Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 293.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Madam Speaker, the rule is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and waives all points of order against the rule. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read and waives all points of order against the amendment. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides that amendments shall be considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, and shall not be subject to amendment. Additionally, it allows the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to offer an en bloc amendment consisting of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1815 and the underlying bill. This bill will enhance our security, increase the capabilities of our military, and improve the lives of the brave men and women who defend our country. Since September 11, 2001, our military has proven its mettle and validated its doctrine, plans, and programs during the ongoing war on terror.

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Committee on Armed Services has presented us with an outstanding bill that addresses many of the challenges our troops face on a daily basis. However, it is important to remember that this yearly authorization is at root an ongoing transformative process that occurs on an annual basis. This year we have taken important steps in the improvement and transformation of our existing forces during an era that is dangerous, demanding, and filled with challenges that our country neither anticipated nor prepared for during the 1990s.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 1815, one must understand the four long-term challenges we seek to address in this legislation. The first long-term challenge stems from the procurement holiday that our government voluntarily took during the 1990s. In those years, neither the President nor the Congress funded the procurement needs of our Armed Forces. As one example, during the 1990s the ammunition accounts of our military were woefully underfunded. As a result, even after radically increasing the productivity of our ammunition plants in the last few years, we are still struggling to keep pace with our current and projected needs.

The same is true of equipment, which was neither acquired nor replaced in sufficient quantities during the years between the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror. As a result, our military is still dealing with the shortages of equipment and munitions that were created in the 1990s and that have yet to be fully resolved. This bill helps address these shortages.

Madam Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a continual basis is related to the transformation of our military forces. With the passage of the Goldwater-Nickles reforms of 1986, our military began putting an increased emphasis on jointness. Over the years, increased jointness has generated different requirements for our forces. Those requirements demand procedural, bureaucratic, and technological changes within our Armed Forces. The principle of transformation has affected everything that our military does, from how we fight to how we deliver services to those who serve in our Armed Forces. Properly used, joint planning, procurement, and operations are an effective combat multiplier that creates the critical edge that our forces need to defeat our adversaries. However, transformation comes with a substantial cost. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 1815 does just that.

Madam Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is the need to expand the size of our military. Over the past few years, it has become clear that we went much too far in downsizing our military forces after the end of the Cold War. To begin to address our manpower shortage, the Committee on Armed Services increased end strength by 10,000 soldiers for the Army and 1,000 Marines for the Marine Corps. This is on top of increases made in the last 2 years. It is also in addition to reforms allowing us to use a greater percentage of our military personnel in a combat capacity.

Unfortunately, even these steps are not enough for our long-term needs, but they are at least a start and responsive to the heavy demands we are placing on our military forces. Over the next several years, we will be forced to look more carefully at manpower needs and come up with a more realistic assessment of what is actually required. Still, H.R. 1815 is a good next step and one which we should support and build upon in the coming years.

The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. It is a generational war which will take decades to win. We need to remember this when approaching the needs of the military in the authorization and the appropriations process. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step in this direction when we added $49 billion to the defense bill to offset a portion of the costs of this conflict next year. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1815 is not a perfect bill; but it is a very, very good piece of legislation. We must remember that the National Defense Authorization Act moves us in the direction we need to go. For that, all of us should be grateful. Ultimately, this bill is not about programs, weapons, or research and development. It is about our soldiers and their ability to defend the United States.

Today, some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the war on terrorism and the long-term military challenges that we face. We owe it to the sons and daughters of America who are on a global battlefield in the war on terror

to address the real issues and challenges our military will confront today and tomorrow. This legislation is a step in a continuing process of enhancing our military capabilities in a dangerous world.

I would ask Members to support these prudent steps taken in this thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the other side, I would simply point out that most of the speakers are actually members of the authorizing committee and passed out this bill 61 to 1, had opportunities to offer those amendments at the committee level, presumably did so, and if they did so, were not successful, and still felt the bill was worthy of being sent on to the floor for further consideration.

In addition, the Rules Committee actually considered and has allowed 29 amendments, a majority of which are Democratic amendments. There is always going to be a judgment debate as to what should or should not be considered and how much time should be devoted in a process to any particular piece of legislation. So I respect the gentlewoman from California's opinion, but obviously we have a difference on this.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

That is correct.

I am aware of that.

Reclaiming my time, I am also aware that the item the gentleman mentioned was actually stricken on the parliamentary question.

I would like to submit for the Record the chairman of the committee's letter to that effect and also the statement from CBO upholding that decision.

Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Dear Armed Services Committee Colleague: This morning the

Congressional Budget Office informed me via letter (copy

attached), that the amendment agreed to during the

committee's mark-up of H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, extending TRICARE

coverage to all reservists will result in additional direct

(or mandatory) spending. As a result, the inclusion of this

provision would cause the bill to exceed the mandatory

spending allocation provided under the Concurrent Resolution

on the Budget. Exceeding the mandatory allocation will cause

H.R. 1815 to violate the Congressional Budget Act and subject

the bill to a point of order against its consideration on the

House floor.

I have consulted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee

on this matter and he informs me that if the bill is brought

forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will

exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of

order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor.

Accordingly, after informing Mr. Skelton and the sponsor of

the amendment, I am exercising the authority granted to me by

the committee to remove this section in order to bring the

bill back into compliance with the Budget Act and eliminate

this impediment to its floor consideration. In summary, if

this action is not taken, a point of order will be raised and

sustained against the bill and its consideration will be

blocked.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter,

Chairman.

Attachment.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, we are

sending you this letter containing our preliminary estimate

of a provision in H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as ordered reported

by the committee on May 19, 2005. The provision would provide

access to TRlCARE health insurance benefits for reserve

component personnel. Implementing that provision would have

significant effects on both spending subject to appropriation

and direct spending.

The provision would affect direct spending by increasing

mandatory expenditures in the Federal Employees Health

Benefits (FEHB) program. On a preliminary basis, CBO

estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct

spending for the government's share of FEHB premiums for

retirees by $5 million in 2006, $94 million over the 2006-

2010 period, and $269 million over the 2006-2015 period.

Under the provision, all reservists in the Selected Reserve

would be eligible to enroll in TRlCARE, the health insurance

system for the Department of Defense (DoD). Based on

information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 120,000

reservists work for the federal government. CBO expects that

some of these reservists who are currently enrolled in the

FEHB program would leave that program and enroll in the new

TRlCARE for Reservists program because the premiums would be

lower than for FEHB and the coverage would be more generous.

Generally, TRICARE premiums are lower because medical costs

are highly correlated with age--the average reservist is age

34 while the average for enrollees in the FEHB program

(including retirees) is closer to age 60.

Because the estimated health care costs for reservists

switching to TRICARE are likely to be lower than the average

per capita costs for all other enrollees in the FEHB program,

average costs for the FEHB program would rise, even though

its total costs would decline. Thus, CBO expects premiums for

the remaining enrollees in the FEHB program would rise to

cover the higher average cost. The government's share of

premiums for annuitants (about 72 percent) is direct

spending.

In addition to the direct spending effects, this provision

would affect spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates

that implementing this provision would increase spending by

DoD for this new benefit by about $230 million in 2006, and

$4.6 billion over the 2006-

2010 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

In addition, we estimate that spending for reservists in the

Coast Guard would increase by $2 million in 2006 and $46

million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of

the estimated amounts. Finally, under this provision,

spending by the federal government for active workers in the

FEHB program would decline by an estimated $340 million over

the 2006-2010 period.

If you have any questions, the CBO staff contact is Sam

Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of the Members to the strengths of H.R. 1815. It takes many steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems, increasing end strength, and provides $49.1 billion in supplemental funds for the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond just briefly to some of the concerns expressed on the other side of the aisle. First, about the process by which the Committee on Rules operated.

I remind my good friends that this bill was again reported out of the House Committee on Armed Services by a vote that was nearly unanimous, only one dissent; that 29 amendments have been made in order; that the majority of those amendments are Democratic amendments; and that we will, obviously, have an additional opportunity to debate the full merits of the bill as we move forward. I think there is more than ample time for discussion and debate.

Second, on the Reservist health care issue. This is a difficult issue, to say the least. It is an emotional issue and an important issue. I would like to point out that under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Committee on Armed Services has made important progress in this particular area. It has extended the amount of time that members that are going to be deployed are eligible for TRICARE. It has extended the amount of time that those who are leaving service are able to enjoy the benefits of TRICARE. It has allowed additional time granted for time served in deployment and combat situations. So I think the Committee on Armed Services has expressed a continuous desire to keep looking at these issues.

I have personally visited with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the subcommittee chairman responsible for this particular area; and he has assured me he wants to continue the progress that has been made over the last several years.

Again, I remind my good friends there were many opportunities when they were in the majority to address these type of issues. While we have been in the majority, we have addressed concurrent receipt in a step-by-step process that is moving us in the right direction. We have addressed survivor benefits in a step-by-step process moving us in the right direction. And now we are addressing the critical issue of health care as well. So I think important progress is being made on all these fronts, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I would like to note that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the committee; and the other subcommittee chairmen, and finally the members of the Committee on Armed Services themselves. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House should be able to agree is a good product. H.R. 1815 passed in the committee, again by a vote of 61 to 1. It deserves the same strong bipartisan support on the floor, as does its underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, many today have complained about what they consider to be critical shortcomings in this legislation. No legislation is ever perfect; and as I said in my opening statement, the defense authorization specifically is more of an ongoing process than a final product. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 1815, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

I would urge the Members on the other side of the aisle to consider carefully what a ``no'' vote would mean and say to our servicemen and - women in the field. Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 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 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 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).