Southern California Groundwater Remediation Act

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baca's amendment requires the Department of Defense to study the scope of perchlorate contamination at formerly utilized defense sites.

Mr. Castle's amendment implements GAO's recommendations to cut down and award an incentive fee spending waste by requiring the Department to develop a strategy for linking incentives to specific outcomes such as meeting costs, schedule and capability goals. It also establishes guidance for improving the effectiveness of award and incentive fees, and ensures that appropriate approving officials are overseeing these decisions. The Department would be required to report to Congress on the status and effectiveness of these new standards.

The amendment offered by Mr. Davis is the defense access road amendment; and this program, which is known as the DAR program, currently allows DOD to pay for road projects made necessary by DOD actions, and this amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects as part of DAR as well.

Mr. Schiff's amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a series of regular reports on the threat to American personnel posed by IEDs, improvised explosive devices, as well as action being taken to interdict IEDs and to develop more effective active and passive countermeasures. The first report would be due 30 days after enactment, the subsequent reports every 90 days thereafter. Reports would be unclassified, with a classified annex if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, the committee supports these amendments, and let me just say with respect to the last amendment, that the committee works every day on the IED issue, and we communicate with DOD every day on operations and on the development of the countermeasure systems that we are currently undertaking to rush to the battlefield. So I very much appreciate the gentleman's concern. I think that IEDs, and I am sure he shares this concern, are an instrument of choice now by terrorists, and this is probably the most compelling challenge facing us in the warfighting theaters and in the global war against terror right now.

We work this issue every single day. We have got a new package of equipment that we are moving out, and we have added $109 million to this countermeasure fund this year. We are going to try to move that up, even if we have to move money out of the various services, and we are going to work this problem every day. So I invite the gentleman to work with us and work with our staff, and I think these reports will be value added to the process. I thank the gentleman from California for his work.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his contribution, and let me just lay out some of things that we are doing because I think this area is so important for us. Included in the base bill, the gentleman from Missouri and myself and our great members of the committee on both sides of the aisle worked out, we added $109.7 million for jammers. Jammers are very important in this IED business because these improvised explosive devices are largely detonated remotely.

As the gentleman knows, few of them, some of them, are detonated by wires that are connected to detonators, and you may have an insurgent hiding 20, 30, 40, 50 yards from the roadside or from the dismounted U.S. military unit and he detonates it with a clacker or a detonation device in the style that has been utilized by militaries up to the last several years ago.

The other detonation device, and one that is now the device of choice, is a remote detonation, and that detonation

allows a person, the insurgent, to be many yards away, far away from the particular avenue that he is ambushing. In many cases, he does not even need to have a weapon. He may be lost in a crowd, and he waits for a convoy to line up on a particular lamp post or other object, and he blows this device, which may be a 152-millimeter artillery round by using this remote detonation capability. Without getting into the classified areas, there are a number of remote detonation capabilities, and what we are trying to do is to direct our countermeasures to be able to jam those detonations.

So we have put a lot of extra money in. The administration has a lot of money in, but we have put in more. We have been working on equipment packages with them, and the key is to move this stuff through the training ranges here, the testing ranges, quickly into the field; and I can assure the gentleman we are really going to be working on this. So I thank him so much for his focus on this important area, and we will work together.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleague from California that he has brought an excellent amendment to the floor here, and this is certainly something that does require action, justifies action by the Federal Government, and we totally support his amendment on this side.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me offer the description of the amendments.

Mr. Chabot's amendment expresses a sense of Congress that the spouses of armed services members who have died between October 7, 2001, and November 23, 2003, should be permitted to have the option of assigning their SBP payments, their survivor payments, to their children.

Mr. Davis' amendment is another defense access road amendment. This amendment would allow DOD to consider transit projects, as well, as part of the DAR, the Defense Access Road program.

Mr. Ryan of Ohio's amendment authorizes $5 million for the High Altitude Airship program. The HAA is designed to be an uninhabited, long-endurance, platform for carrying forward-based sensors and a wide range of other BMD payloads that will enable continuous over-horizon communication. It would also provide wide-area surveillance and protection without interruption or the risk associated with manned aircraft. The offsets are $5 million from the Space Based Space Surveillance program, and this is another tool for sensor and surveillance capability.

The amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter requires the Department of Defense to include the number of disciplinary actions as part of the annual report on sexual assault in the military.

So those are brief definitions or descriptions of these amendments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. There are no more important citizens than those who defend our freedom and carry our flag; and right there with them are their family members.

I think this is an excellent amendment, and the committee supports it fully.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is especially appropriate to be able to follow the gentleman from El Paso, Mr. Reyes, who was in my estimation the greatest Border Patrol chief in the history of our country. He did a tremendous job under very challenging odds.

I remember working with him long before he became a Representative in the most southern areas of Texas and then ultimately up in the El Paso area. One thing that challenged him and challenged us in San Diego in more recent times was tunneling. Of course, detection of tunnels is something that the military engages in every now and

then, and that is a good example of candidate technologies for sharing of technology between DOD and the Department of Homeland Security.

Likewise, surveillance sensors, it has always been a pleasure to go down with the gentleman from El Paso, go down to his district with Joint Task Force 6 and look at that interaction. And I really appreciate Mr. Dent coming up with this amendment that will move to mesh these technologies and make sure that when the American taxpayers pay for the development of something that will accrue to the benefit of our security, that it gets shared and gets moved across what is sometimes kind of a bright line between the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

You have done a great job and thank you for bringing this amendment to our attention. We support it fully.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave). I would yield to the gentlewoman for purposes of the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concerns. First, I strongly believe that DOD should make every effort to acquire property through fair-market value purchases from willing sellers. The use of eminent domain or unfriendly condemnation should only be used as a measure of last resort in cases of compelling national security requirements.

So I would be very pleased to work with the gentlewoman as a representative of the farmers and ranchers surrounding Pinon Canyon to ensure that the Army does not use eminent domain before exhausting all other options.

Secondly, I would note that the defense bill before us today contains a provision that makes sure that Congress has oversight of DOD plans to use eminent domain, as its application is a matter of great concern to all of us.

Finally, I would be happy to work with the Colorado delegation to talk to the Army and ensure that they are very forthcoming in discussing plans for the expansion of Pinon Canyon. Having a good relationship with our communities is an important obligation of the armed services, and they should certainly sit down with their elected representatives and discuss their plans and any issues that will concern the community.

I will be happy to help the gentlewoman on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman for their contribution here, and just assure them we are very interested in making sure that this equipment, some of which has been wearing out pretty quickly in the desert sand in the warfighting theaters, is maintained in excellent condition, both with our great in- house resources and our depots and with the private sector, so we use all of our resources in the U.S. to make sure we have got good, sound platforms.

The committee has no objection to the amendment. We thank you for adding it to the base bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Schakowsky amendment, the gentlewoman from Illinois provides for additional oversight and accountability of Department of Defense contractors deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would make retroactive DOD regulations for contractors issued in October 2005 on previously issued contracts upon any extension brought about by an option.

It would implement a policy for conducting comprehensive background checks on foreign nationals hired by contractors operating outside of the U.S. and would also require a DOD Inspector General report on contractor overcharges and require that there are sufficient contracting officers assigned to oversee and monitor contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The amendment offered by Mr. Jindal would require the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and State governments to develop detailed operational plans regarding the use of the Armed Forces to support activities of civil authorities known as Defense Support to Civil Authorities Missions.

The amendment that is offered by Mr. Lewis of Kentucky would provide that no more than 20 percent of a uniformed servicemember's paycheck can be garnished in a single pay period to recover overpayments that have occurred through no fault of the servicemember. That was always my contention.

It would also provide a 90-day grace period before overpayment recovery can begin from servicemembers who are wounded or injured or who incur an illness in a combat operation or combat zone.

Finally, the Mica amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should provide compensation to American veterans who are captured while in service to the United States Armed Forces on the peninsula of Bataan or the island of Corregidor, survived the Bataan Death March during World War II and have not received previous compensation provided to other prisoners of war.

I might just say about that amendment, Mr. Chairman, these great Americans came back and met with many of us over the last several years, these great survivors of the Bataan Death March. And many of them, according to their testimony, were taken by ship after the death march in which many of them were killed, bayoneted, decapitated, otherwise killed; they were taken to Japan and in many cases were turned over to Japanese industry, including companies that are corporate giants today like Matsui and Mitsubishi. And these Japanese corporations took the Americans as slaves from the Japanese Government. They turned them over to them as POWs. And they put them in slave labor operations, in many cases involving mines, for example, that were considered to be unsafe for Japanese workers. They would push the Americans into those mines.

I can recall some of the Americans testifying when they came back and met with us on the Hill about the brutality that took place. The time one of our great survivors of the Bataan Death March from California had a rock fall on him in a cave-in in this unsafe mine that they were working in as slaves to these corporations, and his leg was crushed by a rock. And an American doctor who was also a POW operated on that Bataan Death March survivor with a single rusty razor blade and the anesthetic was to have the biggest guy in the POW camp knock him out before they did the operation, and then they used maggots to clean the wound. And that great American was back here testifying a couple of years ago to the U.S. Congress.

Those POWs sought redress from the corporations which had used them as slaves in their operations saying we want to be paid for this work that we performed as slave labor. The corporations resisted this mightily in a series of lawsuits. And I thought it was sad that the U.S. Government intervened on the opposite side, on the other side from the American POWs, claiming that the treaty that was signed after the war essentially eliminated any rights on behalf of the POWs other than the one dollar a day that they received as compensation for their POW status.

So those great Americans did not win. They ultimately faced summary judgments in American courts and received no compensation from these massive corporations. In fact, some of the biggest corporations in the world which when they enslaved these Americans were not nationalized by the Japanese Government, but in fact remain private corporations and developed a lot of their operations or carried on a lot of their operations using American slave labor.

So the lawsuits were quashed and these Americans, those that still survive, never got any redress. So I would just say that Mr. Mica's amendment particularly struck a cord with this member of the Armed Services Committee, and I would recommend that all these amendments be supported.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will be brief.

But I just want to say about Sonny Montgomery, I miss Sonny Montgomery. I can still see him in the House Chamber, and I can see him in the Armed Services Committee where he sat with us, and I can see him walking into the prayer breakfast.

I am not a regular, but I happened to be there that morning, and he walked in when Floyd Spence was having a double lung operation. Sonny would read the casualty roll, just like a soldier, and he said I have got news about Floyd and a hush fell over the breakfast. There were about 30 Members there, Democrat and Republicans, and we thought he would tell us that Floyd Spence had passed away.

Sonny did kind of a double-take at his notes, and he said Floyd just got married. Apparently, he had gotten married coming out of this double lung transplant operation a few minutes afterwards, and lived many happy years after that.

But Sonny Montgomery was a spark of life in this Chamber. He was a great representative for the tradition of the military, Mr. National Guard. There is no question in the world you could posit to Sonny Montgomery and no statement you could make as a witness before the Armed Services Committee that it would not evoke from Sonny Montgomery, what would this mean for the National Guard? I do not care what the issue was, he managed to turn it into a Guard question.

What a great, great American. He served in World War II and had that great feeling for our military, and he is in tough shape right now.

But I have seen the gentleman's amendment to make this the Sonny Montgomery bill. How fitting and appropriate that we do that. Sonny is

still alive, and I know that we usually do this for Members that have passed on; but Sonny is still alive and I say, good, and let us do this. And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing this up.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi on two counts, first for his offering the amendment on behalf of Sonny Montgomery, and secondly, for this IED amendment.

I just want to tell the gentleman that we have just tested today a new equipment package that has great potential, that we should be able to move into theater that hopefully will be able to be used in dismounted form and mounted form and that could be used on virtually every vehicle that moves out of base camp or out of forward bases.

I think this is absolutely the number one causation of casualties in the theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that the IED has become the weapon of choice for insurgents, it is going to be used in other battlefields around the world. So our ability, our agility to move new technology through the process quickly and get it fielded is paramount, and this amendment helps to do that.

I want to thank the gentleman for the value he has added to the bill by offering this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the Congressional Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2006.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hunter: On May 5, 2006, the Committee on

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 5122, the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As ordered

reported by the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation

contains a number of provisions that fall within the,

jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. These

provisions include the following:

Sec. 312. Munitions Disposal in Ocean Waters

Sec. 313. Reimbursement for Moses Lake

Sec. 314. Funding of Cooperative Agreements

Sec. 2917. [Now Sec 2822]--Restrictive Easements

Sec. 3111. Plan for transformation of National Nuclear

Security Administration nuclear weapons complex

Sec. 3112. Extension of Facilities and Infrastructure

Recapitalization Program

Sec. 3115. Two-year extension of authority for appointment

of certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel

Sec. 3117. Consolidation of counterintelligence programs of

Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security

Administration

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation

before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and

Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the

bill. By the being not to seek a sequential referral, the

Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its

jurisdiction over these provisions or any other provisions of

the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In addition,

the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its right to

seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction

which are considered in the House-Senate conference, and asks

for your support in being accorded such conferees.

I request that you include this letter and your response as

part of the report on H.R. 5122 and as part of the

Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the

House.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

I thank the gentlemen from Mississippi. I am going to miss Sonny Montgomery, with that great smile that illuminated this House and all of our lives.

Ladies and gentlemen, this defense bill passed the committee by a vote of 60-1. It did that because we listened. My great partner on the committee, Ike Skelton, and I and all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members listened to all of the members, worked all of the issues that connect your constituents with you, with all of our troops around the world.

This is our connection, this defense bill, that provides for the policies that run their lives while they are in the military, that provide for the quality of life for their families back home, that provides for the tools that they need to undertake this dangerous mission in this war against terror.

This is your connection. And let me tell you, the theme of the bill this year was troop protection. And to those ends, we moved over $100 million into new jammer capability for IEDs, lots of money, lots of additional money for armored platforms, lots of new technology for body armor for our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our Marines. At the same time, for our National Guardsmen, we completed this transition, even when they are not mobilized, for TRICARE, for our health care program. We did great things.

And for those people who have fallen, I want to remind you that last year we moved up that benefit, and it should have been done a long time ago, to half a million dollars in cash for the families of our fallen heroes so that they could carry on their lives.

This bill is your connection to the troops. We did a good job. And I would ask you to trust us, to trust the members of this committee. And with all due respect to the gentlemen who just offered this amendment, you will notice there was no motion to recommit offered by a member of the committee, and that is because this is a good bill. It does a good job. It gives the tools to the troops in this war against terrorism that they need.

Vote against this motion to recommit. Vote for the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would adopt the recommendation of the Congressional Budget Office to restructure our missile defense programs, specifically, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. The amendment would instruct the Secretary of Defense not to deploy any Ground-based Midcourse Defense System beyond the authorized systems that are now at Fort Greeley, Alaska and, the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or any space-based interceptors of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It would reduce funding for the research, development, test and evaluation for the defense agencies by $4,747,000,000.

Under the Congressional Budget Office's ``evolutionary alternative,'' the Department of Defense would fund the capabilities planned for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System through 2007.

Money would continue to be provided to pursue upgrades to the elements of the ground-based missile defense initial defense capability, would continue testing its components and would explore other missile defense concepts.

But the savings on the midcourse missile defense under the Congressional Budget Office alternative would total $29 billion on a Department of Defense-wide basis through 2007.

I commend to my colleagues no less than seven reports released in the last 2 months critical of various aspects of the ballistic missile system, and I will introduce copies for the Record. Two of them are from the General Accountability Office, two from the Department of Defense's own Inspector General's Office, one from the Congressional Research Office, one from the Congressional Budget Office and one from the Pentagon's own Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

All of them raise doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. And as a group they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system that supposedly, but not actually offers the United States an initial defense capability.

The Center for Defense Information states in its analysis, changes are imperative. If the Missile Defense Agency continues in the same vein it has been, the United States will see itself saddled with a missile defense system that costs tens of billions, possibly hundreds of billions of dollars, yet provides no actual defense.

What is more, by diverting that money to an unfeasible system, the United States will miss out on the protection it could be getting from weapons systems that actually work.

Mr. Chairman, the moneys are important, of course, but having a false sense of security is dangerous. And not investing these moneys in needed security systems, systems to protect our space and domestic assets and for homeland security risk is criminally negligent.

The General Accountability reports note that if the Pentagon does not move away from its spiral development or acquisition policy where a system's progress is never held to any sort of accountability, has no defined parameters, the Department of Defense will continue to start more programs for more money and create the next set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.

Fielding systems that still are in early developmental cycles, rushing them into the field where they have very serious problems with every component, that is a recipe for disaster. Immature technologies are not perfected, integration of the systems is not happening, testing in real-life scenarios is lacking, information assurance controls that were built to the network are sadly out of date.

This report shows poor quality control, unreasonable, in fact outrageous, cost growth, and schedule slips and inferior performance.

An ``F'' for Missile Defense: How Seven Government Reports in Two

Months Illustrate the Need for Missile Defense To Change Its Ways

(By Victoria Samson, CDI Research Analyst)

A certain amount of optimism is required to successfully

guide a weapon system through its development to completion.

However, at a certain point, reality needs to poke through so

that program and service officials can make relatively

objective assessments. Is it working? Is it going to work? Is

it staying on budget and schedule? If not, can it get back on

track? And finally, the most difficult question to ask of a

program: Should it continue?

The multi-faceted missile defense program, currently the

Pentagon's golden child, has effectively avoided any and all

tough questions. Over $92 billion has been spent on missile

defense systems since the Ronald Reagan administration, to

little avail. While the architecture still has not been

finalized, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) envisions a

system of systems, where there are ground-, sea-, and air-

based interceptors supported by a yet-to-be-built satellite

system, new X-band radars that are still being put in place,

and a command and control system that is not secure to

outside interference.

President George W. Bush announced in December 2002 that,

within two years, the United States would have deployed an

initial missile defense system that could defend the United

States against a limited ICBM attack. With that pressure from

above, MDA focused its efforts on the fielding interceptors

in Alaska and California the Ground-based Midcourse Defense

(GMD) system. As of writing, 13 interceptors have been

emplaced in missile silos. As well, MDA is working on a sea-

based interceptor that is carried on the Aegis ship, a sea-

based X-band radar that is slowly floating to its home port

in Alaska, a giant command and control module based out of

Colorado, a satellite network that could track enemy missiles

as they approach the U.S. homeland, and systems that are

geared toward providing defense against shorter-range

ballistic missiles (Theater High Altitude Area Defense

system, or THAAD, and the Patriot Advanced Capability PAC-3

system). In the long run, MDA is building a modified Boeing

747 airplane that would carry lasers in its nose and kinetic

kill vehicles which theoretically could obliterate multiple

targets.

MDA has been entrusted with a great deal of responsibility.

It has not lived up to its tasks. In the past two months, no

less than seven reports have been released that were critical

of various aspects of the Ballistic Missile Defense System

(BMDS). For clarity's sake, this analysis will focus largely

on MDA's flagship program, the GMD system, whose existence is

used to falsely claim that the United States has an initial

defensive capability against ICBMs. And to head off

allegations of bias, it must be noted that these reports were

written by non-partisan government agencies. Two reports by

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), two from the

Defense Department (DOD)'s own Inspector General's office,

and reports by the Congressional Research Service (CRS),

Congressional Budgetary Office ``(CBO), and the Pentagon's

Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) all raise

doubts about the feasibility of missile defense. As a group,

they offer a damning indictment of the missile defense system

that supposedly offers the United States an initial defensive

capability.

overshooting cost goals, falling short of planned achievements

Missile defense programs have featured prominently in two

recent reports by the GAO. The first, ``Assessment of

Selected Major Weapons Programs,'' examines the cost growth

of many Pentagon weapon systems. It notes, ``DOD often

exceeds development cost estimates by approximately 30 to 40

percent and experiences cuts in planned quantities, missed

deadlines, and performance shortfalls.'' The GAO points out,

``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost

and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in

launching product development, and fail to solidify design

and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in

development.'' The missile defense system prides itself on

its ``spiral development'' or acquisition policy that is

constantly evolving, under which a system's progress is never

held to strictly defined parameters.

``Programs consistently move forward with unrealistic cost

and schedule estimates, use immature technologies in

launching product development, and fail to solidify design

and manufacturing processes at appropriate points in

development.''

The GAO takes this type of acquisition policy to task. In

fact, David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States,

warns that if the Pentagon doesn't move away from it, DOD

``will continue to start more programs than it can finish,

produce less capability for more money, and create the next

set of case studies for future defense reform reviews.''

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has argued that the

missile defense program needs the flexibility of spiral

development to allow it to mold itself to future threats and

to incorporate lessons learned while testing. Why other

Pentagon programs somehow manage to hold themselves

accountable and still meet evolving threats is never

discussed by MDA officials. Instead, MDA promotes the idea

that all possible missile defense candidate technologies will

be put through their paces, and eventually testing will prove

the winners and losers. Again, MDA has never stated at which

point it will definitively decide to drop a flagging program.

The closest it has come is in giving one of its programs

(Airborne Laser) what it calls ``knowledge parameters,'' in

an attempt to prove to critics that, despite outward

appearances, there is indeed progress toward development.

Another key part of spiral development is that weapon

systems will be fielded when they are still early in their

development cycles. The intent is that they can continue to

grow and presumably advance while providing some sort of

military utility. What ends up happening is that systems--

the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system most

noticeably--are rushed out into the field even when there

are very serious problems with their components... or

indeed, are crucial elements to their architecture still

lacking. For example, the GMD interceptor suffered a

flight test failure in February 2005 due to poor quality

control by its contractor for the arm that holds the

missile up in its silo. In testimony to the Senate Armed

Services Committee on April 4, 2006, Obering acknowledged

this problem and stated that this component would be

replaced on the interceptors that have already been

fielded. Nonetheless, the $40 million missile as

originally designed continues to be built at a rate of one

every two months or so.

The GAO notes that weapon systems development programs

progress much better and keep costs lower if technology is

allowed to mature before being brought into a developmental

or initial operating system. GAO observes that program

acquisition unit costs for programs with mature technologies

increase by less than one percent over original cost

estimates, while the program acquisition unit costs for

programs with immature technologies increase by 27 percent

over the first full estimate.

The report goes on to review various weapon systems to

assess their level of technological maturity and cost growth.

The GMD system's ``concurrent testing and fielding efforts

may lead to additional design changes,'' warns the GAO, and

the program's ``prime contract could overrun its target cost

by as much as $1.5 billion. Boeing, GMD's prime contractor,

has already overrun its budget by $600 million as a result of

quality control issues. As what seems to be the standard for

missile defense, program officials differ from outsiders

about the program: while program officials rate GMD's needed

10 technologies as mature, the GAO differs, stating that

``four have not been demonstrated in an operational

environment and we believe that they cannot be considered

fully mature.'' And since the GAO's last assessment of GMD,

the program's planned budget through fiscal year 2009 (FY 09)

has risen by $2.9 billion, or 11.2 percent.

GMD's cost growth is bad enough, but as it turns out, the

United States is paying more and getting less than

anticipated. In another GAO report, the title says it all:

``Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial Capability but Falls

Short of Original Goals.'' MDA's accelerated development of

the GMD program in order to reach an initial capability by

the end of 2004 caused the agency to run over that portion of

its budget by $1 billion. For FY 05, GMD contractors had

exceeded anticipated costs by 25 percent. The GAO also took

to task the forced reliance by MDA upon spiral development

``[I]t allowed the GMD program to concurrently mature

technology, complete design activities, and produce and field

assets before end-to-end testing of the system--all at the

expense of cost, quantity, and performance goals.''

In addition, for the initial defensive capability stated as

the goal of the rapid fielding of the overall missile defense

network, MDA fell quite short of what it had hoped to have

accomplished. ``Compared to its original goals set in 2003,

MDA fielded 10 fewer GMD interceptors than planned, two fewer

radars, 11 fewer Aegis BMD missiles, and six fewer Aegis

ships,'' lists the GAO report. The United States has

officially fielded elements of the ballistic missile defense

system architecture, but these are really token efforts. Even

if the systems had proved themselves during testing and

development--which they have not--and even if they had all

their needed components at the ready--which they do not--this

system would be a feeble shadow of what planners had hoped

for.

Spiral development ``allowed the GMD program to

concurrently mature technology, complete design activities,

and produce and field assets before end-to-end testing of the

system--all at the expense of cost, quantity, and performance

goals.''

Another result of rushing the missile defense elements out

into the field is that workmanship has been shoddy, at best.

Poor quality control has been listed time and again as an

explanation for cost growth, schedule slips, and inferior

performance. The GAO report explains, ``According to MDA's

own audits, the interceptor's design requirements were

unclear and sometimes incomplete, design changes were poorly

controlled, and the interceptor's design resulted in

uncertain reliability and service life.'' The GMD interceptor

was not tested to ensure its parts could withstand the harsh

environment in space--which could result in catastrophic

failures after launch as the interceptors are supposed to

impact their targets outside the Earth's atmosphere. Further,

the failures of two recent flight tests--1FT-10 and 1FT-14--

were due to poor quality control procedures. The development

of some parts for the GMD interceptor has been so careless

that, according to the GAO, the parts in question would

have to be replaced and thus ``the interceptors will be

removed from their silos.'' Neither GAO nor MDA, has yet to

explain at what cost such repairs will have to be made.

Unfortunately, cost growth, schedule slips, and faulty

parts are not specific to missile defense programs. One can

see that easily in every branch of the Pentagon. Where the

missile defense program differs is in the extent of autonomy

and decision-making freedom given to MDA officials managing

the various pieces of the program. Given the pressure they

were under from President George W. Bush's December 2002

announcement that an initial capability would be in place by

the end of 2004, managers decided that the development and

fielding process required a speedier schedule to meet that

deadline. As a result, the GAO recounts, ``MDA officials told

us that because the agency was directed to field a capability

earlier than planned, it accepted additional risks.''

The agency was able to accelerate fielding because MDA

officials have been given unprecedented liberties with

acquisition planning and scheduling. They are further allowed

to shift around funding from one program element to another

as they see fit, under special rules set up by DOD. According

to the GAO, ``Compared with other DOD programs, MDA has

greater latitude to make changes to the BMDS [Ballistic

Missile Defense Program] program without seeking the approval

of high-level acquisition executives outside the

program.'' Because of this flexibility, while MDA does

inform Congress and DOD of funding rearrangements,

accountability is practically nil; instead, its version of

it has ``thus become broadly applied as to mean delivering

some capability within funding allocations.''

MDA is also free of requirements that all other major DOD

acquisition programs must undertake in regards to

establishing baseline estimates of cost, performance and

schedule. If other programs slip in meeting those

predetermined requirements, Pentagon and/or service managers

must alert Congress. If any program sees cost growth up to a

certain amount in one quarter, it is considered to have

suffered a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, which means DOD

must alert Congress of the problem. If the cost growth is

over 25 percent in a single quarter, DOD then must overhaul

and justify the offending program. The Ballistic Missile

Defense System, however, is exempt from these requirements.

MDA officials have much more flexible baselines for their

programs. MDA can avoid having to report programs' quarterly

cost growth simply by changing cost goals and estimates.

Also, MDA has the responsibility of deciding when it will

alert Congress to schedule slips or cost growths, since

``there are no criteria to identify which variations are

significant enough to report. Instead, MDA's Director, by

statute, has the discretion to determine which variations

will be reported.''

MDA officials do not have to hold themselves accountable to

any particular standard or report if certain achievements

have not been met. And Congress has, up to now, refrained

from complaining about its lack of oversight over the $10

billion dollar a year MDA budget.

Up to now, the only ``achievements'' reported by MDA have

been the flight test failures. The MDA has even stopped

announcing when it has emplaced new interceptors at missile

silos in Alaska and California. Ostensibly, this is because

of operational security needs, but in actuality, it is more

likely a move designed to avoid bad press as testing and

deployment goes forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. As my colleagues have stated, this bill includes so many provisions important to our national security and to the fighting men and women who serve our great nation in uniform. Many of them are deployed in combat zones around the world today. I have visited servicemembers in Iraq seven times now and my commitment, like the commitment of this Congress, remains to do everything necessary to provide the heroes sacrificing for our country with the resources they need to fight, to win, and to survive. We continue our important commitment to their quality of life including to their families with this bill.

I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for the work that they and their staff members have done to include within this bill provisions important to the people of Guam and to servicemembers who serve on Guam.

For many years leaders on Guam have worked to grow the capability and capacity of the Guam Shipyard, an asset recognized to be of ``vital strategic importance'' to the Pacific Fleet. We learned over the past year that twice as many vessels in support of our Navy are repaired in foreign shipyards in the Pacific, particularly in Singapore, than are repaired in Guam. We also learned that Apra Harbor in Guam is treated as a foreign harbor although Guam and its shipyard are properly treated as a U.S. location. This bill includes important language to remedy these conflicts. I am deeply grateful to members of the committee staff who traveled to Guam and Hawaii in January of this year to review this issue. I am also grateful to the many members of this committee who have visited Guam, including our colleague from Maryland, Roscoe Bartlett, and our colleague from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. Both Members visited the Guam Shipyard in March of this year and learned first-hand of the value the facility offers to the U.S. Navy.

In rewriting Section 7310 of Title 10, the Committee on Armed Services has made clear that Guam, including Apra Harbor, is fully and properly a U.S. location, and has further made clear that foreign ship repair for reasons of cost alone is unacceptable, particularly when shipyards like the Guam Shipyard are underutilized. Our first commitment must be to sustaining and growing the ship repair industry in America even if such endeavor costs slightly more money. We cannot depend on foreign yards or harbors in time of war for safety, security, reliability and availability. We must therefore remain committed to America's ship repair industry by ensuring stable work, and by extension, the stability of skilled workforce that is the backbone of the ship repair industry. On Guam this is especially true given that the Guam Shipyard represents a particularly important asset because of its strategic forward location. This bill makes a commitment to the Guam Shipyard and its skilled workers whom the people of Guam are so proud. This is a reflection of the great value these workers offer to the Pacific Fleet and to our national security. It is also a reflection of this Congress' unwillingness to outsource our national security. Finally, the language in this bill regarding ship repair is a reflection of the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review which indicates the growing strategic importance of the Pacific with increased Naval activity in the Pacific and therefore the likelihood of increased demands on facilities like the Guam Shipyard.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to note that this bill requires a comprehensive study on the future of the Guam Shipyard. It is important that the Navy fully evaluate, during this time of change, how best to utilize, manage and grow the asset that is the Guam Shipyard. The report required by this bill is a responsible measure that ensures that the future of the Guam Shipyard is coordinated with the future of our Navy's national security needs in the Pacific.

Also included within this bill is an important provision that makes a commitment to our active duty servicemembers and their families. I worked closely with the committee and with military advocacy groups to secure inclusion of a measure to authorize servicemembers assigned to non-foreign areas outside the continental United States, areas that include Guam and Alaska, to ship a second personally owned vehicle to and from these locations upon assignment. This measure has long been sought by our active duty servicemembers. In an era when we say that we retain the family not just the servicemember, we have now passed a provision focused on the family. With military spouses pursuing their own careers and families venturing off bases for community activities, school commitments, and so much more, one car families are simply impractical--they are a thing of the past. Servicemembers assigned to non-foreign overseas areas, unlike their CONUS counterparts, are permitted to bring only one vehicle with them to their new duty station at DOD expense. This created a situation in which many servicemembers had to hastily sell a car prior to reassignment, usually at a loss, only to buy a new car on arrival at their new duty location, again at a loss. This activity as repeated upon assignment back to a CONUS location. This practice placed an unacceptable burden on military families. I am pleased that this Congress has made a commitment to end this inequity. I know this provision is broadly supported by active duty servicemembers and further has the support of The Military Coalition. I hope that this provision will be accepted in conference and remain in the final bill.

Mr. Chairman, a third provision in this bill is important to Guam and to a recently reached agreement between the United States and Japan. This bill repeals a measure added in law some years ago to prohibit the hiring of foreign labor to work on military construction projects on Guam. Next year $209 million in military construction projects are authorized by this bill to take place on Guam. Over the next ten years $10.3 billion in military construction will be undertaken on Guam. The concern is now whether Guam can deliver the workforce necessary to accomplish these goals on this short timeline, not whether Guam's workforce is being supplanted or bypassed by foreign labor. Therefore, this authorization bill offers the opportunity to repeal this restrictive provision. Its inclusion will ensure contractors on Guam will be able to access the labor market needed for them to compete for and complete government contracts for military construction in the future. Additionally, without the ability to meet the upcoming workforce demands, there is some concern that agreements recently made with the Government of Japan for relocating Marines from Okinawa to Guam on a set timeline would not be able to be realized according to the envisioned, desired, and agreed upon schedule. Ensuring the availability of a workforce necessary to accomplish the construction required for Marines to move to Guam from Okinawa is an important part of meeting both the workforce demand on Guam and United States international commitments.

I have also worked to provide relief to military retirees residing on Guam whom have been disadvantaged by a Department of Defense interpretation of standing law. Retirees on Guam are only able to participate in TRICARE Standard due to the unavailability of TRICARE Prime on Guam. Retirees on Guam were previously reimbursed for travel they were required to make to Hawaii or elsewhere for specialty medical care otherwise available on Guam. Now, in light of a change in policy some 16 months ago and unfavorable DOD interpretation of TRICARE laws, when a retiree is referred by their TRICARE health provider off-island to receive specialty care that is unavailable on Guam a retiree must pay ``out of pocket'' for their travel expenses. Travel from Guam to Hawaii is costly and this creates a large and unfair burden on Guam's retirees. Additionally, this situation results in inequitable treatment for the veteran communities on Guam. A retiree, having served at least 20 years in the military, cannot receive reimbursement for travel necessary to receive medical care available only off of Guam. However, a veteran receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs referred for off-island care is reimbursed for his or her travel expenses.

I have raised this issue with the Department of Defense several times and continue to work with DOD for an equitable solution. Retirees on Guam deserve some relief. While this bill contains provisions important to the TRICARE system for members of the military community, it does not specifically address the outstanding issue for retirees on Guam. I will continue to work to resolve this issue. I filed an amendment to this bill with the Committee on Rules that would have provided some relief to retirees. This amendment was unfortunately not made in order and cannot be considered on the floor today. This amendment sought to provide an interim solution. It proposed to give retirees the ability to travel on military aircraft on a space available basis to and from the location of their referred healthcare at an increased priority level. Retirees are currently in the lowest priority category for space available travel. I will continue to work with the Department of Defense on this issue.

Finally, the island of Guam has a robust military recruiting program and many Chamorros and Guam residents join the Armed Services. In fact, Guam has a higher per capita service rate in the Guard and Reserve than any other U.S. location. However, for quite some time, these men and women have had to travel to Hawaii to process their enlistments at a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). Included in this bill is language requiring the USMEPCOM to study the feasibility of establishing a MEPS station on Guam. The burden of processing each recruit through Hawaii significantly extends the time period for processing a recruit and adds additional cost for travel expenses. It is my hope that this review will lead to the re-establishment of a MEPS station on Guam responsive to Guam's Guard and Reserve and to U.S. active duty recruiters. I believe this would also reduce costs of processing a recruit and expedite enlistment.

I was pleased to work with the committee leadership to amend a current requirement in this legislation in such a way to require the Department of Defense to more closely evaluate the transformation it is undertaking of the National Guard and Reserve. It is important that the Department of Defense study closely how it will execute and fund Guard and Reserve transformation, including evaluating budgeting of the costs for equipment repair, transfer and procurement as well as an evaluation of the timeline the transformation will prove achievable. I have long advocated for full parity between active duty and Guard and Reserve forces. Transformation is an aggressive plan to achieve this parity although with significant reorganization of brigades and units within the reserve elements. The task, the cost and the risks must be fully evaluated to ensure transformation is achieved and that it is done in a way that makes our Guard and Reserve forces, who have shouldered so much of the burden in the war on terror, a better force. This transformation promise cannot be yet another in a long line of unfulfilled promises by the active duty components to their reserve counterparts.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I urge adoption of H.R. 5122.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment as stated.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of 26\1/2\ years of working with the Border Patrol, I understand and appreciate the necessity of Mr. Dent's amendment that requires close cooperation between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

More than ever today, post-9/11 and with the many different challenges that we face with the potential of another strike against our country, it is critical, it is imperative that we continue to urge both the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to do as much as possible to cooperate, share information, and provide a unified front and protection for our country.

This is a way of ensuring that we codify that cooperation by expressly putting it into the legislation that this cooperation take place. It is critical. It is vital; and based on my experience where there has been a tremendous amount of cooperation traditionally between the Department of Defense and agencies such as the Border Patrol, for Border Patrol operations on the border itself, I believe that this is a good amendment.

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

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

Building on the comments of my good friend and my chairman, I can attest to all of the cooperation, having spent 26\1/2\ years in the Border Patrol, to all of the cooperation since the creation of Joint Task Force 6, which was headquartered in my district, now Joint Task Force North. The number of projects and programs that the Department of Defense provides support to both State, local, and Federal agencies, and in specific consortium projects such as building roads, building infrastructure support such as strategic fencing in certain parts of the border area, that greatly acts as a barrier and as a force multiplier for our Border Patrol agents.

So there are many, many things that the Department of Defense is doing and has done that provide that kind of support to the Department of Homeland Security, formerly Border Patrol and INS.

I know in the next amendment we are going to be debating the issue of giving the Secretary the flexibility to send troops on the border, and I just want to state here in anticipation of leading the debate on that issue, as a Member that represents a border district, we do not need troops on the border. Sufficient support is already coming from the Department of Defense. The reality of this is there are other things that I will address at that time that we could be doing and that we should have done as a result of the law that we passed in 1986.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to support Mr. Dent in his amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that I rise in opposition to that I was talking about in the previous conversation. Every year we debate this issue, irrespective of the cooperation that is ongoing, has been ongoing for many, many years from the Department of Defense, that provides technical expertise, that provides construction support, that provides technical support, that provides, even on a limited basis, operational specialized support on that border.

The reality of this amendment is that it is very expensive. It provides authority to the Department of Defense that already exists with the President of the United States should an emergency come up or an emergency exist. It is a bad idea because we need trained, experienced professionals on that border. That border is way too dangerous for us to be sending troops that are trained primarily for combat into a law enforcement situation, understanding that that capability is in reserve, because the President of the United States has that authority.

So I would hope that we would stop bringing these kinds of amendments, because they really are not useful and are counterproductive to our enforcement presence on the border.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and former sheriff, who represents a border district, Congressman Ortiz.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to my colleague from Laredo, Congressman Cuellar, also representing a border district.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, every year we come to the floor and we talk tough about putting troops on the border. It is expensive. The Department of Defense already has that authority. The President can direct it at any time based on whatever situation he is made aware of.

One of the things that I would like to tell my colleagues is that we are often here talking about issues and about problems and providing solutions. One of the things, an observation that I will

make about us is that oftentimes we are very hypocritical about the things that we say versus the things that we do in the people's House.

In 1986, we passed employer sanctions to address the pull factor in the issue of illegal immigration and immigration reform. This Congress failed to fund employer sanctions, failed to fund the very vehicle that would have addressed the pull factor.

For the last 10 years that I have been in Congress, we have been debating troops on the border. I would say to my good friend from West Virginia, my good friend from Arizona, my good friend from California, if we are interested in controlling the border, if we are truly interested in doing a good job for the American people, then let's fund employer sanctions. And short of that, let's fund H.R. 98, which gives us a fraud-proof Social Security card and a system where employers would be accountable. You would eliminate the pull factor. We wouldn't need to have this useless debate on troops on the border.

Vote ``no'' on the Goode amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlemen for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment in support of the committee's efforts to obtain effective and fully tested missile defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.

Today is not a time to be cutting funds from this critical program. I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems, because just this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a simulated target.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to slow down this important theater defense program. I urge my colleagues to support this committee's bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the Committee's efforts to obtain effective, fully-tested missile defense capabilities aimed at defeating real threats.

H.R. 5122 redirects missile defense funding from longer range programs--such as the multiple kill vehicle--to near term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our service members and allies today. It also places restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally realistic warheads, and it prevents any development of space-based interceptors.

While we might disagree about whether further adjustments or reductions are possible, I commend the subcommittee chairman for this good-faith effort to develop a bipartisan approach to missile defense.

The amendment before us today goes too far in radically restructuring missile defense programs. It would essentially freeze our missile defense capabilities at their current level and it would terminate numerous programs before we obtain useful information about whether they can improve our defenses against missiles launched by a rogue nation.

I am particularly concerned about the restrictions the amendment would impose on the Aegis and THAAD theatre defense systems. Just this morning a THAAD interceptor was successfully launched against a simulated target. We cannot afford to slow down this important theatre defense program.

I urge my colleagues to support the Committee's bipartisan approach and to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working with me on a number of provisions in the bill that are important to Colorado.

The bill includes language that highlights the importance of the High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) in Eagle, CO and its need for enough aircraft to fulfill its mission. HAATS is the primary site for training military aviators on operations in hostile, high altitude, and power-limited environments under all seasonal weather conditions, such as Afghanistan.

As a result of language I had included in the Defense Authorization bill last year, the Army National Guard pledged to provide two Blackhawks to HAATS, but I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order to sustain training requirements. The language included in this bill asks for the number and type of helicopters that are needed to provide the training necessary to sustain our war strategies and asks for an evaluation of the accident rates for deployed Army helicopter pilots who received high altitude training and those who did not receive such training. I think this information will further underscore HAATS' critical mission and the reason it needs more aircraft.

Second, I worked with committee chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) to include language in the bill to name a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of my friend Representative Joel Hefley, who is retiring at the end of the year. In his 20 years representing Colorado's 5th Congressional district, Joel has served with integrity and honor and has been a fair and effective lawmaker. I have learned a great deal from Joel in my years in Congress, and I will miss his good company and collegiality.

I also supported an amendment offered by Representative Hefley that requires the Defense Department to report to Congress that it has made every effort to acquire property from willing sellers before using eminent domain to expand Fort Carson's maneuvering site in Pinyon Canyon. Along with other members of the Colorado delegation, I will be watching these developments carefully.

Finally, I'm pleased that the bill includes $3.1 million for the Air Sovereignty Alert Crew Quarters facility at Buckley Air Force Base. Currently, the crews are housed in modular trailers on the edge of the alert aircraft-parking apron, which do not comply with prescribed procedures identified by safety and Air Force Fire Protection instructions. These funds will enable Colorado's Air National Guard to build a facility to help aircrew perform their mission--supporting Homeland Defense capabilities throughout the United States--which was established in response to post 9/11 national strategy requirements.

I am also pleased with many other provisions in the bill. H.R. 5122 includes a provision I advocated to permanently authorize and fund the Freedom Salute Campaign and Welcome Home Warriors Program, an awards and appreciation program for troops returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. This program is a small but significant way for us to show our appreciation for the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families, and is also helpful for retaining these dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces.

There are also many broad provisions in the bill that benefit our troops. An important one extends Tricare coverage to all Reservists, something Democrats on the Committee fought for last year with limited success. So I'm very pleased that the bill expands this benefit and underscores the importance of providing the same set of services to all our servicemen and women. The bill also blocks the proposed plan to raise certain Tricare fees. It raises the end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps by 30,000 and 5,000 respectively, thereby helping to ease the strain on our troops, and fully funds end-strength of the Army National Guard. I'm also glad that the bill includes provisions to increase recruiting and retention incentives, provides a 2.7% pay raise for members of the armed forces, and increases funding for up-armed Humvees and IED jammers.

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. The bill requires the Army to fully fund its maintenance, modular conversion and pre-positioned war stocks or face a cap of $2.85 billion on FCS. Funding in excess of the cap would be transferred to reset equipment costs and modularity. H.R. 5122 also redirects missile defense funding from longer range programs to near- term needs, such as buying upgrades for the Patriot and Aegis interceptors that can protect our service members and allies today. It also places restrictions on developing improvements to the ground-based midcourse defense system until after it successfully intercepts two operationally realistic warheads.

On a less positive note, Rules Committee Republicans denied Members of the House the opportunity to debate a number of key amendments which would have improved this bill. Among them was one offered by Ranking Member Skelton, which would lower the increased retail pharmacy co- payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by Mr. Andrews and others to increase funding for nonproliferation programs; and an amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains demonstrate ``sensitivity, respect, and tolerance'' toward servicemembers of all faiths.

Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is opposed to it, and the Defense Department has not requested it. The Republican leadership should have allowed debate on this amendment, and I will work with my colleagues to see that conferees on the bill strike this language.

The Rules Committee Republicans also refused to allow debate on an amendment on energy security that I offered and a similar one that I offered with my colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon. Even as Americans struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, Republicans rejected these amendments to increase funding for alternative fuels programs at the Department of Defense. America's addiction to oil from any source means that our security is vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look beyond the gas pump. I'm very disappointed that the Republican leadership doesn't see this as a priority.

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

On the whole, however, the bill we are considering today does a good job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a perfect bill. And the process under which it was debated on the floor was not all that it should have been. But overall, this is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its support.