Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 806, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3222.

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel. It rejects the President's proposed increase in TRICARE copays and funds TRICARE by $1.9 billion, appropriates $2.6 billion to provide our military families with the immediate need for more counselors, teachers and child care providers. It also looks to the future.

The bill provides $938 billion above the President's request for advance construction funding for additional ships, provides an additional $980 million to purchase essential National Guard and Reserve equipment. We're looking beyond Iraq, trying to take care of any threat that may threaten this country in the future.

Conference Agreement Totals and OverView

The President requested $463.1 billion in total FY 2008 new budget authority for the Department of Defense and intelligence community programs that fall under the purview of the Defense Subcommittee. This is an increase of $43.3 billion over last year's enacted level--a 10.3 percent increase in nominal terms. The lion's share of the increase over FY 2007 (some 80 percent) was allocated to operation and maintenance and procurement programs.

The conference agreement meets the budget authority allocation of $459.6 billion for FY 2008. This figure is a little more than $3.5 billion below the President's budget request. Nonetheless, the conference agreement provides an increase for Defense of $39.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted level, or about 9.5 percent in nominal growth.

The House bill shifted funding for certain programs between the FY 2008 base budget bill and the FY 2008 war supplemental in order to meet the budget authority allocation. However, because consideration of the FY 2008 supplemental has been delayed, some items deferred in the House bill have been restored to the base bill in the conference agreement to prevent production gaps and other consequences that might arise if funding were delayed until next May. This largely affected appropriations for the Department's operation and maintenance activities and ammunition procurement accounts. The House bill recommended an overall reduction to the operation and maintenance accounts of some $5.7 billion below the request. The conference agreement includes a total reduction of $2.8 billion. Nonetheless, the conference agreement fully funds home-station training, equipment maintenance, and other key military readiness programs covered in these accounts.

Meeting the allocation also required deferring consideration of several high profile programs until the FY 2008 war supplemental is taken up. These include:

The Air Force Reserve Basic Allowance for Housing shortfall

War-Related Special Pays--Hostile Fire Pay, Hardship Duty Pay, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay.

The ground forces' strategic reserve readiness and equipment rehabilitation.

Funding for additional Stryker vehicles ($1.1 billion).

The purchase of at least 10 C-17 cargo aircraft ($2.9 billion).

The purchase of additional Black Hawk MEDEVAC helicopters.

The Department's Global Train and Equip program.

Highlights

The conference agreement achieves a balance between preparing units for near-term deployments, supporting our military members and their families, and modernizing our forces to meet future threats. Highlights of the agreement are:

Supporting Our Troops and Their Families: First and foremost, the conference agreement recommends robust funding for programs important to the health, well-being, and readiness of our forces. In addition, the agreement proposes several initiatives that address issues raised by troops, their families, and Department of Defense officials in testimony before the Committee and visits to military bases in the United States and overseas.

The conference agreement includes funding of about $2.2 billion to cover the full cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, supported by both the House and Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization bill.

Under their ``grow-the-force'' initiatives, the Army and Marine Corps propose to add 7,000 and 5,000 new troops, respectively. The personnel costs of these increases are fully covered in the conference agreement, as are the associated equipping and outfitting costs. For the Army the equipping costs for these new troops amount to more than $4 billion; for the Marines the costs exceed $2 billion.

Home-stationing training, optempo, and flying-hour costs are funded at robust levels. All told, the conference agreement provides for a 19 percent increase in funding for these activities over last year's level. Home station training dollars increase by 32 percent and 45 percent for Army and Marine Corps respectively.

The military services' force structure and basing infrastructure are in a state of transition. The Army, in particular, has been forced to manage significant changes in force structure (known as Army Modularity), base closures, and a global repositioning of forces, all while meeting the demands of war. Based on detailed information provided by the Army, the conference agreement includes a House initiative to assist the service in meeting this challenge. The conference agreement adds $615.7 million to the Army's facilities sus- tainment and restoration budget request to offset the growing infrastructure costs associated with the global repositioning of its forces. This funding, however, will only partially cover the Army's needs. It will be necessary to address additional infrastructure requirements of approximately $686 million in operation and maintenance costs and over a billion in military construction costs during consideration of the FY 2008 emergency supplemental request.

The conference agreement also includes a House initiative to directly respond to the needs of our military families. Total funding of $2.6 billion is recommended for the military's family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent's education programs. This amount is an increase of $237 million over the Administration's request, with most of the increase allocated to DoD's family advocacy programs. This program provides counseling, education, and support to military families affected by the demands of war and episodes of child or spouse abuse.

The agreement includes several initiatives and additional funding to address health care issues raised over the past year, including improving the Department's electronic medical records and fostering better coordination between DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs, enhancing preventative medicine programs, and advancing military medical research. Also, the conference agreement fully covers the $1.9 billion shortfall in health funding created by the disapproval of DoD's proposed fee and premium increases.

Preparing for the Future: The conference agreement provides robust funding for weapons systems purchases and research programs designed to meet future threats.

The conference agreement supports full funding, as requested, for the F-22 tactical fighter aircraft procurement programs.

The conference agreement includes increases above the President's request allocated for development programs that address so-called ``asymmetric'' threats from weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. Additional funding of $10 million is provided to pursue cruise missile defense, $20 million for chemical and biological defense research programs, $21 million to improve fissile material detection systems, and $50 million for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction account to counter weapons proliferation and chemical/biological agents. Finally, the conferees agreed to add $100 million to improve U.S. space situational awareness in light of the Chinese anti-satellite missile test in January of this year.

To support the Army's evolution to a larger, more lethal, and more rapidly deployable force, the conference agreement recommends $3.4 billion for continued development of Future Combat Systems, a cut of slightly more than $200 million, $925 million for additional Stryker vehicles, and full funding for procurement of four Joint Cargo Aircraft.

Testimony before the committee revealed that our National Guard and Reserve forces continue to suffer from equipment shortfalls. To address this need the conference agreement recommends providing an additional $980 million to purchase Guard and Reserve equipment. These additional funds will enhance these forces' ability to meet overseas deployment demands, and respond to natural disasters here at home.

Economic Stability: Fostering economic stability in DoD's weapons modernization programs has been a consistent theme of the Committee. As such, the conference agreement includes a series of recommendations that will help stabilize certain programs by adding funds and/or adjusting procurement or development schedules.

The Navy's shipbuilding program has been beset by planning and resource instability for many years, resulting in ever-increasing costs to the American taxpayer. Clearly, at current production rates and price levels, the Navy will be unable to meet its force structure requirements in the future. The conferees respond by providing advance procurement funding for an additional five ships. To purchase these ships or to initiate planning and construction, the conference agreement provides an additional $938 million above the Navy's request for shipbuilding and sealift.

The success of the Department's Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, program is critical to our nation's ability to field a modern, capable fighter aircraft fleet for decades to come. To maintain stability in this program--and limit the potential for cost increases over time--the conference agreement recommends an increase of $200 million for F-35 production enhancements. These funds are to be used to outfit facilities with the latest in production line equipment and work-flow technology. In addition, the conference agreement recommends adding $480 million to continue development of an alternative engine for this aircraft, thereby ensuring a competitive base for engine production. The conference agreement reduces the JSF budget request by $266 million to account for payments the program will receive in fiscal year 2008 for double billing by the contractor. This reduction does not adversely affect the aircraft production schedule.

Accountability: The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, officials, and programs that have performed poorly. The conference agreement focuses attention on the following issues:

Fiscal discipline: The conference agreement affirms several important House initiatives to improve DoD's fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight. (These are described in an appendix to this memorandum.)

Contracting Out: The conference report also includes recommendations to adequately manage and oversee the growth in and cost-effectiveness of contracting out. (These are described in an appendix to this memo.)

Basic research: The conference agreement includes a 35 percent cap on the amount of overhead charges that can be charged on a basic research grant or contract.

Summary of Recommendations by Title

Military personnel

The conference agreement provides $105.3 billion for military personnel pay and benefits accounts, a slight decrease of $111 million to the President's FY 2008 request, but an increase of $5.4 billion over the FY 2007 level.

The military personnel pay raise of 3.5 percent is funded at $2.2 billion. This rate is 0.5 percent greater than the President requested. Also, the conference agreement includes $2.4 billion for retention bonuses and recruiting incentives.

The conference agreement increases the Basic Allowance for Housing, BAH, 4.2 percent to $15 billion, which is $1.6 billion over the projected FY 2007 enacted level. This continues to ensure no out-of- pocket expenses for service personnel and supports the privatization of housing units for military families.

Army end-strength is increased by 7,000 in the conference agreement, to a total of 489,400, or $5.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted budget amount. The conferees increase and fully fund Marine Corps end-strength by 5,000 to a total of 180,000.

The Navy and Air Force, on the other hand, will continue to reduce their manpower levels. Navy plans to cut 12,300 in 2007; Air Force intends to reduce their force by about 5,600. The conference agreement includes a mandated review of Air Force end-strength requirements.

The conference agreement assumes the Special Operations Command will grow to a level of about 54,250 personnel, up about 6,400 over FY 2007 levels. By FY 2013, the Command projects its end-strength to grow to about 59,000.

Operation and maintenance

The conference agreement provides a total of $140.1 billion for operation and maintenance accounts, a decrease of $2.8 billion from the request, but an increase of $12.8 billion or 10 percent over the FY 2007 baseline O&M enacted level.

The conference agreement makes significant reductions to the military services' O&M accounts, particularly the Army and Air Force, for the following reasons:

Unjustified growth over FY 2007 funding levels, beyond amounts necessary to fully fund all training, optempo, and maintenance activities.

Excessive buildups of spare parts inventories.

Excess cash in working capital funds, beyond levels necessary to ensure cash flow.

The conference agreement fully funds a 3 percent civilian pay raise, which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008.

Procurement and R&D

Procurement is funded at $98.2 billion, $1.4 billion below the request and the House bill. This is still an increase of 21 percent, the largest percentage increase of all the major accounts in the DoD budget. R&D is funded at a total of $77.3 billion, about $2.1 billion more than requested. Of note, the conference agreement provides funding for shipbuilding that totals $15 billion. This funding allows for the procurement of 5 ships and advance construction funding for an additional 5 ships above the President's request.

Funding of $3.9 billion is provided to fund the purchase of 20 F-22 aircraft, as requested. Additionally, the conference agreement recommends $2.7 billion for the procurement of 12 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and $2.0 billion for the procurement of 24 F/A-18E/F aircraft.

The conference agreement includes $99 million for modifications to the Air Force's combat search and rescue platform, the HH-60.

Funding for the Missile Defense Agency decreases to $8.6 billion from last year's level of $9.4 billion.

Defense Health Program

The Defense Health Program is funded at $23.5 billion, an increase of $0.9 billion above the President's request.

Major increases for this activity include: $70 million for the Wounded Warrior Assistance program; $138 million for peer reviewed breast cancer research; $80 million for prostate cancer research; and $10 million for ovarian cancer research.

HIV/AIDS research and prevention programs receive a total increase of $16 million in the conference agreement.

The conference agreement includes $50 million for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.

The conference agreement also includes $379 million to cover the ``efficiency wedge'' shortfall.

Special Operations Command

The conference agreement for the Special Operations Command is $5.5 billion, a slight increase to the President's request. This amount includes $3.3 billion for operation and maintenance, a reduction of $23 million from the President's request based on past obligations data and other reductions provided by the Command.

For procurement, the conferees recommend $1.8 billion, a decrease of $50 million from the request. This reduction includes a decrease of $23 million for equipment and modifications associated with one CV-22; the agreement provides that funding for one of the five mods requested can slip based on the ability of the contractor to outfit the aircraft. The conference agreement also includes a $19 million reduction for C-130 modifications associated with the 30 mm weapons program and problems

assimilating this weapon onto the C-130. Within the funding provided, an increase of $17 million is included for SPEAR body armor and eye protection.

Finally, for R&D the conference agreement includes $450 million, an increase of $5 million above the request. Within this amount, an increase of $5 million is provided for an ongoing Special OpslNavy joint program to improve UAV systems. This initiative is a high priority of the House Armed Services Committee.

Notable General Provisions

A provision is included allowing the Department of Defense general transfer authority of $3.7 billion. The Department requested transfer authority of $5 billion.

The conference agreement includes a general provision limiting the amount of reimbursable indirect costs on a basic research contract to not more than 35 percent of the total cost of the contract.

A new provision is included permitting a competitive expansion of domestic VIM/VAR steel production capacity.

A provision is retained from previous Defense Appropriations acts which prohibits the sale of F-22 fighters to foreign countries.

A provision is included appropriating $10 million for Fisher Houses.

Funds are provided to the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense system in a general provision. Also, funds are added for a study of future Israeli missile defense requirements.

A new provision is included which prohibits the Department from initiating new programs through reprogramming requests, as proposed by the House.

Another new provision proposed by the House is included which establishes a separate ``major force program'' budget and program designation for DoD's space programs. This will improve the Committee's oversight of these activities.

The conference agreement includes two provisions restricting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and prohibiting torture as carried in the House bill. These provisions are consistent with existing law.

The conference agreement includes a provision restricting the payment of any award fees to contractors who fail to meet contractual requirements.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order is not about whether or not to consider the rule on, ultimately, the funding of our troops, and indeed, the entire government, under a continuing resolution. In fact, I would say that it is simply an effort to try to kill the conference report, and on a faulty premise at that.

Every single earmark in this conference report has been properly disclosed in conformance with House rules. The blanket waiver against consideration of conference did not include a waiver of either clause 9 of rule XXI or House Resolution 491.

This parliamentary ruse won't work. We must consider this conference report, which fully supports our men and women, provides for our wounded warriors by providing for them and for their families, addresses the severe equipment shortfalls facing the National Guard and Reserves, and fully funds a pay increase for all servicemembers. In addition, this measure provides the funds necessary to respond to the wildfires of 2007 and provide continued disaster response and relief efforts.

Voting ``no'' on this question of consideration will prevent consideration of a critical package that has strong House and Senate bipartisan support.

So despite whatever roadblock the other side tries to use to stop the bill, we will stand up for our troops. We must consider this rule. We must pass this conference report today.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues and dear friends on the other side of the aisle that it was the democratic process and the Democrat Party that brought us section 491, and we are in complete compliance with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that this conference report is the standard conference report, the standard rule, and passed the Rules Committee 13-0. There were no dissenting votes from the Republicans at all about this rule. The report has been available since Tuesday. It meets all requirements for layover.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 806.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 806 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the important parts that I hope will answer some questions here. The rule is the standard conference report rule which waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points of order, the conference report does not violate either House Resolution 491 or clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI which require earmarks to be disclosed in the conference report and requiring conference reports to be in compliance with the PAYGO rule.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I visited the family of a critically injured soldier at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and I was reminded once again of a sign that stood outside a VA hospital in my former district, a sign that read, ``The price of liberty is visible here.''

This Monday, we will pay tribute to our brave men and women in uniform and remember that they truly are our country's greatest heroes. We must, therefore, do all we can to make certain that they receive the care and benefits that they have earned and the respect and recognition they deserve, not just today, but every single day.

I am proud to bring to the floor the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations legislation and a continuing resolution, the product of many months of hard work.

In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a smart and compassionate way to strengthen America's security and provide what is necessary for our troops.

We do so by investing in the safety and protection of our service men and women both at home and abroad, while providing them with the tools that are necessary to defend our country. This bill also invests in quality health care for military personnel and works to expand our Armed Forces to meet ever-changing threats to our national security.

The bill also determines how we as a Nation will spend our considerable resources, both at home and abroad, in order to best protect our fellow Americans, our shared values, and our common interests.

This agreement between the House and Senate prioritizes the preparation and safety of our Nation's men and women in uniform and, thus, honors our commitment to our military. It is a definitive statement that we will properly equip our troops before they deploy, provide them with support as they serve in harm's way, and ensure their dignified treatment upon their return.

To accomplish that goal, this bill provides $459 billion for the Department of Defense, a $39.7 billion or a 9.5 percent increase from 2007. The money allows us to invest in equipment, in training, and cutting-edge weaponry. Most importantly, however, it restores balance to our ground forces that are badly overstretched by 5 years of war and multiple extended deployments.

Make no mistake, our commitment to our fighting men and women does not end on the battlefield. It is our responsibility to ensure that each one is properly covered upon their return home. And I am proud to say that this bill does exactly that, by adding $70 million to fund programs authorized under the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act and providing $23.5 billion for defense health programs, which I must stress, is nearly $1 billion more than the President's request. And it is long overdue. Far too many veterans are left without the treatment that they need or have to wait far too long.

The dual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed an unimaginable strain on our military that will take many years to repair. To help remedy this problem, the conference report helps grow the military, including 7,000 new members of the Army, 5,000 new marines, and 1,300 new Army Guard to begin to help repair this strain.

It also fully funds a 3.5 percent pay increase for all servicemembers, and

while that is not nearly enough when low-level Blackwater contractors make as much money as four-star generals, it is a step forward.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, six U.S. soldiers were killed in three separate attacks across Iraq. Those tragic losses brought the number of U.S. soldiers killed to more than 850 this year, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war in Iraq. Let me repeat that. This year, the fifth year of combat in Iraq, is deadlier than any of the years that preceded it.

I would be remiss if I did not mention a New York Times article on a secret Pentagon study that found, and I hope everybody absorbs this, a secret study found that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper- body wounds in Iraq could have survived if they had been deployed with better body armor.

I was so deeply troubled by reports like these that I asked the Department of Defense's inspector general to investigate the Pentagon's procurement of both vehicle and body armor. The first report issued in July was heartbreaking in its tales of a manufacturer that was unable to produce the number of MRAP vehicles that it had committed to in its contract with DOD; ultimately, without doubt, costing some soldiers their very lives.

As we await the second report from the Pentagon on body armor procurement practices, the former CEO of one of those body armor manufacturers, David Brooks, was indicted on multiple counts of fraud by the United States Attorneys in eastern New York. He is accused of having enriched himself to the tune of over $180 million at the expense of the safety of our Armed Forces. I await the report from the inspector general on how that contract was given. It is unconscionable.

I am relieved to say in light of these findings, the conference report fittingly directs $11.6 billion to the procurement of MRAP vehicles and increases funding for the body armor and other protective equipment which I hope will be closely monitored by this Congress which is trying so hard to keep up with some oversight that has been missing for over 6 years.

The conference report today also provides all of those deploying, deployed, and returning with the resources that they, their families, and our veterans need to sustain them through a time of war. But all of the body armor in the world, all of the MRAPs, cannot stop the violence in Iraq and prevent the casualties and deaths of our young men and women facing combat in Iraq.

It is my fervent hope and desire that we can bring our troops home before next year becomes the deadliest year in this tragic war.

As we face troubles abroad, Mr. Speaker, we here at home are constantly reminded of the toll that the war in Iraq is taking on our national security. The dire shortage of National Guard equipment was underscored these past few weeks as America watched with horror the wildfires devastating Southern California.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that only half of California's National Guard equipment was available because much of it, almost a billion dollars' worth, had been left in Iraq.

In my home State of New York, the National Guard is operating with 40 percent of its equipment and only 35 percent of its trucks and authorized vehicles. Simply put, we cannot afford to continue shortchanging our domestic priorities.

To help put our priorities and Nation back in order, Mr. Speaker, today we will provide $500 million to respond to the California wildfires, along with allocating $2.9 billion to FEMA for continued disaster relief efforts and $3 billion for the ``Road Home'' program to assist people who are still searching for homes damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Additionally, we add $980 million for the National Guard and Reserve to replenish their equipment which has become so strained due to our conflicts abroad.

Mr. Speaker, let us honor the service of our troops, their families, and America's veterans by passing this conference report and fulfilling our commitment to those who sacrifice so much.

I hope my colleagues will use the upcoming Veterans Day to reflect on what kind of an America they wish to create for future generations. And it is my hope that we in Congress take the question very seriously in the coming months and years ahead.

I have faith in this body, just as I have faith in this Nation, that we will possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is wrong. The future of our national security depends on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 806 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit for the Record an article from Congressional Quarterly Today, dated October 23, 2007, and a copy of page 289 from this bill.

[From CQ Today, Oct. 23, 2007]

Item in War Request Stokes Fears of Iran Strike

(By John M. Donnelly)

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush's funding

request to enable B-2 ``stealth'' bombers to carry a new

30,000-pound ``bunker buster'' bomb is a sign of plans for an

attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending

proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a

request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can

drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional

bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon

designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary, accompanying the supplemental

spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s

to carry the bombs came in response to ``an urgent

operational need from theater commanders.'' The summary

provided no further details. The White House and the Air

Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional

clarification.

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the

program's contractors,

along with interviews with military experts, suggest the

weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found

chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects developing nuclear

weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested

a nuclear device.

Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy

to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But

his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster

comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric

about Iran's nuclear program in recent days.

On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear armed Iran could lead to

``World War III.'' Three days later, Vice President Dick

Cheney warned of ``serious consequences'' if Tehran continued

to enrich uranium.

Against that backdrop, the proposed funding for bunker

busters has some in Congress worried.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House

Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe

the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran

as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose

the funding.

``That's a clear red flag,'' Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush's war

policies, said the funding request was the latest of many

signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on

Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his ``biggest fear

between now and the election.''

``We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker

buster,'' he said. ``They've been banging the drums the same

way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.''

Stealth Delivery

The Boeing Co., in conjunction with Elgin Air Force Base in

Florida, has been developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator

for several years and first tested the bomb in March. The 15-

ton bomb would be dropped by B-52 or B-2 bombers.

In June, the Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2, won

a $2.5 million contract from the Air Force to retrofit the

bat-winged, stealth bombers so they could drop the new

weapon. The new funding, if approved, would significantly

expand that initiative.

The B-2 made its battlefield debut during the Kosovo War in

1999. It is optimal for use against sophisticated enemy air

defenses because its radar-evading surface is difficult to

detect.

In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon

was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign

being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They

said the MOP could prove useful against other targets,

notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be

producing nuclear weapons materials.

``A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely

hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or

North Korea,'' said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with

the conservative military think tank, the Lexington

Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense

contractors.

``Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of

military action is receding as the Pyongyang government

becomes more tractable,'' said Thompson, referring to recent

progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to

dismantle its nuclear programs.

John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence policy

with Globalsecurity.org, said the MOP could be used against

Iran's main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

``It'll go through it like a hot knife through butter,''

Pike said. He noted that the B-2 would be the best aircraft

to deliver the bomb ``if you want it to be a surprise

party.''

It is not clear how quickly the new weapon could be ready

for delivery by a B-2 if the $88 million were enacted. A

spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined to provide a time

frame.

Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear

bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of

Democrats concerned about Bush administration's earlier plans

to conduct research on nuclear models.

``We need to have this as a conventional weapon,'' said

Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense

Appropriations Subcommittee. ``It adds to our deterrent.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget

R-1 Request House Senate Conference ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING............... 12,622 12,622 15,622 15,022

AT-68 for the Air National Guard........................ ........... ........... 3,000 2,400 70 B-2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER.......................... 244,019 289,219 292,019 297,819

AF Requested transfer for Radar Modernization Program... ........... 38,000 38,000 38,000

Small Diameter Bomb..................................... ........... 7,200 ........... 5,800

Massive Ordnance Penetrator for B-2..................... ........... ........... 10,000 10,000 71 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SYSTEMS.............................. 290,059 190,059 98,059 105,000

Contract award delay.................................... ........... -100,000 -192,000 -86,059

Transfer to Line 57, Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, ........... ........... ........... -99,000

only for H-60 upgrades................................. 72 ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.......................... 101,649 103,149 103,649 103,249

Rapid Replacement of Mission Critical Logistics ........... 1,500 2,000 1,600

Electronic Components.................................. 76 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.................................... 53,412 53,412 65,412 64,412

Space Control Test Capabilities......................... ........... ........... 5,000 4,000

RAIDRS Block 20 (Air Force unfunded requirement)........ ........... ........... 7,000 7,000 77 SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS....................... 187,804 197,604 187,804 197,604

Space Fence............................................. ........... 9,800 ........... 9,800 79 SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD............ 587,004 614,604 587,004 587,004

MCSB Upgrade............................................ ........... 27,600 ........... 0 80 ALTERNATIVE INFRARED SPACE SYSTEM (AIRSS)............... 230,887 75,887 75,000 75,887

Program Growth.......................................... ........... -155,000 -155,887 -155,000 82 ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT........................... 1,985 3,485 1,985 3,185

1-1000 Warhead Technology Demonstration................. ........... 1,500 ........... 1,200 84 AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.................................... 10,623 12,623 10,623 12,223

Improvised Ordnance Detonator-Advanced Development...... ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600 86 LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.................................... 12,649 13,649 12,649 13,649

ACES II Ejection Seat Improvement....................... ........... 1,000 ........... 1,000 88 INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A)........ 189 13,189 8,189 17,589

Program Engineering Interoperability Framework.......... ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600

Enterprise Services for Reach Back Capabilities (ESRBC). ........... 3,000 ........... 3,000

MEDSTARS Integration with Global Combat Support System.. ........... 2,000 ........... 1,600

Airborne Web Services (AWS) Spiral 5.................... ........... 1,000 ........... 800

Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT)..... ........... 5,000 ........... 4,000

ASSET eWing and Data Fusion Technology Integration Base. ........... ........... 5,000 4,000

Global Awareness Presentation Services (GAPS)........... ........... ........... 3,000 2,400 89 INTELLIGENCE EQUIPMENT.................................. 1,469 1,469 5,969 5,069

Electronic Warfare Modeling, Simulation and Wireless ........... ........... 4,500 3,600

Testing Center......................................... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have made known in the course of hundreds of speeches the last few years my opposition to the war in Iraq, so I don't need to elaborate on that. I have a bill in H.R. 1234 that would bring our troops home and set in motion an international peacekeeping and security plan that would enable that to move in as our troops leave. I believe the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

But I rise today to inject a note of caution into these proceedings about an item in this appropriation which could have enormous consequences for United States policy with respect to Iran.

It has been well reported that there is a provision in this bill that will enable the modification of B-2 Stealth bombers so that they can drop what is called a bunker buster or massive ordnance penetrators, as they are called, that would go to destroy deep underground targets. Every defense analyst who has been interviewed about this item has suggested that there is one reason and one reason only why this request was expedited by the administration, and that is to retrofit these B-2 bombers so they will be able to drop 30,000-pound bombs on Iran.

Now, I know there are Members of this House who would, perhaps, support a strike against Iran. I don't. I think diplomacy is the preferred path here.

But I think that if we are looking at this item that is number 70 on page 289, we cannot approve of this without thinking of the consequences of the administration's approach. Because if you drop 30,000-pound bombs, bunker busters, on nuclear research labs, this is, in effect, creating a humanitarian and ecological disaster. There is just no way to avoid it, because you are

talking about the release of radiation that's inevitable from dropping such a bomb.

Now, some could say, well, that's the idea. It cannot be the idea. We are talking about a war crime in motion here. This would have the effect of, perhaps, Chernobyl, which released radiation and ruined, poisoned land in Russia. It would have human health effects that would be catastrophic.

We have got to think about the implications of this particular item. I think it's really important that Congress reflect on it. That's why I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 806 under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

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

H. Res. 491 says it shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber.

It's unfortunate, just like the Labor-HHS bill, the majority has reported a rule that waives all points of order. Yet, I have to ask here: if we've done everything right, if we've done the transparency that we committed to earlier in the year, why are we waiving all points of order against the bill? Why are we doing this again, second time this week?

We have these transparency rules that we hyped at the beginning of the year that we aren't going to have air-dropped earmarks into a conference report that can't be challenged; yet here again, here we go, waiving all points of order against the bill. That is why I am raising the point of order against the rule; it's the only option I have to highlight what is going on here.

In a press conference in March, the Speaker of the House said: ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''

The majority leader, in March, said: ``Let no one be mistaken, after the earmark explosion under Republican leadership, Democrats have led the way in bringing transparency and accountability to earmarks.'' It appears that we're not doing that now.

The majority leader also said: ``This is a new day and a new Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our values of openness and transparency.''

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when you have a conference report and we finally get a look at it last night, less than 12 hours ago or so, and there are more than two dozen earmarks air-dropped into it, this is the first we've seen of them, we haven't seen any of them before this time, that is not the model of transparency. That is not openness. We have no ability to challenge those earmarks. None. We can't highlight them and say you vote up or down on this earmark.

The joint explanatory statement says that there are 24 Defense earmarks that were not passed by either Chamber, costing $59 million. Let me give you just one example of what's in there. There is one of these earmarks, $3 million earmark in the Defense bill, remember, this is the Defense bill we're talking about, a $3 million earmark for a program, according to The Hill newspaper, intended to attract disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf. This is the game of golf in a Defense bill. Is it any wonder, should anybody be surprised that this was an earmark that was air-dropped into the conference report when we don't have the ability in this Chamber to challenge it? This is the only opportunity we have, a procedural vote, as to whether to move forward on the rule. Now, that is not openness, that is not transparency.

It's often brought up that the Republicans, when we were in charge, we did the same thing. We did, and we played the political price for it. We shouldn't have done it. It shouldn't excuse what's going on today. This is supposed to be a new day in Congress. This is business as usual. This is par for the course, to use a bad pun, to put a golf earmark in a Defense bill, and to hide it until the last day, until nobody can challenge it anymore.

Now, we may think that that's cute here, but I can tell you people across the country have got to be incensed with it. And we felt the brunt of it, as Republicans, last year. I would suggest that, unless the majority party sees its way clear to change this practice, they're going to feel the brunt of it as well.

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

I would be glad to yield time to the gentlewoman if she would inform us as to why all points of order were waived against the bill itself. This is not a parliamentary ruse here. This is a response to a parliamentary ruse. The parliamentary ruse is air-dropping earmarks into a bill and then waiving all points of order against or waiving all points of order against that bill so all we can do here is raise a point of order against the rule itself. So the parliamentary ruse here was actually used by the majority party to hide these earmarks, in particular a $3 million earmark for golf in the Defense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

May I inquire as to the time remaining on my side?

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's get down to the bottom line about what this is about. At the beginning of the year, we were promised transparency. We were promised that if earmarks were dropped in to a conference report, if they weren't considered by either the House or the Senate, that we would have the opportunity to challenge those earmarks, that we would have the opportunity to shine a light on them, to actually see what they are about. We are not getting that opportunity because we have waived the rule. What good are rules if they are waived routinely?

Let me say, this is not our rule on this side. We were glad to see it. But it is the majority's rule, and it is being waived. It is no surprise here when you look at the earmarks that are in, 24 earmarks, some of them are to private companies. These are sole-sourced contracts, single-source contracts, no-bid contracts to private companies and to universities. We have no opportunity to see what they are about. None. We just got the list 24 hours ago. We don't have the opportunity to challenge those.

The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, many media outlets over the past couple of weeks have raised issues about these defense contracts, the ones that went through the House and the Senate, whether or not they are appropriate, whether they are linked to campaign contributions coming back, a whole host of questions are raised; yet we have no ability here, because the rules are waived, and we can't even challenge these.

And then when you see an earmark for golf in the Defense bill, you have to say, you know, did they intend on hiding this? Would that withstand the scrutiny when it comes to the floor? We have the Woodstock earmark over in the Senate, the hippie museum that didn't withstand the scrutiny. We had one over here on this side this year that didn't withstand the scrutiny. I raised a couple of earmarks, one of which the sponsor came to the floor before I could get here to withdraw his own earmark. In another case, the majority party Appropriations Committee went to the Rules Committee and said remove these earmarks because there is questions about them. That is just on a few earmarks we were able to challenge.

So there may well be those questions here, as well. Or, you have to wonder if this Caddyshack earmark would have made it through the scrutiny that would have come had we been able to challenge it in the House. Or would enough Members say, you know, maybe we shouldn't be funding golf in the Defense bill.

Is it any wonder that an earmark for golf is hidden in the Defense bill? That is what we have to ask.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I think this is a very good bill.

As has been mentioned during the debate on the rule, maybe someone else might have written it a little bit differently. I don't think any legislation is ever totally perfect, but this is a good package. It's a good bipartisan package. The subcommittee worked hard; had many, many hearings; required the military to justify the requests; and we have come up with a pretty good bill.

Chairman Murtha has chaired this subcommittee before we became the majority, then I chaired the subcommittee for 6 years, now he is chairman again. We have always worked this bill together in the best interests of the United States of America and the troops who provide our defense and that support us.

Mr. Murtha mentioned the pay raise. Yes, we did give a pay raise. We wish we could have given more. But the 3.5 percent was more than was requested in the budget request.

We are also providing funding for increasing the size of our military. And I don't think anyone would deny the fact that our military is tired. They are being used and deployed a lot. And so I think it is appropriate that we increase the size of military, especially the Army and the Marine Corps.

Some other things were mentioned by the Members speaking on the rule, so I'm not going to repeat them, but I will submit for the Record a written statement.

But there are two points that I want to make: one is, as Mr. Murtha suggested briefly, the growth in shipbuilding. Do you remember President Ronald Reagan thought that the United States should have a 600-ship Navy to guarantee that we had free access to the international waters of this planet of ours? If we don't take the direction that this subcommittee recommends, we would be below 300 ships in our Navy, and that is not big enough.

And so we provide the LPD-17 that was requested by the administration. We provide advance funding, which is in addition to the request, advance funding for a second LPD-17, which the Navy strongly supports. But one of the Navy's premier programs is the Littoral Combat Ship, the LCS. We provided for four ships; the other body did not have the same number. We prevailed, and the funding for up to four ships that the Navy really feels they need for naval superiority are in this bill.

Now the last point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. So many times in our hearings soldiers who would fight on the ground, marines who would invade on the beaches have told us over and over again that they will go anywhere that their country sends them, they will fight any fight that their country asks them to fight, but when they do, if there is an aircraft overhead, they want that aircraft to be an American airplane manned by an American crew.

Our air superiority weapon today is the F-15, a very, very good aircraft, but very old. The F-15 is older than some of the Members in this Chamber. The F-15 is now suffering some metal fatigue. And as you know, the F-15 fleet has been grounded because one of our planes basically came apart in midair in Missouri. And so we provide funding for the F-22, which is the follow-on to the F-15, an aircraft that will guarantee America's air superiority. So it's important that we fund this package of fighter aircraft. It is important that if we send a soldier or marine or any member of our military services to war, that the air over head will be controlled by the United States of America and not by an enemy. And so this bill goes a long way towards accomplishing air superiority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on Defense appropriations for fiscal year 2008.

This agreement totals over $459 billion, and is $3.5 billion below the President's request. However, it is almost $40 billion above the fiscal year 2007 level. It contains $11.6 billion in emergency funding for additional MRAP vehicles for use by the Army and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This conference report provides for a number of Presidential and Congressional priorities, including: $6 billion in equipment to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps; restoration of the $1.9 billion cut in the Defense Health program associated with proposed increases in insurance co-payments that have not been authorized by Congress; an additional $980 million in equipment for the National Guard and Reserve, which is important for disaster response throughout the country, including the Gulf Coast; full funding for the Congressionally proposed 3.5 percent pay increase for the military; $4.1 billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter and $3.1 billion to procure twenty F-22 aircraft; the F-22 program becomes even more important with the revelation that some F-15s are experiencing metal fatigue; procurement and advance procurement for 10 ships for the Navy, including initial funding for the next-generation aircraft carrier.

There is one item not in this conference agreement that I wish we were addressing today. For the past 3 years we have provided a Bridge Fund to allow the Defense Department to finance war on terror operations until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill in the spring. Last year's bridge totaled $70 billion for 6 months of war operations and was broadly supported by both sides of the aisle. This conference report contains no such funding.

When this Defense conference report is enacted into law, Defense spending will drop out of the continuing resolution. So will funding under the fiscal year 2007 Bridge Fund. Without this authority, the Department of Defense will be forced to use base funds to support the operations of the global war on terror. By mid to late January, the Army will run out of money.

We need to move quickly in the next few weeks to address this shortfall. Our troops in the field need our support, no matter what position we take on the war.

I know there are many on the other side of the aisle that do not want to support war on terror funding. Ironically, by voting for this conference report without a Bridge Fund, everyone voting for this bill will be effectively voting to support war operations. The question is whether we do so by forcing the Department to use base funds in this bill, or by enacting a Bridge Fund, or by allowing current rates to continue until enactment of a supplemental appropriations bill.

Aside from that, however, I want to reiterate my support for this conference report. I appreciate the cooperation and courtesy shown by my Chairman, Mr. Murtha, throughout this process.

I also want to thank the members of the Defense subcommittee for their contributions to this conference report, especially those on the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Hobson, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Kingston, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, all made important contributions to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that I strongly support this legislation, and urge its adoption by the House.

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