Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of Mrs. Nancy Sutton, as she

celebrates her 93rd birthday on June 29. Mrs. Sutton is a selfless volunteer who constantly puts others ahead of herself. She is a valuable asset to Fayette County, Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, Mrs. Sutton worked hard during her long and varied career, which included working in retail in Uniontown. Following her retirement, she began to volunteer at her local Social Security Office during the 1980s and 1990s for a period of over 10 years. She still actively volunteers for the American Cancer Society, where she has volunteered for many years. In addition, Mrs. Sutton has been an active member of the Marshall Manor Resident Council since she became a resident in February 1973. She has served as president of the council and has coordinated and cooked monthly dinners for the manor's residents. Mrs. Sutton helps her fellow residents by driving them to medical appointments, picking up prescriptions, and helping with grocery shopping.

Mrs. Sutton was appointed as the tenant representative to the Fayette County Housing Authority's Board of Directors on February 8, 2001. She has served as the secretary of the board since her appointment.

Madam Speaker, Mrs. Nancy Sutton is truly a great and caring American. I wish to end my remarks by congratulating her on her 93rd birthday and for all of her community accomplishments.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Skelton and I rise to honor the life of King George Pittman, who, at the age of 87, passed away on Tuesday, June 10, 2008. A man who was extremely proud of his heritage and the military, King George Pittman lived a full and eventful life.

A native of Florida, Mr. Pittman was the fourth youngest of twelve children born in Tallahassee to Williams Pittman and Carrie Tansy Pittman. There he attended Lincoln High School and was a member of Philadelphia Primitive Baptist Church. At the age of 21, he joined the U.S. Army.

Mr. Pittman served in the U.S. Army from May 22, 1941 to December 14, 1956. He fought in World War II and the Korean War. He earned eight different awards for his service. He received the Good Conduct Medal Bronze Clasp with Three Loops for his loyalty, knowledge, vigilance and merit. He received the Purple Heart for his bravery. In addition to these, he received the World War II Victory Medal, the Korean Service Medal with one Bronze Service Star, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation badge and the Honorable Service Lapel Button World War II. Although he received all of these awards, his family never knew of his many accomplishments. He served his country with distinction, and was modest to say the least.

A brother, uncle, great uncle, friend and neighbor, Mr. Pittman was a proud man who leaves behind his sister, and our former colleague, retired U.S. Representative Carrie P. Meek, a constant source of his pride.

He also leaves a nephew, and our current colleague, Congressman Kendrick B. Meek of Florida, who proudly serves on the House Armed Services Committee, an assignment that surely put a smile on King's face. King found pride in all of his family, including nephews Samuel Pittman and Charles Bellamy, nieces, Lucia Raiford, Sheila Kinui, Betty Jean Pittman and Katrina Presley.

For his patriotic efforts in the Korean War in particular, King has rated burial at Arlington National Cemetery, a high honor and memorial for a war hero. The Korean War was too significant to neglect, too momentous to ignore, too pivotal to be disregarded, and far too costly to be forgotten. And, so we take this moment to honor King, one of its many heroes.

And, he is honored even more by the great family he leaves behind with us. King George Pittman lived a long and fulfilling time. He can now rest in the arms of the God he cherished and served. Mr. Pittman will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, today we once again consider a supplemental spending bill for our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The spending bill before us represents a compromise between both the House and Senate. It provides funding to take care of our troops in the field through the balance of fiscal year 2008, and through June 2009. The funding in this bill closely follows our vision of ``looking beyond the war in Iraq.''

For fiscal year 2008 this supplemental includes:

$825 million for National Guard and Reserve Equipment;

$1.6 billion for HMMWVs;

$3.1 billion for Medium and Heavy Tactical Trucks;

$102 million for Land Warrior equipment sets for next-to-deploy units;

$1.2 billion for various Joint Unmet Operational Needs as identified by the Department of Defense, but not included in the budget request;

$500 million for Army and Marine Corps Facility Maintenance and Repairs (this includes barracks);

$300 million for Facility Maintenance and Repairs at DoD medical treatment facilities;

$94.9 million for Wounded Warrior efforts;

$50 million for Family Advocacy Programs;

$570 million for treatment and research activities within the Defense Health Program; and

$3.5 billion to address the increasing cost of fuel that was not included in the budget request.

For fiscal year 2009 this supplemental includes:

$1.2 billion for military personnel and $51.9 billion for operation and maintenance. This is sufficient funding to maintain all anticipated military operations through June 2009;

$394.8 million for Bradley base sustainment;

$390.2 million for HMMWV recapitalization;

$1.1 billion for the Defense Health Program; and

$2.0 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund.

This is a good piece of legislation, and I'd ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this bill.

Well, as Bill Young said, we worked together when he was chairman. When Jerry was chairman, we worked together.

The only thing I disagree with, when it comes to the floor, I am not sure I like to hear a lot about amendments. I mean, you know, I like to see it try to work in a hurry.

But, anyway, I am concerned, when I heard the other day the Secretary of Defense say that the United States military must prepare for more fighting, future wars against insurgents and militias, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than spend money and time preparing for conventional conflicts.

Overemphasizing the Department's focus on training and equipment for counterinsurgency missions appears to be simply a rationalization of a short-term budget decision made in the waning months of this administration. I am worried because we have been saying over and over again, let's look beyond Iraq, let's make sure we get the military back to the position where it should be.

These decisions have left the Armed Forces in a degraded state of readiness. Both of us, when Jerry was chairman, when Bill was chairman, we have tried to increase the amount of money for the military to increase our readiness without the support of the administration in many cases.

They have let the facilities, which directly impact service personnel, quality of life, in disrepair. Every place we have gone we have seen the disrepair. They have left many defense acquisition programs broken or badly damaged.

I sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense saying, Mr. Secretary, we have got some real problems here. We have got to fix these procedures by sending a budget up to it. We have got to stop the supplementals, put it in one budget so we can have some semblance of order when we look at these decisions. These decisions fail to take into account the potential missions the U.S. armed forces must prepare for and may have to undertake in the years ahead.

I find these comments questionable that he has made at a time when not one combat unit in the United States is rated as combat ready. We need a national strategy. We have tried to provide a national strategy to identify both near term and long-term threats to this country. We need a vigorous debate to achieve this strategy, and it hasn't happened since the Cold War.

Now, I hope that in the base bill and this supplemental we are moving in that direction. I hope that's what we are going to be able to accomplish.

Now, we spend more money on intelligence than any other country in the world. Put them all together, and we spend more money. I have got Punxsutawney Phil in my district. Punxsutawney Phil comes out once a year, he sees his shadow, and 50 percent of the time he is right.

Well, I will tell you, I wouldn't say that the intelligence effort that we spend so much money on is any more than that, because so many things have not been right.

I am concerned that if we don't pay attention to what we know, we who have been here a long time, we are not going to be prepared not only to fight a war, but to prevent a war. We can no longer be the world's policeman, and I think all of us understand that.

We need to rebuild our diplomatic alliances, and we need to restore our international credibility. Our military and diplomatic force must include the strengths of our allies. We cannot do it alone.

Now, let me say in this bill we have $3.6 billion for C-17s. We produced 34 C-130s. We went through it with the subcommittee in detail. We had to make some changes because the full committee wanted us to make some changes, $3 billion for medium and heavy trucks. I remember when we went to Saudi Arabia the first time, we asked General Schwarzkopf, what was the biggest shortage, and he said trucks.

We have tried to take care of the things we realize need to be done. We put money in for Humvees and Marine Corps facility maintenance, and we put in for medical maintenance. We transferred money to the military construction committee, and they made the decision where that money should go--and $570 billion--no one in Congress, probably in the history of Congress, paid more attention to medical care for the military than Mr. Lewis, Mr. Young and myself. We have tried to be in the forefront in making sure that they have what they need in order to take care of the troops.

As a matter of fact, we put money in some years ago for a center to take care of the amputees, and it took them awhile to understand that we were serious about it, but it happened. I am proud to say that is working very effectively.

So what we have done under the Constitution is appropriate the money where we think it will do the most good, and we will continue to do that. This is a good bill, and I hope Members vote for it so we can get the money to the troops that they need.

Will the gentleman yield?

We did have a meeting, and I explained the part of our bill to the subcommittee, and we had no dissension at all. We had a lot of suggestions. We spent a long time on the bill. We spent at least an hour, much more time than we usually spend on a bill.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Yough Cougar Rocketry team from Yough High School in Herminie, Pennsylvania. The Cougar Rocketry was the only team from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania chosen to participate in the 2008 NASA Student Launch Initiative and is one of only eighteen teams selected nationally. The team was also selected in 2007.

NASA describes the Student Launch Initiative as a program which ``involves middle and high school students in designing, building and testing reusable rockets with associated scientific payloads.'' The program allows students to demonstrate their design's proof-of-concept and allows them to apply previously abstract concepts to hands-on work. Each team works to build a vehicle that is to reach an altitude of one mile above ground level. The finale of each team's work ends with a launch at Marshall Space Flight Center.

Madam Speaker, the members of the Yough Cougar Rocketry team, whom I would like to personally recognize, include Ms. Stephanie Abbott, Ms. Amy Bickerstaff, Ms. Alicia Bowser, Mr. Josh Sarosinski, and Ms. Ashley Wiley. Mr. Donald Gilbert, Jr. is the team's teacher and advisor and Mr. Eric Haberman is the team's mentor from Westinghouse Corporation. I commend them all for their tremendous work.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of L. Robert Kimball & Associates to recognize the service and work of L. Robert Kimball, founder and chairman of the board. As a military veteran and respected businessman, Mr. Kimball is the epitome of the American entrepreneur. His original two- person civil engineering company, founded in 1953, has grown to a full-service architecture, engineering, technology, and consulting firm of over 600 staff serving a wide variety of clients, including the Federal Government.

Mr. Kimball served as a U.S. Army Air Corps Captain in World War II and as a Major in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Korean conflict. Among his World War II military decorations are the Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, and the French Croix de Guerre. He is also a recipient of the Chapel of the Four Chaplains Legion of Honor Award.

Following his military service, Mr. Kimball returned to his hometown of Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, and established the company known as ``L. Robert Kimball, Civil Engineer.'' In the 1960s, the firm began providing service to branches of the United States military. Today, Kimball provides professional services to, among others, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Those services include cutting-edge building, innovative modeling, laser terrain scanning, and telecommunication system modernization.

The firm's reputation for consistent delivery of high-caliber services is a direct result of the discipline and integrity that L. Robert Kimball instilled throughout the company. The example he sets of leadership and teamwork can be traced back to his military service to the United States of America as a lead navigator for the 100th Bomb Group, where he set the flight course. It was a matter of life and death to make the right decisions and to work as a team to look out for the others in the squadron. Those principles apply to the course he sets for staff. He encourages every employee to be a good professional and a good citizen.

With that, Madam Speaker, I recognize and congratulate Mr. L. Robert Kimball.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the late Lt. Col. Albert P. Barry, USMC (Ret.). On December 2, 2007, Lt. Col. Barry passed away at his South Carolina home with his loving wife, Mrs. Elizabeth Taylor Barry, by his side. On January 16, 2008, he received full U.S. Marine Corps honors at Arlington National Cemetery. The date was very special in that it would have been Al and Liz's 20th wedding anniversary.

Madam Speaker, Al lived a full and courageous life even through his battle with glioblastoma, terminal brain cancer. He refused to give up and he and Liz filled their last year with hope, prayer, and as much laughter as possible. Sustained by family and all those who knew him well, Al's reaction was typical of the Marine within. He had been given his ``orders''--by physicians this time--and he set out to ``beat it.'' He never complained--and never failed to be Al Barry.

Albert P. Barry was born on April 12, 1936, in New Haven, Connecticut. He earned a Bachelor's Degree at Tufts University and a Master's Degree at Syracuse University. In 1958, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps, was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in December 1959, and retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1979. His 21-year active duty service in the Marine Corps included tours with three Marine Divisions. He served as a Marine Barracks Commanding Officer in the Personnel Management and Assignment Office at Marine Corps Headquarters, and completed his career in the Liaison Office to the United States Senate from July 1975 until November 1979. He spent two tours in the Vietnam War with duty as an Aerial Observer; he served as a Battery Commander twice, a Battalion Operations Officer, an Assistant Regimental Operations Officer, and a Marine Amphibious Unit Operations Officer and Fire Support Coordinator. He received many notable personal decorations during his military service, which include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star with Combat ``V,'' the Air Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal with the Combat ``V,'' the Navy Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Presidential Unit Citation, the Navy Unit Citation, the Vietnam Staff Service Honor Medal and other campaign medals.

Following his U.S. Marine Corps Service, Mr. Barry served as a Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate and was appointed in 1981 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. He was awarded the Department of Defense Civilian Distinguished Service Medal in 1985.

Mr. Barry's professional positions included Director of Legislative Affairs for Sikorsky Aircraft, Director of Washington Operations for Pneumo Abex Corporation, and Vice President of Washington Operations for AAI Corporation. He was active in defense and industrial associations, and officially retired in March of 2006.

Surviving family in addition to his wife, Elizabeth, include eight children, two step-children, five sons-in-law, one daughter-in-law, and eleven grandchildren. The children are Barbara Barry, Emily Helm, Paul Barry, Kathleen Mullins, Eileen Macleay, Beatrice McMurrer, Sarah Smith, Matthew Barry, Tanya Taylor, and Tom Taylor.

Madam Speaker, Lt. Col. Albert Barry was a true American Patriot. He was a man who loved his family and did his duty to his country. He was unselfish in service and he was a great friend to many, including myself. I want to conclude my remarks by commending him for his life well lived and I want to thank him for his many years of service in helping to make our country great.

As the gentleman from Florida said, we just passed a $459 billion bipartisan Defense appropriation bill, and it funds the troops, it funds the health care, it funds almost all the Defense Department. It does not fund the war in Iraq.

Now, when I spoke out 2 years ago, I said we need stability in the Middle East. All of us want stability in the Middle East. We can talk about Iraq, but it's not in isolation that you talk about Iraq. You have to talk about Pakistan and what's happening in Pakistan and why we haven't had an overall diplomatic success there. You can talk about Turkey, on the verge with tanks moving towards the border and might go into Kyrkystan, which would completely disrupt what is going on in Iraq.

You can talk about Iran and the policy that we have had in Iraq and how it has disappointed us with the influence that Iran has gained. When we were attacked, Iran was one of the first countries to come to the support of the United States with their concern about what had happened, their concern about al Qaeda.

What we are trying to do here today is stop torture. We do it by saying the Army Field Manual has to be the guideline for torture. If you're going to have prisoners, and I have talked to service people, Colin Powell agrees with this, Gates agrees with this, almost all the military understands if you don't have guidelines set by the Army Field Manual, it hurts our troops. It's pretty hard to argue. If you're for torture, I don't say you vote for this or you vote against this bill, but this stops torture by saying you've got to comply with the Army Field Manual.

The other thing we say in this bill is you have to have fully equipped and fully trained troops. Can anybody argue about that? Is there anybody that can say to me we shouldn't have fully trained and fully equipped troops? I don't think so.

The other thing, it sets a goal. And the goal is to start the redeployment out of Iraq and have them out within a year. That doesn't mean that we are going to necessarily get it, but we have to start it. At some time we have to convince the Iraqis that we need to change the direction and they are going to have to take responsibility. I think they have started that. I think we have backed off a little bit.

What we did in Vietnam was make the mistake that every time they made a mistake, we took over. In this particular case, we have to let the Iraqis continue to do their job.

Now, the government has let us down; there is no question about it. The government has not changed the policies. There has been ethnic cleansing. There have been 4 million people ethnically cleansed either by sending them out of the country or by moving them from Sunni areas into Shiite areas or vice versa.

This is one of the reasons that the military commanders have said over and over, the Iraqis are finally taking an interest. The al Qaeda has been defeated, according to what the military commanders are saying.

What is the point in us being there if al Qaeda has been defeated? I said a couple of years ago, there are only 2 or 3,000 al Qaeda, and the Iraqis know where they are and know what they have to do to take care of them.

I am convinced that this bill starts to force the Congress to have oversight. We are the board of directors, somebody said to me today. The President is the executive officer. We are the board of directors. When the board of directors sees the policies going in the wrong way, and actually, the people of the United States are the board of directors and we act for the board of directors by the people of the United States. If we think it is going the wrong way, we have to change the policy.

This is a change in policy. This holds the President accountable for the decisions he is making. It doesn't tie the commanders' hands. No torture. They are supplied with equipment and training. That is not tying the hands of the commanders. And we are starting to get them out already.

Al Qaeda has been defeated. The civil war has wound down. It is time to get us out. Let's remember, stability in the Middle East doesn't depend just on Iraq. It depends on Pakistan with nuclear weapons or the possibility of nuclear weapons. Stability depends on Iran. Stability depends on Syria. Stability depends on Turkey, our allies. We need a diplomatic effort.

As I said and the Chief of the Joint Chiefs said, we cannot win this militarily; it has to be won by the Iraqis and it has to be won diplomatically.

This helps us hold the administration accountable, and I would ask for all Members to vote for a bill that changes the direction of this Congress and this country in this effort in Iraq.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14NO07.008

I would say to my good friend from New Jersey, he voted for the $459 billion bill where we had a CR that fully funded the MRAPs, fully funded, $16 billion for the year. We are not holding up the MRAPs. And we provided the transportation.

We were very careful with this bill. The gentleman knows how careful I am in taking care of the troops. The gentleman knows how careful he is in taking care of the troops. None of us are trying to put roadblocks in the way. What we are trying to do is hold the administration accountable for what they have done. We want stability in the whole Middle East, not just in Iraq. So we have got to focus also on the future of the country. Russia is starting to come up, China is starting to come up. And in our bill, which the gentleman from New Jersey was a part of, we started to look ahead. Iraq is occupying us as well as we occupying Iraq.

So I have to say to the gentleman, I just want to make sure we keep the facts straight. We have fully funded the MRAPS, even though it's costing $150,000 per MRAP to get them overseas because of the lateness of the request.

I want the Members to know I carry in my pocket the names of 18 people who have been killed from my district. Two years ago, I said this is a failed policy wrapped in illusion. I am absolutely convinced that there's more instability in the Middle East today than there was then.

This recommittal motion works against everything we are trying to do. We want a plan. We want a plan in Iraq. We want stability in the Middle East. We don't have stability. Pakistan, Afghanistan, and of course Turkey might even go into the Middle East. So when you talk about victory, you're talking about stability, which we don't have. It's absolutely essential to put a plan in place that holds the President accountable.

All this time the President has asked for things and we have given them to him. For 5 years we have said to the President of the United States, You need money, we are going to give to it you. Now we are saying we are going to have a new plan, and that plan is going to change the direction of this war, and we are going to bring those troops who fought so honorably home to their families.

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, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3222) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on H.R. 3222 be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be broached, providing that any sitting Member of the Congress shall be entitled to attend any meetings of the conference.

Madam Speaker, I rise before the House to congratulate the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (UPJ) as it celebrates its 80th anniversary and inaugurates its fifth president, Dr. Jem Spectar. In announcing Dr. Spectar's appointment, Pitt Chancellor Mark A. Nordenberg offered, ``Dr. Spectar is a visionary leader and a celebrated teacher with the skills and experience necessary to build effectively upon the strengths of our Johnstown campus and to enrich the lives of students, faculty, staff and administration.''

Officially founded in 1927, UPJ was first established in a wing of Johnstown Senior High School. A growing number of G.I. Bill students made it necessary for the college to relocate in 1946 to the Cyprus Avenue Elementary School. In the 1960s, the college and community led a drive to relocate UPJ from downtown Johnstown to its current location in Richland Township, a 635-acre wooded area with, initially, six academic buildings, a library, a student union-physical education complex and five residence halls.

The current campus was dedicated by former President Dwight D. Eisenhower in September 1967, almost 40 years to the day after UPJ first set up operations in Johnstown Senior High School. The campus has come a long way in 80 years. UPJ now boasts some 2,700 full-time and 450 part-time students, 70 student organizations, 143 faculty, 210 staff, nearly 40 campus buildings and more than 15,000 alumni.

Again, I offer my congratulations to UPJ for reaching the milestone of its 80th anniversary. I am confident that this excellent educational institution will continue to be a vital asset to the region for another 80 years to come.

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

Mr. Chairman, 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 about $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. DoD's research and development program request is the same as last year's level, a decrease in real terms due to several major programs having completed their R&D phase and moved into full-fledged production.

The Committee's reported bill meets its 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 Committee bill provides an increase for Defense of $39.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted level, or about 9.5 percent in nominal growth. With respect to outlays, the Committee bill is roughly $2.9 billion below the allocation.

In general, meeting the budget authority allocation required shifting funding for certain programs between the FY 2008 base budget bill and the FY 2008 war supplemental, to be considered in September. This largely affected appropriations for the Department's operation and maintenance activities. The bill recommends an overall reduction to the operation and maintenance accounts of some $5.7 billion below the request. Nonetheless, the bill fully funds home-station training, equipment maintenance, and other key military readiness programs covered in these accounts. Finally, notwithstanding a slight reduction to the military personnel pay accounts, all other major program activities, such as weapons procurement and R&D, are funded at or above the President's request.

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

The Basic Allowance for Housing shortfall.

The ground forces' strategic reserve readiness and equipment rehabilitation and recapitalization.

The purchase of at least ten C-l7 cargo aircraft, $2.5 billion, and MRAP vehicles, $4 billion or more.

The purchase of additional Blackhawk MEDEVAC helicopters.

The Department's Global Train and Equip program.

The Defense Health Program ``efficiency wedge'' shortfall.

Funding Strategy

For some time now, the Committee has expressed considerable concern over the erosion of DoD's fiscal discipline. That erosion is reflected primarily in the Department's use of supplemental funding to cover what were once considered to be base budget costs, particularly weapons modernization and force structure costs. As such, the Committee endeavored to begin restoring traditional funding criteria to the FY 2008 Defense base bill, and will do so when considering the upcoming war supplemental. Thus, recommendations for the base bill sustain non- war-related activities and prepare for future threats by funding enduring personnel benefits, force structure initiatives, such as Army modularity and ``Grow-the- Force'' programs, infrastructure improvements, home-station training, and weapons modernization programs. Conversely, recommendations for the FY 2008 supplemental will be tailored to funding those programs and incremental costs that are arguably related to the war.

Highlights

The Committee's recommendations achieve 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 Committee's recommendations are:

Supporting Our Troops and Their Families: First and foremost, the Committee recommends robust funding for programs important to the health, well-being, and readiness of our forces. In addition, the Committee 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.

Funding of about $2.2 billion is recommended to cover the full cost of a 3.5 percent military pay raise, as approved in the House's 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 bill, 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 Committee's recommendations provide for a 13 percent increase in funding for these activities over last year's level.

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 Committee recommends an important new initiative to assist the service in meeting this challenge. The Committee proposes adding $1.3 billion to the Army's facilities sustainment and restoration budget request to offset the growing infrastructure costs associated with the global repositioning of its forces. These funds will be used to fix barracks, improve child care facilities, and enhance community services at Army bases throughout the United States, Europe, and Korea. Funding for each project is itemized in the Committee report, consistent with the information provided by the Army. This funding, however, will only partially cover the Army's needs. As such, the Committee will address additional infrastructure cost requirements--particularly military construction costs--during consideration of the fiscal year 2008 emergency supplemental request. Further, the Committee intends to work with all the military services to better understand and respond to their basing and infrastructure needs during this time of upheaval.

Another initiative proposed by the Committee directly responds to the needs of our military families. Total funding of $2.9 billion is recommended for the military's family advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent's education programs. This amount is an increase of $558 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 Committee's recommendations continue its long tradition of supporting the Department's health programs. The Committee proposes 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 Committee bill fully covers the $1.9 billion shortfall in health funding created by the disapproval of DoD's proposed fee and premium increases by the House Armed Services Committee in its bill.

Protecting our forces abroad must be matched with a commitment to protect our forces and their families here at home. Thus, the Committee proposes a new initiative to enhance the security of military bases in the United States. Funding of $268 million is allocated for perimeter security force protection and related facility security improvements, an increase of $142 million over the President's budget request. These funds will be used to erect better perimeter fencing, provide more secure entry and exit controls, and improve situational awareness and response capabilities at military bases and hospitals.

Preparing for the Future: In 1796, President George Washington counseled the Nation to be, ``Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture.'' The Committee's recommendations abide by that counsel, providing robust funding for weapons systems purchases and research programs designed to meet future threats.

The Committee supports full funding, as requested, for key weapons procurements, including the F-22 and F-35 tactical fighter aircraft programs.

Increases above the President's request are allocated for development programs that address so-called ``asymmetric'' threats from weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. Additional funding of $15 million is provided to pursue cruise missile defense, $25 million for chemical and biological defense research programs, $26 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.

To support the Army's evolution to a larger, more lethal, and more rapidly deployable force, the Committee recommends adding funding of $1.1 billion to outfit a new, eighth Stryker brigade.

Testimony before the Committee revealed that our National Guard and Reserve forces continue to suffer from equipment shortfalls. To address this need, the Committee recommends providing an additional $925 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. Analyses completed in recent years about DoD's acquisition program all conclude that, without improving stability in these programs, it's quite likely that the military will not be able to achieve the numbers of weapons systems required to equip current force structure at the estimated costs. As such, the Committee is proposing a series of recommendations that would 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 Committee has responded by providing funds for an additional 5 ships. To purchase these ships, the Committee recommends adding a total of $3.7 billion 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 Committee 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 workflow technology. In addition, the Committee recommends adding $480 million to continue development of an alternative engine for this aircraft, thereby ensuring a competitive base for engine production.

Accountability: The Committee's fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer requires holding accountable organizations, officials, and programs that have performed poorly. Moreover, wasted resources and procedural abuses ultimately come at the expense of our military men and women. The Committee focused attention on the following issues:

Fiscal discipline: For some time, the Committee has raised concerns about the challenges facing the Department's financial managers. Some argue that fiscal discipline within the Department has eroded over time, severely constraining the Department's senior officials and the Congress' program and financial oversight. Regarding this matter, the Committee proposes several important initiatives to improve DoD's fiscal discipline and Congressional oversight. These are described in an appendix to this memorandum.

Contracting Out: The Committee also has registered concern about the Department's unabated appetite for contracting out services and functions once performed by military members or DoD civilians. Though clearly necessary to offset reductions in military and civilian personnel levels that occurred over time, the Committee believes that the Department has failed to adequately manage and oversee the growth in and cost-effectiveness of contracting out. It is also clear that the majority of DoD's service contractors has performed and will continue to perform well. Yet, abuses by some organizations, coupled with DoD's lack of an effective contractor management and oversight regime, has cast a pall over the service contractor community writ large. This must be reversed. The Committee recommends strong steps to do so. These are described in an appendix to this memo.

Trouble procurement programs: Several of the Department's major weapons acquisition programs have experienced considerable cost growth and/or poor execution. For each of these programs--including the Navy's Littoral Combat Ship, the Air Force's combat search and rescue helicopter, and several unclassified and classified satellite purchases--the Committee recommends significant adjustments to the Pentagon's request.

Basic research: In testimony received by the Committee, and through information provided by the Department and third-party groups, the Committee learned that the percent of basic research funding allocated to Department and research organizations' overhead costs has grown to unwarranted levels. To reverse this trend and ensure that the Department's basic research dollars are being used for the purposes intended by Congress, the Committee recommends a general provision limiting the percentage of overhead costs that can be covered in basic research contracts.

Summary of Recommendations by Title

Military personnel

Military personnel pay and benefits accounts are allocated a total of $105 billion, a slight decrease of $0.4 billion to the President's FY 2008 request, but an increase of $5.2 billion or 5.2 percent over the FY 2007 level.

The military personnel pay raise funded is 3.5 percent, at a cost of $2.2 billion. This rate is 0.5 percent greater than the President requested. Also, the President requests some $2.4 billion for retention bonuses and recruiting incentives. These incentives are fully funded.

The Basic Allowance for Housing, BAH, increases 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. Any BAH shortfall anticipated at the time the Committee marks up the FY 2008 war supplemental will be covered in that bill.

Army end-strength is increased by 7,000 in the base FY 2008 budget, to a total of 489,400, or $5.7 billion over the FY 2007 enacted budget amount. The FY 2007 and 2008 supplemental requests include funding for an additional 36,000 soldiers. By the end of FY 2008, the Army projects that its total troop strength will be 525,400.

The Marine Corps end-strength is projected to grow by 5,000. This troop increase is fully funded in the base bill.

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 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 operation and maintenance accounts are funded at a total of $137.1 billion, a decrease of $5.7 billion from the request, but an increase of $9.8 billion or 7.7 percent over the FY 2007 baseline O&M enacted level.

O&M continues to be one of the fastest growing accounts. The growth in O&M can be attributed to a number of factors, to include: outsourcing, increasing age of equipment, high OPTEMPO, and diminished Pentagon budget oversight. Note that these increasing costs are in addition to costs of our military deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Significant reductions are made 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.

A 5 percent ``efficiency'' reduction to the requested amounts for contracted services.

The Committee bill 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 $99.6 billion, roughly the same amount as requested and an increase of $18.7 billion over last year's level. This is an increase of 23 percent, the largest percentage increase of all the major accounts in the DoD budget. R&D is funded at a total of $76.2 billion, about $1.1 billion more than requested. Of note, funding for shipbuilding totals $17.8 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion over the President's request. The increase is a function of the Committee's recommendation to add 5 ships to the 2008 request. The total number of ships to be purchased in FY 2008 is now 10.

Funding of $3.9 billion is provided to fund the purchase of 20 F-22 aircraft, as requested. Additionally, the Committee 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.

Funding for the Missile Defense Agency decreases to $8.5 billion from last year's level of $9.4 billion.

Defense health program

The Defense Health Program is funded at $23 billion, an increase of $0.4 billion above the President's request.

Major increases for this activity include: $66 million for the Wounded Warrior Assistance program; $127.5 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 $20 million in the Committee's recommendations.

Notable General Provisions

A provision is included allowing the Department of Defense general transfer authority of $3.2 billion. The Department requested transfer authority of $5 billion.

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 $15 million for Fisher Houses.

Funds are appropriated to the joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow missile defense system in Section 8077 of the bill. 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.

Another new provision 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.

Provisions restricting the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq and prohibiting torture a carried in the Committee bill. These are consistent with ones included in previous supplemental and base bill funding appropriations acts.

The bill includes two provisions regarding contracting out: (1) A provision restricting the payment of any award fees to contractors who fail to meet contractual requirements; and (2) a provision which fences 10 percent of all O&M funds appropriated in the bill until the Pentagon submits a report on contracting out required in the FY 2007 Iraq supplemental.

A provision was approved in full committee mark-up to identify up to $30 million for the Impact Aid program.

Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of being in opposition. We are going to work something out. It is not a matter of being in opposition. The gentleman from Michigan is going to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 55, line 2, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

I claim the time in opposition.

I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do. We have carried this provision for years and years through both Republican and Democratic administrations. We oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 106, line 16, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we put money in where there used to be bases before it went to the Park Service to be sure they were secure for the Park Service, so I oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

We will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

You can see the hearings we've had on this issue. We felt that the missile defense cuts we made were because of schedule more than anything else, and I appreciate your determination to put it in. We'll take another look at conference, but right now we are convinced, and you can see the hearings we've had this year. We started on January 17. We just don't feel this is necessary at this point. It was a cut made on schedule more than anything else.

No. What I will say to you is that we'll look at it in conference, but we believe that we did the right thing. We believe we cut it because of the schedule.

No, no. We think we made the right cut because of the schedule. You understand what I'm saying? And we'll look at it in conference.

They may very well be, but I can't assure you of that at this point. What I'm saying is we'll look at it in conference. We always negotiate these things. Right now, as we see it in the schedule after the hearings, the staff and the committee decided that this was a good cut.

I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. We don't know where the cuts would come from, whether they're critical research or not, and I would ask the gentleman, we're just as concerned as you are about missile defense. We're trying to make sure we have the adequate amount, and in conference, we will take another look at it.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, we have no problem with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point or order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. The gentleman's got an important point, and we will certainly consider it in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman's doing, but this cuts out all the minority contracts which have been so valuable and so important to the defense industry in saving money.

I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

This is a very worthwhile project. Let me say to the gentleman, you see the number of hearings we have had, and the number of earmarks. Our staff went over every one of these earmarks very carefully.

It's not on our highest priority list, but I'm sure that the military is interested in this kind of research, because it's so important to the military.

Let me mention to the gentleman, we have a $459 billion bill.

We look at every one. We ask the Members to vet them. Our staff vets them. We go over every single earmark.

We don't apologize for them because we think the Members know as much about what goes on in their district as much as the bureaucrats and the Defense Department.

I don't represent Sherwin-Williams. I don't know what paint company you represent, but we know they are a very qualified contractor.

Every one of these earmarks are competitively granted under the regulations of the Defense Department. We depend on them to competitively check them over, and they do.

There is no guarantee.

Absolutely.

They do it all the time.

Let me tell you, we have added, we have added all kinds of money for body armor, for paint, for the gentleman from Ohio, predecessors, one of your predecessors was always looking for new ways, new developments. Small business has been the real impetus for these things happening. Big business takes it on. We do the research and development because it benefits the troops. That's the reason we do this.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, in this particular case we are looking for is sensors to protect against the type of thing that happened in Yemen with the USS Cole. We have a lot of people working on this, and we hope that we will be able to develop a system that will protect against that kind of swimmers for those kinds of ships.

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

If the gentleman would yield, I also oppose the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Department of Defense, the intelligence and security communities, other Federal agencies, and industrial clients in the recent past, CTC was awarded the operations contract through full and open competition for both the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence and the Navy Metalworking Center. The value of the two contracts, $250 million and $150 million respectively. The core funding for each is included in the President's budget.

Last year, CTC won over 50 competitive Federal awards, culminating in a $65 million contract from the Air Force Advanced Power Technology Office. I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Let me just mention to the gentleman, 85 of the 90 members of the RSC receive, RSC which you just mentioned, receive earmarks in this total of this $436 million.

You were using this as an example, the RSC. You were using those as stopping earmarks.

I am just saying that the Members come to the committee. We have a $459 billion bill. We find all kinds of shortages. I will give you an example of what we just found.

I went down to five bases, sent the staff down later, and we found that they didn't have the money to take the troops back when they come back after BRAC. We put $3 billion in that. This is an earmark.

Years ago, we put a couple billion in for ships. That is an earmark, and the Navy didn't want them. And yet, the SL-7s, if we wouldn't have had them in 1991, we would not have been able to get there.

We have confidence in the Members. Under the Constitution, Congress is responsible for appropriations. They make recommendations, but it is a bureaucracy that makes recommendations. The President doesn't make recommendations. He sends long lists, the White House sends long lists over to OMB. And anybody that has worked at OMB will tell you, billions of dollars, as the gentleman knows, in requests go to OMB.

I expect the Members to vet them. We try to vet them the best we can. We know that very few earmarks are not of real value to military. If there is any, we take them out. We have had a few like that, and we take them out as soon as we can.

So I don't make apologies for having earmarks. As I say, $456 million went to the RSC. So I don't make apologies. That is the Congress' job. Less than 1 percent of the $459 billion budget in that sense was projects for Members of Congress. And I would think Members of Congress know, as well as the bureaucracy over in the Pentagon and White House know, what needs to be done. And I think the gentleman will have to agree with that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I think that is a perfect example of the way things work. When we see something that we think is not as valuable as something else is, we change it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. The gentleman was at the forefront of Predator and many other programs which the Defense Department didn't ask for.

And I want to say to the gentleman I had to find out that the young people in the schools where the bases are needed counseling. General Casey went out and found the same thing, and then he called me and said we need to take care of it. We already took care of it. We take care of all kinds of things like that.

The people that work in the hospitals that Bill and I visit all the time were hurting so badly, they needed help. We put extra money in for it.

And when you talk about programs that you may not think directly affects the Defense Department, breast cancer research, prostate cancer research, those diseases affect military families.

Diabetes. Not long ago, I asked the Air Force, How many do you think you have with diabetes in the Air Force? And they said 40,000. The Surgeon General went back and said 150,000. That is in all the families. We started a research program to see how we get them under control because it saves not only emotional strain and physical strain but it saves money.

So we do these kinds of things all the time, changing the direction of the Defense Department with health care things, with educational facilities that are important to the military.

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

The Center's analytical tools were developed at NDIC and are among the best in the industry, performing over 500 missions involving drug trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, fraud in the health care industry, and child abduction. Today, the NDIC document exploitation program analysts are supporting the U.S. Army to facilitate criminal investigations being conducted in Iraq.

NDIC developed computer software. It was recently adopted by the U.S. Army in Iraq to exploit valuable information from captured computers of insurgents and members of al Qaeda.

And let me say to the gentleman how this started. President Bush felt we needed a centralized place, and they wanted to put it in Washington. I felt, with a new communications, we didn't need it in Washington, and they decided to put it in Johnstown, and I think it has done very well. And we have argued this before, so I oppose the amendment.

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

Let me tell you, the Bush administration made a few mistakes in the past.

The administration says a lot of things that I disagree with.