that there is no way we can repay those who have lost their loved ones, this helps to bridge those very difficult times when that man or woman does not come back from the warfighting theaters.

We also provide additional increases in end strength. With this bill we have completed our end strength increase plan of 30,000 more soldiers for the Army and 4,000 for the Marine Corps.

But we also realize that there are a lot of other things we need to do, especially in the warfighting theaters. We have increased by $572 million our inventory of Humvees, $183 million for counter-rocket and mortar systems. Those are the systems that can take down those mortars and rockets that

are coming into the fire bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, inflicting in some cases egregious wounds on our personnel.

And we have put in an additional $45 million for these jamming devices to jam improvised explosive devices that the insurgents are using in the warfighting theaters. That is a place where the insurgents can stand back 300 or 400 yards from a roadway, wait for that Marine or Army convoy to line up on a lamppost, and by using a low-power device like a garage door opener, detonate an improvised explosive device, which may be an artillery shell next to that road, hurting the Americans. Jamming that capability, defeating that capability, is an important thing, and we have put a lot of money into that, Mr. Chairman.

These are a couple of examples I wanted to go over.

But I wanted to go to another area that is very important for our Nation's future and the future of our defense apparatus. We are paying a ton of money now for single systems. The future combat system for the Army is now projected to cost almost twice what we originally projected. The cost of the new destroyer, the DD(X), is going to be, according to projections, well over $3 billion.

So we see these escalating prices threatening our ability to buy enough systems, enough trucks, tanks, ships, planes, to provide the coverage that we need in power projection around the world. We are putting some very important disciplines into the acquisition process to make it more difficult for the private sector to increase these prices dramatically and for this combination of our own bureaucracy and the private sector to inadvertently allow their program costs to rise. So we are working to instill some fiscal discipline, Mr. Chairman, and that is manifested in this particular mark.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we have extraordinary people in the warfighting theaters today. These young men and women went in initially thinking they would see poison gas on the battlefield. They did not see that poison gas, but they have come up against things like IEDs, new ways of attacking that we did not anticipate, and that will continue to evolve as the insurgents search for new ways to attack Americans. And we have to have the flexibility and the agility to provide new systems and new types of operations to counter what we are going to see not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world in this global war against terrorism.

So we have given the tools to our troops today, and this is just part of the process, but we have initiated, with this bill, giving to our troops the tools that they need to get the job done. It has been a bipartisan effort, and the gentleman from Missouri has been a real partner in putting this bill together.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the vice chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, and who has done a great job in putting his package together in terms of modernizing our forces.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, and oversees those wonderful people in our Special Operations Command.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who chairs the Subcommittee on Readiness and does a wonderful job making sure our men and women have the facilities that they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who does such an able job of presiding over the Subcommittee on Military Personnel and who takes care of all of our folks in uniform, men and women, active, Guard, and Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman who chairs the Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the previous speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who worked very hard on putting together the compromise amendment on women in combat.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I want to say, we all know one thing in this House Chamber, those who know the record of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), he is the finest border patrol chief probably in the history of our country. He has done a wonderful job.

We are on opposite sides of this vote. I think the gentleman pointed out very clearly one reason we can be on opposite sides of this vote, and that is, this is a permission which, arguably, the President already has. It is not a mandate; it is a permission. I would contemplate this would only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

Nonetheless, it is a resource that the Department of Homeland Security should have at their disposal should they need it for some exigency in the future.

I want to support the Goode amendment, as I have historically. I thank Members on both sides for a very high-level debate.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 13 offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and printed in House Report 109-96 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concern. I look forward to working with her to prevent unnecessary closures or transfers not just at West Point but also at DDESS across the country. I agree it is important to provide such benefits for our military personnel to not only recruit the best for our military but to provide the safety, security, and necessary programs to the DDESS students and their parents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who has exhibited enormous concern and support for our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, she is a valued member of the committee, and let her know I support her amendment very strongly. I think it is an excellent partnership, and one that has taken place for many, many years. We hope at some point to have a Shining Sea Scout March from the shores of California all the way out to A.P. Hill, almost to the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is deficient in many ways, but it includes critical provisions that I think are necessary. So I will vote for it.

As a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Chairman Hunter for working with me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to me and my state of Colorado.

The bill incorporates an amendment I offered to reauthorize for one year the Welcome Home Warrior and Freedom Salute programs for the Army Reserve and Army and Air National Guard. Both programs are first and foremost recruiting and retention programs. They help reintroduce returning soldiers to civilian life and honor them with gifts of flags, lapel pins and other items honoring their service. Especially given the amount of strain our citizen soldiers are under, it's all the more important that we take the time to let them know how much their service and sacrifices mean to their communities and to the nation.

The bill also includes language directing the Secretary of the Army to evaluate the type of aircraft available in the Army's inventory that can replace aging equipment currently in use at High-Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO. HAATS, which is operated by the Colorado Army National Guard, is the primary site for training military pilots on operations in hostile and high-altitude environments under all weather conditions. The training that is done at HAATS is essential to reduce the number of accidents our forces have recently experienced when operating in high mountainous areas, such as Afghanistan and Northern Iraq. But the training site currently uses aircraft that are being phased out this year, and no replacement aircraft have been programmed. So I'm glad that the Chairman has pledged to work with me to help HAATS continue to provide its important training.

I was pleased that the bill includes favorable language on the Pueblo Chemical Depot, a former chemical weapons site located in southeastern Colorado. Coloradans were alarmed last year when the demilitarization project was put on hold, so they want to see that DoD is committed to using the neutralization technology to destroy the 2,600 tons of mustard agent stored at Pueblo--not transporting the weapons to a different site for destruction. The Colorado delegation has worked hard to put the project back on the right track, so I am grateful for language in the bill directing the Secretary of the Army to continue to implement fully the neutralization technology at Pueblo.

I also want to call attention to language that would transfer program responsibility from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army. I understand that objection to this transfer in the past was due to the preference of the Program Manager for Chemical Destruction under the Department of the Army for baseline incineration. Now that DoD is committed to the neutralization approach, and given the numerous GAO reports and testimony to Congress stating that effective management of the chemical demilitarization program has been hindered by the complexity of its management structure, it appears to make sense to pursue the transfer. Still, I've asked the Chairman to follow this move closely to ensure that this proposed change in oversight of the project doesn't change the path forward for the development of the neutralization technology.

Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $6.4 million for the Air National Guard Station at Greeley for the Space Warning Squadron Support Facility as well as $5.5 million for the Network Information and Space Security Center (NISSC) at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to replace its outdated facility and allow NISSC to expand its programs and services through a multidisciplinary homeland security lab environment.

There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our troops. An important one increases the active duty Army and Marine Corp by 10,000 and 1,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease the strain on our troops. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, increase the death gratuity to $100,000, and provide a 3.1 percent pay raise for members of the armed forces. The bill also provides better force protection for our troops, including nearly doubled funding for up-armored Humvees.

Also important--especially at this time of budget tightening--is the bill's focus on reining in costs of major procurement programs, particularly the Future Combat Systems and other programs that have relied on immature technology.

On a less positive note, I am concerned that the bill authorizes nearly $50 billion in a ``bridge fund''--over and above the $440 billion in the regular bill--for FY06 supplemental

appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror. While inclusion in the bill does mean that the authorizing process has been followed to an extent, still, the additional money in this bridge fund should be included in the regular budget request, since there is nothing unexpected about the need for these funds. The ``emergency'' label that these funds bear hides the fact that they do increase the size of the budget deficit. I don't believe this is a responsible way for us to pay for our military operations.

I'm also disappointed that the leadership and the Rules Committee did not provide for adequate debate on issues of importance to the nation and to the prosecution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week the Armed Services Committee voted for Representative Taylor's amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis. But Chairman Hunter took the language out due to budget constraints, and the Rules Committee refused to make Mr. Taylor's amendment in order. I agree with my colleague Representative Taylor that as long as our nation continues to use our reserve components in the same capacities as active duty troops, they deserve similar benefits for similar service. The needs of our Reservists will continue to grow as we continue to call them to service in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Republicans put off this decision on TRICARE to another day.

The Rules Committee also precluded debate on Representative Spratt's amendment to increase spending on nonproliferation programs. As Mr. Spratt pointed out, we are currently spending less on the cooperative threat reduction program than we did before September 11th. President Bush agreed with Senator Kerry in one of the presidential debates that the biggest danger we face is the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. Yet this bill doesn't provide funding for our nonproliferation programs commensurate with this threat.

I am disappointed that debate was not allowed on Representative Tauscher's excellent amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment with Congress or on an amendment I offered with my colleague Representative Beauprez to help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from cancer and other conditions related to their exposure to radiation and other hazards.

I'm very relieved that the majority saw fit to scale back for the second time language that was first proposed two weeks ago in the Personnel Subcommittee on which I serve. That language would have removed women from Army combat support and combat service support units in which they currently serve, a move that would have affected many thousands of women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week's amendment watered down the initial language, codifying the status quo with regard to positions women currently hold in the military. Along with my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee, I objected to this revised language because it would take flexibility away from our commanders who need to make their own decisions about battlefield needs. So last week's amendment meant that if one of the services wanted to expand or change positions open to women, this could only be done through a change in the law. Ranking Member Skelton said it best: ``By limiting women to only those jobs they perform today, it will be more difficult for commanders to adapt their forces to the changing needs of current operations around the world.''

Given the current difficulties our military is facing with recruitment and retention, it doesn't make sense to tie the hands of our commanders, discourage women from joining the armed forces, or create confusion among our troops. So I'm glad that Chairman Hunter revised his language yet again in the manager's amendment today. This final provision requires the Defense Department to provide more detailed reporting if the services want to expand the role of women, and establishes a longer waiting period following notice to Congress before those changes can go into effect.

Finally, I want to discuss an amendment brought to the floor by our colleague from California, Ms. Woolsey.

This is an annual authorization bill, but its provisions will have lasting effects beyond the next fiscal year. So, I sympathized with those who supported the amendment calling for the Administration to tell us how they intend to complete the work we have undertaken to do in Iraq. But, after careful consideration, I decided that I could not support the Woolsey amendment.

That does not mean I am confident that the Administration has a clear blueprint--in fact, just the opposite. I opposed the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq because I thought other alternatives had not been exhausted. And events since then have made clear that while the Administration planned for invasion, they lacked a plan for what would follow.

But just as rushing into Iraq was a mistake, rushing to get out would also be a mistake. Ms. Woolsey's amendment may be helpful in sending an important signal to the Muslim world that America has no desire to stay in Iraq, but it fails to address the necessary linkage between an exit strategy and security. Moreover, I am persuaded that this is not the moment for Congress to cast what the insurgents predictably would describe as a vote of no confidence in our efforts to assist the new Iraqi government to draft a constitution and to develop the police and military forces needed to maintain order so that the Iraqi people can decide in free and fair elections whether to ratify that document.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which it was debated was not all that it should have been. But, overall, the bill deserves to pass and I urge its approval.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1815, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This legislation reflects misplaced priorities, wrong choices, excessive spending, and a failure to make hard choices. This bill also fails to assert any meaningful Congressional oversight over the war in Iraq which has been mismanaged from the very beginning.

Passage of this bill today will set our annual defense spending in Fiscal Year 2006 at $490.7 billion, including additional funding for the war in Iraq. This will account for 55 percent of all discretionary spending. In real terms, it will be 20 percent higher than the average defense budget during the Cold War. We will spend just shy of a million dollars a minute, 24 hours a day, for all 365 days next year.

Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have supported many defense authorization and defense appropriations bills. As a Member of this House, I take extremely seriously my oath of office that obligates me to provide for the protection of the American people. Providing for our common defense is critical, but like other federal government programs, we are bound to ensure that each dollar that we spend is necessary and used wisely.

Not only will this be a record defense budget, it will also be nearly as large as every other country in the world combined. Let me repeat that, this defense budget will nearly equal all other military spending in the world, including nations that are our allies and nations that are potential adversaries. According to estimates by the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, all nations except for the United States are spending a total of $527 billion. This includes our NATO allies like Britain at $49 billion and France at $40 billion, and Japan at $45 billion. Our spending dwarfs those of countries that are considered possible threats to our security: Iran at $3.5 billion, North Korea at $5.5 billion, Syria at $1.6 billion, and Sudan at $500 million.

We have already appropriated approximately $250 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. The day after we passed our latest FY 2005 supplemental, the Administration signaled that we should expect another supplemental request in the $50 billion range. It is clear that the Administration has no idea what the costs of the Iraq operations will be or is withholding that information from the Congress and the American people.

In March 2003, before the war began, I wrote to the President with 22 of our colleagues to ask him to specifically define our objectives and to provide an exit strategy. We asked the President a number of questions including: ``Under what circumstances will our military occupation of (and financial commitment to) Iraq end? And how will we know when these circumstances are present.'' We, and the American people, never received an answer to these crucial questions. Even today, the Administration is unwilling or unable to answer. This is simply unacceptable.

Time and again, the President has requested money to fund the war in Iraq while refusing to answer our questions about this war and provide a comprehensive strategy for bringing our troops home. We must insist that the administration articulate the conditions necessary to bring our troops home, and push them to do that as soon as possible. The administration's refusal to address these is quite astounding to me and should be of great concern to all Americans who believe in principles of accountability and checks and balances.

It is absolutely essential that President Bush formulate an exit strategy. This strategy must specify our objectives clearly, benchmarks to measure our success, or lack of success, and a realistic time line for withdrawing our troops. I know that many argue that a timeline for withdrawal would encourage insurgents to ``run out the clock.'' I disagree. A timeline would establish deadlines for us and the Iraqis to achieve our objectives. It gives us deadlines with which to hold ourselves accountable. For example, we set a date for elections, and despite the violence, we were successful in holding them on time.

My colleague from California, Lynn Woolsey, offered an amendment today to ask the President to develop a plan for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This amendment did not set a date for withdrawal, nor did it require that any plan developed by the President have a fixed timeline for withdrawal. It simply said that the President should put together a plan and share it with Congress and the American people. Yet, the House leadership only allocated 30 minutes for this crucial debate.

This legislation fails to make tough choices about our military priorities. I support transformation of our armed forces into a more mobile, flexible force that can take on a wide variety of missions, from combat to peacekeeping, from hurricane relief to securing weapons of mass destruction. Our country cannot afford to maintain our current Cold War structure and legacy weapons systems while fully transforming into the modern force we need in this century. Yet this bill fails to make the tough choices and instead tries to fund both. And it fails to fully succeed at either.

I want to focus on some of the weapons systems we are funding in this bill.

Since 1983, we have spent $100 billion on missile defense. President Bush decided to move forward with deployment of a system that has been inadequately tested. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted last year, the system is ``largely unproven.'' The GAO went on to state that tests so far have been ``repetitive and scripted'' and that ``decision makers in the Defense Department and Congress do not have a full understanding of the overall cost of developing and fielding the Ballistic Missile System and what the system's true capabilities will be.'' Each year we put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. Moving forward with another $7.9 billion this year and plans for at least $50 billion more in coming years does not make military or fiscal sense.

I am pleased that the committee report on this bill raises serious questions about the future of the Future Combat System (FCS) program. The GAO found in March 2005 that ``the FCS program faces significant challenges in setting requirements, developing systems, financing development, and managing the effort.'' Let me quote from the report:

The FCS has demonstrated a level of knowledge far below

that suggested by best practices or DOD policy. Nearly 2

years after program launch and about $4.6 billion invested to

date, requirements are not firm and only 1 of over 50

technologies are mature--activities that should have been

done before the start of system development and

demonstration.

If everything goes as planned, the program will attain the

level of knowledge in 2008 that it should have had before it

started in 2003. But things are not going as planned.

Progress in critical areas, such as the network, software,

and requirements has been slower than planned. Proceeding

with such low levels of knowledge makes it likely that FCS

will encounter problems late in development, when they are

costly to correct. The relatively immature state of program

knowledge at this point provides an insufficient basis for

making a good cost estimate.

Despite the clear concern of the committee expressed in the committee report, FCS is funded at $3.4 billion, only $400 million less than the President's request.

The F/A-22 Raptor is the most expensive fighter ever built. Originally budgeted at $96 billion for 648 planes, it is now going to cost us $68 billion for 178 planes. Because of changing capabilities, the planes are now estimated to cost $258 million each, five times the cost of the F-15 and F-16 that they are replacing. This year, we are going to spend $3.8 billion for 24 planes while spending another $480 million for research and development. We have a plane that is way over budget and whose mission is unclear. The answer to this dilemma is to end the program, not spend more.

In December, the Defense Department proposed cutting the C-130J cargo plane, which would have saved $30 billion over the next five years. This made a lot of sense since the plane cannot complete its intended mission. Most of the planes have design flaws that prevent them from dropping paratroopers or heavy equipment. The chief weapons inspector at the Pentagon reported that it is ``neither operationally effective nor operationally suitable.'' Unfortunately, DOD has backed off cancellation and this bill will authorize more than $1 billion for procurement in FY 2006.

I do want to mention some positive features of this legislation. I am pleased that it contains a 3.1 percent increase in military pay. Our men and women in uniform deserve our admiration and respect for their dedication and

commitment. They have demonstrated again and again their professionalism when faced with incredibly difficult challenges. They truly are the best in the world. This legislation contains improvements to benefits and facilities that will help members of our armed forces and their families. It also increases hazardous duty pay, raises the caps on enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, and enhances the TRICARE Reserve Select Program (TRS). I support those provisions.

I was disappointed that expanded eligibility for TRICARE for our guard and reserve that the committee added to the bill was dropped by Chairman Hunter. This bill should also have included full concurrent receipt and ended taxation of survivor benefits.

This bill fails to make the tough choices necessary to transform our military force for the 21st Century. This bill fails to account for the real costs of war in Iraq and fails to press the President to put together a realistic exit strategy. I therefore must vote against this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I, first of all, want to thank my distinguished chairman and the ranking member for their work.

Let me say this at the outset. I cannot tell the Members how proud I am to serve on this committee. Every day that I serve in this institution, I am happy that we work so well together. But this committee, I think, sets the entire example for the entire Congress. Democrats and Republicans, we work together.

I think the best evidence of that is, we had a vote out of committee of 61 of the 62 members coming together, and where we had areas of disagreement, we have been able to work those out. What a real credit and testimony to this Congress and those 62 members who are on this committee and to our leader.

The chairman has done a fantastic job. He has done what many said was the impossible, and I applaud him for that, under extremely difficult circumstances.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has been a tireless advocate for what is right for our military, and I applaud him for that. To the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), my ranking member, I thank him. He is a great American and it is great to work with him.

And I want to add a special amount of praise to our new staff director, who is sitting here for the first time at the table. I look forward to what I know is going to be an extremely productive relationship with a real professional who is going help us in our job.

Mr. Chairman, in my part of the bill in the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, we had some difficult decisions to make. I had $10 billion of requests for plus-ups that I could not meet, that the services wanted, that Members came to me for. It was impossible. We did the best that we could.

And again this committee did what we did last year. It was this committee that called for additional funding to up-armor our Humvees and take care of the troops that were in harm's way. It was this committee that led the White House last year in getting that first $25 billion supplemental.

This weekend, I will take a bipartisan delegation back to Iraq, and we will spend Memorial Day in theater with the troops seeing the visible examples that we have helped provide to allow our military to be so capable and so successful. And that was our primary focus in the defense bill this year, how best to support our military and civilian personnel in the war against terrorism.

The second thing that we did, and it was difficult, was accountability for DOD programs. And that is not easy. We have services each wanting their own individual platforms while accomplishing the same objective. We put language in this that says they cannot do that. We cannot afford to have the exact same helicopter for the Army that meets the exact same need of the Marine Corps. Why do we not come together with one platform for both? This committee took that action, and I am proud to say that is a part of our recommendation.

We also said that in the case of new technology and new programs, we want to see the technology before we buy it. What disappointed me was that some of the contractors and some of my good friends in this body tried to mischaracterize the language we put in the bill on the Presidential helicopter.

Our language on the Presidential helicopter was not to score a point against or for any contractor or any region of the country. I fully support the decision of the Navy and the Marine Corps and the down- select that they made. And it is not about ``Buy America'' or not buying America. It is about what is the best helicopter to meet the needs of our President. But I would say we have to have closer control over the dollar amount going into this program.

We also had to make a difficult decision, as my chairman outlined, on Future Combat Systems. We cut the program by $400 million; but it was the right decision to make financially, to make sure that we are protecting the taxpayers' interest as well as giving the warfighter the best technology. We made a number of other changes in terms of the overall purchasing of our major platforms. I will not go into them. I will submit them all for the Record.

In closing, I want to say again how proud I am to serve with a Democrat and Republican who truly understand how to lead, to work together, and in the end to do what is best for our warfighters. I thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), as my own subcommittee ranking member, for their cooperation on this final product. It is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Jurisdiction includes $67 billion in DOD procurement and research and development.

Bill increases the requested authorization for programs within the jurisdiction of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee by $4.5 billion.

Focus: First, how best to support our military and civilian personnel serving in the global war on terrorism; and second, accountability in DOD programs.

Legislative initiatives that seek to redress several unfavorable trends in the Department of Defense:

Programs being called joint programs with only one service participating in the program. This results in large, single service and program research and development expenditures for service unique programs followed by short production runs and inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Each service would like its 100 percent solution to every requirement, but that simply cannot be afforded. We want to make sure valid needs of the services are met, but affordability and unique solutions to requirements have to be balanced. We cannot afford to continue to have individual, service solutions within our ground forces for helicopters, tactical wheeled vehicles, blue force tracking, body armor, armored vehicle upgrades, vehicle add-on armor kits, and unmanned aerial vehicle systems, as well as other programs.

Also, programs cannot continue to be allowed to enter pre-production R&D, with immature technologies and ill-defined or unrealistic requirements.

Further, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is there for a purpose, to exercise oversight and reconcile differing service requirements. OSD needs to start exercising its responsibility in programs like unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopter development.

We must stop the trend toward excessive research and development and procurement concurrency in acquisition programs, resulting in not ``flying before buying,'' potential extensive post production modifications, and the associated increased acquisition costs. An example is in the action we have taken on the VXX--the presidential helicopter replacement program. The companies involved have tried to portray the action we have taken as a win for their particular marketing strategy when all that our legislation requires is flying the VXX before buying. It is not a Buy American provision. It is not trying to reverse the source selection. It is simply telling the Pentagon to test and fly the R&D aircraft before you buy production aircraft, so we don't have to go back and spend millions of dollars on already produced aircraft because the test results were not available in time to incorporate fixes into production aircraft. The Pentagon request to us would have us authorize procurement of 15 of the required 23 VXX aircraft before any testing has been done--likely resulting in expensive retrofits to production aircraft.

Other legislation includes:

Multiyear Procurement for UH-60 helicopters;

Multiyear Procurement for the Apache helicopter Target Acquisition/ Pilot Night Vision Sensor;

Multiyear Procurement for Apache Helicopter Block II conversion;

A Requirement for an Acquisition Strategy for Tactical Wheeled Vehicle programs;

A Requirement for Full and Open competition for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon;

A Requirement for use of the Tactical Common Data Link by all services for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles;

A Requirement for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to approve all new UAV programs;

An annual Government Accountability Office review of the Future Combat Systems program;

A Requirement to maintain the lethality and survivability requirement of the Non Line of Sight Cannon as established in the operational requirements document;

A Requirement for an independent analysis of the FCS manned ground vehicle weight requirement; and

A Requirement for a single, joint heavy lift rotorcraft program.

In addition adjustments have been made to the following programs:

The C-130J multiyear procurement is reinstated to the levels projected in the fiscal year 2005 budget, resulting in an authorization for 9 C-130Js and 4 KC-130Js, with advance procurement for those same quantities included for fiscal year 2007. [This program has been poorly managed by the Pentagon, but we need the tactical airlift that these aircraft will provide and termination costs were estimated to exceed the one year procurement value of these aircraft.]

The Future Combat Systems' budget request is reduced by $400 million.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is reduced by $150 million, the amount requested for advance procurement--again to require flying test aircraft before procuring production aircraft.

The Heavy Lift Rotorcraft replacement program is restructured and combined with the Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft program.

The Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle program is reduced by $30 million, as the requested amount is early to need.