Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman and friend for yielding and thank the ranking member for his outstanding leadership, two great Americans.

You know, this city is filled with a rhetoric that we don't work well together, that we are at each other's throats, that we are partisan. This bill passed our committee with a vote of 61 to 1. This bill was done in a bipartisan way and has the support of members from both sides.

I am proud of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that my subcommittee, which has 28 members, for the 12th consecutive year had no votes, no votes or suggested votes that would split our party along or our committee along party lines. My good friend Neil Abercrombie, my ranking member, and I worked together. He had great ideas. I took his ideas and suggestions and made them a part of the bill.

I want to say to our colleagues in this body and our people around the country, the Congress is working, we are working well together. We are doing good things. Now some would say that we don't have the right thing in the Congress to change what the White House and the Pentagon gives us. Hogwash. That is our job. If we hadn't done our job, we would not have had the Predator armed. It was this Congress mandated back in 1996 that we arm the Predator. It was this Congress in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration didn't request increases for pay for the troops, that plussed up the funding for the pay for the troops.

It is our responsibility to make change, and we have done it. It was this committee that recommended we put the $25 billion up for the supplemental for the war. When the White House didn't want to do it, we led the effort, and everyone else followed.

Mr. Chairman, in this committee, in my mark we have increased $1.5 million for up-armoring Humvees. We have increased $200 million for tactical radios for the troops to use. We have increased to $69 million towards explosive jammers to allow our troops to be able to detonate these bombs before they are in the area or to make them not able to work.

We have increased technology that will reduce the weight of the equipment that our military officers and soldiers and officers have to wear when they are in combat situations in the theater of Iraq or in any place in the world.

This committee has also cut programs. There are some who say all we want to do is keep increasing defense spending. In my subcommittee alone, or our subcommittee, we cut $678 million from programs that we felt the contractors were requesting too many dollars or the services were not properly overseeing. We cut the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Future Combat Systems, even the Presidential helicopter, because as my friend pointed out, Mr. Abercrombie, we want the President to be flying in a safe platform when that helicopter is ready to go.

We took that money and we added $276 million for M1s and Bradley fighting vehicles; $408 million for an additional alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter to continue competition. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into our Guard and Reserve troops.

The role that this committee played is an unbelievable role. It is the legitimate role that was thought of in advance by our Founding Fathers when they designed our Constitution, that we just do not rubber-stamp what the White House and the Pentagon tell us.

Mr. Chairman, this committee went through dozens and dozens of hearings. This chairman has had more briefings for us. In fact, Members of Congress walk around with their eyes partly closed because he has us up at 8:00 in the morning attending briefings and our markups and hearings go until late at night. The involvement of both our members from the other side and our members from this side produces a cooperative spirit where the resultant product, I think, is outstanding.

There may be some disagreements on floor. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud of the committee and the work that we did in delivering a 61-1 vote.

But it is not just about our troops. It is not just about giving them the best technology, the best training, the best equipment. We have also taken some bipartisan steps to increase the flexibility of using our cooperative threat reduction dollars, to go after those weapons of mass destruction, whether it is in North Korea or whether it is in Libya. In our bill in a joint bipartisan amendment with Mr. Spratt, we have put language in providing flexibility for up to $30 million to be used by the Pentagon to go into these areas without having to go back for a reprogram request to allow us to immediately take action against these deposits of WMD when we find them.

We have also put into place the Nuclear Strategy Forum. We happen to think there should be a national debate on what the use of nuclear weapons should be in the 21st century. Again with bipartisan support, we have put together a team of the best thinkers, the best academics in America, who in a bipartisan and nonpartisan way will hold meetings and hearings on what should be our nuclear posture. Should we in fact reduce our nuclear arsenal? Should we in fact look at testing? Should we in fact look to an alternative type of technology away from nuclear weapons totally?

That is a part of this bill. So it is not just about weapons systems. It is about a comprehensive approach that will allow us to maintain security and, in the end, avoid war, which is the ultimate objective I have as long as I am going to be a Member of this institution.

We also reauthorized the EMP Commission. I want to pay particular accolades to Roscoe Bartlett, our colleague, who has been out front on that issue for a decade warning us of the threat from the use of electromatic pulse. We have put into place a panel. That panel has now been reauthorized and are advising us on how we can protect America's infrastructure and weapons systems.

Mr. Chairman, there is a personal priority in this bill to me because I am also vice chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and I work on behalf of the Nation's firefighters.

You know our firefighters are our domestic defenders. Our soldiers are international defenders. Much of the technology we developed for the soldiers has direct application to our firefighters, our paramedics and our first responders, but we haven't done a good job in transferring that technology, whether it is thermal imagers or whether it is GPS capability. We need to give our first responders the same kind of protection that we give to our warfighters. In this bill, again with the cooperation of members on both sides, we put in a specific provision that focuses on the need to immediately transfer technology developed by our military people and put it into use for our domestic defenders.

I ask our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important domestic bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of serving as the Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and as the Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

I, first of all, want to thank my distinguished chairman for the leadership he continues to provide across the wide range of issues that come before our committee. And similarly, I would like to express my admiration for the ranking member, for the leadership and expertise he brings to the committee. To the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), my ranking member, I thank him. He is a great American and it is great to work with him.

We have a great committee. Yes, there are contentious issues, but they get debated, we vote, and then we move on. We address the vast majority of issues in a what is best for the troops and taxpayer, non- partisan way. I cannot tell the Members how proud I am to serve on this committee. Every day that I serve in this institution, I am happy that we work so well together. This committee, I think, sets the example for the entire Congress, demonstrating that we can all work together. I think the best evidence of that is, we again had a vote out of committee of 61 of the 62 members coming together. Where we had areas of disagreement, we have been able to work those out. This is a real credit and testimony to this Congress and those 62 members who are on this committee and to our Chairman.

Those of us in the Subcommittee have two priorities: to take care of the troops and to do our best to hold DOD accountable for its acquisition programs.

This committee did this year what we have done for the prior two years to support our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have held hearings at the subcommittee and full committee level, pushing the Pentagon's bureaucracy to get the best available equipment to our personnel as soon as it can be properly tested--body and vehicle armor; improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, night vision equipment, and so on. It was this committee that first called for additional funding to up-armor our Humvees and take care of the troops that were in harm's way. It was this committee that led the White House two years ago in getting that first $25 billion supplemental.

This bill makes big changes to programs and it makes seemingly small changes to programs that are yet very meaningful to the average soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. H.R. 5122 provides over $1.5 billion in additional funds to procure up-armor Humvees and body armor to protect our personnel. The bill provides over $200 million in additional funds to procure tactical handheld and small unit radios for ground forces, addressing urgent needs in Iraq. The bill also provides an additional $69.0 million to produce and deploy 10,000 man-portable improvised explosive device jammers that can address a full spectrum of threats in theater.

At the same time increased authorization is provided for small arms and small arms technologies. The basic infantryman or marine entering combat can be required to carry combat configured loads of ammunition and equipment, that combined, can exceed 90 pounds. The bill contains funding to advance technologies that can reduce this carrying load through advancements in lightweight components for existing small arms and caseless ammunition.

With our military personnel at risk each and every day, supporting those personnel by providing them the proper equipment is where our number one priority must continue to be. We cannot shortchange the current force for a promised future capability.

Our military is facing major financial challenges in upgrading tactical aircraft programs, shipbuilding programs, and space programs. And the Army in particular is facing a major budgetary challenge in trying to fund its Future Combat Systems Program--a $200 billion program; along with Modularity--a major restructuring and equipping of its combat brigade structure, a $52.5 billion program; and Reset, repairing and remanufacturing equipment returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a $72.3 billion program.

The bill is about balancing the health and capability of the current force with the needs of future military capability.

Our concern with several programs is one of excess R&D and procurement concurrency. We have cut $678 million from the Pentagon's request in programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Both the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, and Presidential Helicopter Program, the VH-71, have been reduced by a total of $280 million because of our concerns that they are not meeting our ``fly before buy'' rule.

We make other changes that better balance current against promised future capabilities: $276 million has been added for M-1 tank and Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades. Instead of the Army paying $3 million per Bradley upgrade, if done at the minimum economic order quantity rate, the Army is paying $8 million per vehicle--2\1/2\ times what we should be paying. Instead of paying $5 million for an M-1 tank upgrade, the Army is paying $7.4 million a tank. Our $276 million recommended increase would fund the economic order quantity for each vehicle.

Finally, we seek to correct major last minute budget decisions by the Pentagon that seemingly make no sense whatsoever. An example is the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35. Congress has supported a competitive engine strategy for that program for the past ten years. The Pentagon proposes to terminate that program without having done any substantive analysis. It was a last minute decision to balance the books. We add back $408 million to maintain competition in the F-35 engine development program. The Subcommittee believes engine competition is an important ingredient in fielding an F-35 that is both capable and affordable.

In closing, I again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full committee and our subcommittee. This bill is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 5122, pursuant to House Resolution 806, general debate shall not exceed 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Last week the Committee on Armed Services reported out a bill that very clearly reflects our steadfast support for our service members and their families, our deep appreciation for their many sacrifices, and the strong bipartisan spirit that characterizes this committee.

Passing with a committee vote of 60-1, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 provides for both near and long- term military personnel and force structure requirements, and highlights the need for improvements in acquisition processes and cooperation among key Federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation provides $512.9 billion for the Department of Defense and the security programs of the Department of Energy. We include a recommendation of active duty growth of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps above the President's budget request.

We also include a supplemental bridge fund of some $50 billion to support our troops operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places in the global war on terrorism, and this, Mr. Chairman, is to provide for a seamless continuity in the waning calendar months of this year so that our troops continue to be well supplied before any supplementals in the following year.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the National Guard and Reserve, and we have provided for additional end strength up to 350,000, and we also have right now a series of other enhancements that are being looked at by the special commission chartered by this body and the other body and the President to address National Guard issues. We are going to be doing that. We are going to be getting their recommendations shortly, and those recommendations may be manifested in a bill to follow this one.

But this year, taking care of our troops and protecting our troops has been a real priority, and we have included additional money, in excess of $100 million, for jamming devices to handle roadside bombs. We have included additional money for greater armor in our platforms, better armor with our new technology in the body armor units that are issued so our Army and Marine Corps personnel, in fact all personnel who are stationed in this theater, and we are spending a lot of resources protecting our forces, protecting the troops.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we look over the horizon and we look at potential trouble spots around the world, security challenges over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years, and we do a few other things, and our very able chairmen of the subcommittees are going to describe a lot of the things that we do with respect to equipment and personnel in detail. But we keep a little more insurance, perhaps, than the administration has in a couple of areas.

One is stealth attack aircraft. We used just a few percentage of these great F-117 stealth aircraft in the first gulf war, and yet they knocked out over 20 percent of the targets. This combination of stealth and precision munitions has been a very critical and important factor in the American security apparatus. We don't allow the Air Force to move so quickly to retire those stealth aircraft until we get others online.

We also retain a greater part of our bomber force. That has been the backbone of our deep strike for many, many years. We don't have a new bomber program right now and we don't want to let quite as many of those birds go before we are well embarked on this new bomber program.

As you move across the modernization spectrum, Mr. Chairman, our members have done an extraordinary job in putting together packages for our special operators, for our line troops, for our Guard and Reserve. We have also done some great things for people, for families.

We have extended TRICARE. We have completed this movement of coverage of TRICARE to our National Guard personnel. We have made prescription drugs more affordable. We have put an emphasis and an incentive on getting your medicine through the mail, because that is a much lower burden for the taxpayers of the United States and very convenient now for those recipients.

Mr. Chairman, we have great subcommittee chairmen and great ranking members. We are going to be recognizing them to tell us about this bill. I want to give my thanks to them and my special partner and friend, Ike Skelton, who has put in countless hours leading on issues and developing issues and working to ensure that the people that wear the uniform of the United States have the very finest conditions and the very finest treatment for themselves and their family, and that America's defense remains the envy of the world.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, with many thanks to all the committee, and all the staff, who helped to put this bill together.

Mr. Chairman, we are at a crossroads on a lot of our defense weapons systems. There is no one more capable or better trained to lead in these very important decisions than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, Joel Hefley, who has done remarkable work in this Readiness Subcommittee, which controls such a big portion of the defense bill. The gentleman is a great friend to everyone who wears a uniform and is probably the best rodeo cowboy who has ever served in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the heart of this bill is the 2.5 million Americans that wear the uniform of the United States, and the subcommittee that oversees personnel issues and sets the pay raises and does personnel policy is headed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). This is an enormous job, and he has done a great job. I yield the gentleman 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is extremely important to our country, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) does a wonderful job of overseeing this very important dimension of national security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who heads the Projection Forces Subcommittee, which oversees the construction of the platforms and our ships and our bomber forces and our airlift that projects American power around the world.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the desert country of Iraq to the jungles of many hemispheres, Special Operations and Special Forces personnel in the U.S. military are cognizant of an individual in this House who works for them night and day, and that is Jim Saxton, who is the chairman of the Terrorism and Special Operations Subcommittee, and I want to recognize the gentleman for 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I might add the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Texas, has been to the warfighting theaters more than any other Member of either body in this Congress and we appreciate his great efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who took the place of the great Floyd Spence, former chairman of this committee, and nobody has devoted more in terms of their personal effort toward national security or, in Mr. Wilson's case, more of their family members. The Wilson family wears the uniform of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who brought his experience as an officer of the 82nd Airborne to the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke. I share his focus on IEDs, and we will work together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who represents so many great people in uniform in North Carolina and has spent so much time working for their quality of life and for their effectiveness on the battlefield, and also for all of the people who work in the defense industry so we can make sure when the American taxpayer pays for defense items, since we defend the free world, that those items are made by Americans and represent American jobs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Armed Services Committee, who is

still very devoted to national security and exercises that role as a member of the Rules Committee.

I would say to my good colleague, I have just one additional thing that I would like to mention about a provision in the bill. But outside of that, we are ready to wrap up the general debate. So I have got just maybe a minute or two.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to my colleagues that this, the story of this global war against terror with the special focus in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a story of families. It is a story of enormous sacrifice, not just by the people that wear the uniform in the theater, but by their families back home, their moms, their dads, their wives, their husbands, their children.

And there is a particular family, the Holley family from San Diego, California, that brought an issue to the attention of the Armed Services Committee here over this last year when their great 101st Airborne Trooper, Matthew Holley, was killed in the Iraq theater. And they pointed out that in the present chain of transportation of our fallen heroes home, where they come through Dover, Delaware, and ultimately go to their final resting place at their particular hometown or community in America, that part of that chain of transportation has been carried out by commercial airlines. And despite the best wishes and the best efforts on the part of those people who operate the commercial airlines, the proper amount of respect, the extreme respect that should be afforded those fallen heroes is in some cases, has in some cases been lacking.

And that came to the attention of the Holley family. And they talked to me and to other members of the committee, and we looked at the issue and as a result of that, we have, in the law, in this bill or in the proposed law, some very clear and strong directives to the administration to utilize military aircraft in taking our fallen heroes from Dover, Delaware, from where they land on American shores, to the military base that is closest to their hometown, unless otherwise directed by the family, and to use those military aircraft and to accompany those fallen heroes with American military personnel, and to greet that military aircraft when it arrives at that military base closest to their hometown with an honor guard.

And so we have laid out very directive language, very clear language for the administration. And I want to thank John and Stacy, who really brought this to our attention in honor of their son, Matthew Holley. And I think that we have talked to the other body and I think that this will have clear support all the way through.

But this is an important part of this bill because part of this bill is about respect. And this particular provision is about respect for those people who have given that last full measure of devotion to our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment that has been worked out with both sides. And briefly, Mr. Chairman, this adds a section to add $4 million for the call of the fire trainer/joint fires and effects trainer with an offset of $4 million from the Joint Tactical Radio System.

It adds a section to add $6 million to the Air Force Science Engineering Lab Data Integration with an offset of $6 million from IT,

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Additionally, 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.

It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

Furthermore, it provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule provides that after disposition of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. This important legislation takes a number of dramatic steps to better the lives of our servicemen and women, increase our defense capabilities, and more aggressively conduct operations in the generational global war on terror that is now under way. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges for the future and provides many of the interim steps to meet those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, as a member on leave from the House Armed Services Committee and a member of the Rules Committee, I firmly believe that this legislation takes the appropriate and necessary steps to better secure America's security and more successfully prosecute the war which we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 5122, one most understand the four long-term challenges that we face in the 21st century security environment. Briefly put, these challenges are, first, responding to the dramatic procurement holiday we took in the 1990s; second, responding to the operational demands for the transformation of our forces; third, responding to the operational and strategic demands for increased end strength; fourth, shaping our military for a generational war, the global war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, these challenges are not options. They are requirements that the Armed Services Committee must address on a continuing basis. I am happy to report that there is a bipartisan agreement that the committee has done precisely that in H.R. 5122.

The gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, have worked in a good, bipartisan

way to bring forward a legislative package that we may all be proud of. Now it is important that we collectively, as the House, support our deployed servicemen and women by supporting the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this legislation responds in a dramatic way to all the long-term challenges that we face. Being specific, the underlying legislation increases the procurement accounts by approximately $9 billion over fiscal year 2006 and effectively replenishes several historically underfunded accounts.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also takes dramatic steps forward in transforming the nature and the structure of our operational forces by funding the Brigade Combat Team conversions for the Army, addressing the needs of the Navy's future shipbuilding program and increasing the end strength of the Army by 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 Marines to the Marine Corps to better support the war on terror.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes dramatic steps to better ensure our long-term success in the global war on terror. Specifically, this legislation includes a $50 billion allocation of supplemental funding to support ongoing war-related costs and procurement of replacement equipment.

It significantly increases personnel protection efforts with respect to improvised explosive devices and authorizes support for shipyards to maintain the long-term operational success and stability of the shipping industry critical to all of our services.

Also, the underlying legislation supports troop morale and welfare by ensuring a 2.7 percent pay raise and blocks the Department of Defense's proposed TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard fee increases and zeroes out copayments for generic and formulary mail order prescriptions for military beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days, we will hear arguments in favor of specific amendments that do not relate to our four long-term challenges, nor do they address the subject matter of the underlying legislation in any real way.

We will also hear arguments attacking the executive and our progress in the war on terror. Those discussions are appropriate, but they do not really relate to the purpose of this legislation.

I would caution those who would like to politicize the defense authorization bill that this legislation is absolutely essential to our servicemen and women deployed overseas in a wartime deployment. The operational situation will not change through continuing attacks on the choices that we collectively as the House have made in the past.

Our focus should be to advance our Nation's and our servicemen and women's interest by providing them with the tools they require to be successful. The underlying legislation does just that.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, some Members may want to engage in debate that is essentially tangential to the issue at hand. What we must remember is that this bill is a finely crafted piece of legislation that attempts to bridge the policy and political divide to do what is best for our servicemen and women.

Fundamentally this legislation moves us in the proper direction. No bill is perfect. However, this bill is a very good piece of legislation that increases our security, assists in prosecuting our global war on terror, protects our troops and enhances the lives of our servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her recognition of the National Guard. I share her admiration and appreciation for that splendid service. I certainly appreciate her remarks and the bipartisan way in which we arrived at a common agreement on end strength, and also appreciate her praise for the committee's strong bipartisan work on TRICARE, while recognizing she would prefer to go a little bit further. But I think we certainly went much further in both those areas than the original administration proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out simply for the record that this bill was reported out of committee by a 60-1 margin, a very strong bipartisan indication of support and appreciation for the main points in the bill.

As to the point on missile defense, I think the activities in Iran and certainly North Korea indicate that we would be prudent to think about developing missile defense. So I am very pleased with the bipartisan nature of this legislation. Frankly, I suspect most Members will vote for it in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's bipartisan remarks about the legislation.

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

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

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to remind our Members that this rule and the underlying legislation is not about us or our interests. It is fundamentally about the long-term interests of our Nation, the security and stability of our military, and the welfare of our deployed servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, no generation undertakes a war lightly. Certainly, the World War I and World War II generations and the Cold War generations did not do so, and it is clear that historically there is always dissent. That is good and it is American. However, the previous generations understood that if they were not firm in their commitment, unwavering in their support for the troops and sure in their convictions, America would be the worse for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, we face the very same challenges as these previous generations. Today is the day that we must support our forces to secure the peace for our progeny and to spread freedom around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate at this particular moment in our history to have men like Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton heading and cooperating so closely on this very important committee, one in which whatever our differences may be, we come together as Americans to support those Americans who defend our freedom and who put themselves in harm's way for our benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. It is critical for America, for the cause of freedom, and for the success of the brave men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield back some of that time to the distinguished proponent of this amendment. I thank her for her leadership, and the leadership of Ms. Harman and Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that this is a question certainly of the flag and the Declaration of Independence and the rights of all Americans. But what it says is that the men and women of the United States military have equality, the equal rights to good health care and health procedures all over the world, wherever they serve.

This is a good amendment. I associate myself with this amendment, and

I ask that you vote for the men and women of the United States military and allow this amendment by Mrs. Davis, Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, to support the women of the United States military to have equal access to good health care and to be able to secure appropriate procedures regarding their female surgical needs at overseer military facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of a committee that really protects the lives of our soldiers on the front line and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I hope today that my colleagues will join me in a bipartisan effort to give a gift to our soldiers' families. I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad as well as the debate and consideration of which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engage to do this good job on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who choose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve.

Unlike members of the National Guard or Reserve, Individual Reserves do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind support. Might I just say that in joining in a bipartisan manner, I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a Reservist and a National Guard member needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military and our country.

The inclusion of this passage and this language in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a Nation of morals and honorable decision makers. The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a Reservist back to duty.

The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards. Therefore, the frequency of assignment is also an important question, and the fact that we are clarifying it today and instilling and including that in the bill is going to give Reservists and National Guard families a great deal of celebration.

Let me tell you a very pointed story. One constituent from Houston who was born in Texas, has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned, not because he did not love his country, not because he did not enjoy serving, but he wanted to try and understand the fact that he was redeployed three times in a 4-year period, a man who has a family, had a job, and of course we know it was mentally and emotionally draining and of course heart-breaking to leave his family.

Therefore, this amendment will help the many Reservists and families and the National Guard families all over America. Serving your country is noble, honorable and generates pride in one's self and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble. That is the constituency we serve today. Yet it can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military, if we do not take into consideration the frequency of their service.

I thank my colleagues, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the military families all over America, Re- reservists and National Guard who will benefit from understanding their plight and their situation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to offer an amendment to the National Defense Reauthorization Act that clarifies the factors that must be taken into consideration when recalling a reservist to service to include the frequency of assignment over the duration of a reservist's career.

I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad, as well as the debate and consideration in which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engaged.

For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve.

Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who chose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve. Unlike members of the National Guard and Reserve, individual reservists do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up.

Forty percent of American troops in Iraq are from National Guard and Reserve units. For many, the financial sacrifices are great. Many lose the salaries they were earning in the private sector, and their families are struggling to pay bills. 57 percent of National Guard members and reservists have cited too many activations and/or deployments as a reason to leave the military, and 66 percent of Guard members and reservists express that they are likely to continue in the Guard or Reserve.

In the case where it is necessary for these reserves to be recalled to duty without their consent, the bill currently provides for appropriate consideration to be given to the length and nature of previous service, family responsibilities, and employment necessary to maintain the national health, safety, or interest.

I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a reservist needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military. The inclusion of this passage in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a nation of moral and honorable decision- makers.

The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a reservist back to duty. The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards.

Related to this, however, is the fact that the frequency of assignment must also be taken into consideration. As we have seen, our reservists are brave citizens and soldiers who have willingly traveled to the other side of the world to defend their homeland. If these were career military we were talking about, I do not think that frequency should necessarily be considered.

However, we must take the occurrence, and not just the length of time, of previous service into account when recalling reservists. One tour of four years is substantially different than four tours of one year. I am not making a qualitative or quantitative judgment, or that one reservist should be preferred over another.

One constituent from Houston, who was born in Texas and has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned that the 4 years he served over a 6 year time span would not be recognized by the military as he thought it should be. His three separate deployments were mentally and emotionally heartbreaking, and I heard his point clearly: His situation should be considered as dissimilar to an individual who had been deployed once and served 4 non-interrupted years.

The number of times an individual has been deployed must be included when recalling a reservist to duty, just as are family responsibilities, previous length and nature of service, and employment consequences.

Serving your country is noble, honorable, and generates pride in oneself and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble, yet can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

This is a bipartisan amendment that is supported by Members on both sides. In order to give our Reservist families a moment of celebration, I would like the yeas and nays so that they can see the vote on the floor in support of Reservists and National Guard families.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton for the opportunity. I stand here today in support of the bill moving forward, but I have a caveat that I hope will be able to be addressed before we come to a final conclusion.

As the chairman knows, my original opposition was to what has been termed the ``bridge fund''; upon reconsideration, I have become a strong advocate of it. For those not familiar with it, the bridge fund is a legitimate methodology for the authorizing committee to deal with the actual cost of deployments of our Armed Forces throughout the world.

Presently, the bridge fund will deal only with approximately 6 months' worth of costs associated, expenditures associated, with these deployments. As a result then we will have to take up yet another supplemental budget, probably just after the first of the year, within a month or so, and that will, in turn, find us dealing with other requests, other emergencies, that will be included in this so-called supplemental budget. It is not an emergency that we need funding for for our deployments overseas, but rather an admission and an acknowledgment of the true costs of these deployments overseas.

So, Mr. Chairman, I most certainly urge that we move the bill along and, at the same time, then take up this question of being straightforward and honest with the American people as to what the true costs are of our deployments and to see to it that the military does not have to cannibalize the existing budget and take us away from what I consider 100 percent support of the troops 50 percent of the time.

I believe, even though I am in opposition to much of what is the foundation for support, the irony in this is that those like myself who did not support the effort in Iraq as undertaken and have serious reservations about how the war is being conducted, the military action is being conducted in Afghanistan, are actually being sustained in our position; rather than finding support for those who originally were for the war in Iraq or think that we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan, that position is being undermined because we are not being straightforward with people as to what the true costs are.

There is a case of unease in the American public, I think, with regard to our present policies in Iraq and Afghanistan because we do not have a straightforward, honest approach with the American people as to what the costs are. I believe the American people will pay any costs to protect our security if they feel that we are being honest and straightforward about it.

We need to do that. We need to bring the bridge fund in our authorization up to the actual cost, and not undermine the good work that has been on this bill this year.

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking minority member of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the HASC, I am pleased to support H.R. 5122. I also want to commend my chairman and partner on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, Congressman Kurt Weldon, for his nonpartisan approach to our subcommittee's portion' of this bill.

The procurement and research portions of this bill that the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee oversees strikes an effective balance between getting our troops the equipment they need, ensuring that the equipment works, and ensuring that it is all acquired at a price the Nation can afford. Striking this balance is always difficult, but given the pressure on the DOD budget from the war in Iraq, this was an especially challenging year. I am pleased to support the procurement and research aspects of this bill as a good-government approach to making tough decisions when funds are limited.

This bill is a significant improvement over the procurement and research budget presented by the President in two critical ways. First, it is a more straightforward document that lays out what the committee decided the military's priorities should be, and what funding these priorities will actually cost. Second, it shifts funding from programs that are simply not working and moves those funds to programs that are working and are delivering effective equipment to the troops in the field today. With troops in combat the Congress has a non-negotiable obligation to weigh in heavily on the side of immediate and near-term needs of the military.

There are two programs that this bill takes some significant funding away from, and I want to address the committee's reasoning on these reductions, because they were both difficult decisions. The first is the Army's Future Combat System, which this bill cuts by $325 million.

I want to be clear that this is not a move to punish the Army. Everyone on this committee recognizes that the Army is carrying the heaviest burden in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms lives lost and dollars spent. Every member of this committee also wants to ensure we have an Army that is ready today and prepared for the challenges of the future. The

problem is that the Army simply has too many bills to pay and not enough funding to cover all of them. Difficult choices had to be made.

The second program cut is to the VH-71 ``Presidential Helicopter'' program. This rather modest cut is based on the committee's concern that this program is being pushed too fast and is taking test and development risks that are clearly not appropriate and could be outright dangerous. I want to make it absolutely clear that the goal of this cut and some language in the bill is not to kill the program, or even scale back its size. Instead, it is a reflection of this committee's support for the principle of ``fly before you buy'' that must be followed, especially for a helicopter the President of the United States is going to fly in.

Given the demands of an ongoing war and the need to continue to buy and develop new equipment, this bill strikes an appropriate balance given the funding available.

Despite my support for the bill, I did want to caveat that support in one important aspect: the lack of an authorization in this bill for the full-year cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In each of the past two years, the Congress has put some of the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal authorization and appropriations process. The rest of the funding for the year, however, has come through very large supplemental appropriations bills that the Armed Services Committee has been unable to oversee properly.

I have supported all of the Defense authorization and Defense Appropriations bills done under our normal budget procedures since the war in Iraq began. Putting the money in the normal budget would be best, but the ``bridge fund'' mechanism in the legislation before us today is arguably a reasonable middle ground between funding purely through supplementals and the normal budget process. Chairman Hunter deserves credit for coming up with this more honest approach.

This year, for whatever reason, the Administration only requested $50 billion in additional funding in FY 2007 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This total is reflected in the bill as reported by the committee. During committee consideration of this bill, I had an amendment that sought to increase the amount of the bridge fund to $92 billion so that it would reflect the likely full-year cost of combat operations overseas. Unfortunately this amendment was voted down by the majority.

Having a more realistic full-year figure in this bill would have improved this legislation's relevance and honesty. The troops overseas and the American people deserve to know what our best estimate of the cost of these wars will be in 2007.

Continuing to rely on massive supplemental, so-called ``emergency'' spending bills to pay for the war is both dishonest and fiscally unsound. I believe that the American people are willing to sacrifice to get the troops the funds they need, but instead of asking all Americans to sacrifice we are instead using a budget shell game to hide the real cost of the war. This shell game also allows massive tax cuts for the wealthy during a war which we are borrowing money from other nations to pay for. Funding the war in this manner is saddling our children and grandchildren with a massive debt that they will have to payoff in the future.

Overall, the bill before us today is a good bill, but choosing to only authorize 6 months of funding for the troops in the field is like saying to them that the Congress supports you 100 percent for 50 percent of the year. I do not think that is the message that the House wants to send.