[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9967-H10014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 3222.

                              {time}  2240


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 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 Mr. 
Ross in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the bill 
is considered read the first time.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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

[[Page H9968]]

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

[[Page H9969]]

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.

     SELECTED WEAPONS SYSTEMS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FY 2008
                              ($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2008 Request       2008 Committee
             Program             ---------------------------------------
                                   (Qty.)      $$      (Qty.)      $$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Blackhawk helicopter.......      (42)       705      (42)       705
Army Apache helicopter..........      (36)       712      (36)       712
Armed Reconnaissance helicopter.      (37)       468  ........         0
Navy MH-60R (Blackhawk var.)....      (27)       998      (27)       998
Navy MH-60S (Blackhawk var.)....      (18)       503      (18)       503
Navy F/IA-18 E/lF fighter a/c...      (24)     2,104      (24)     2,089
Navy EA-18G a/c.................      (18)     1,319      (18)     1,317
Air Force C-17 airlift a/c......  ........       261  ........       261
Air Force F-22 fighter a/c......      (20)     3,153      (20)     3,153
Air Force C-130J cargo a/c......       (9)       686       (9)       686
Navy KC-130J tanker a/c.........       (4)       258       (4)       254
Joint Strike Fighter (R and D)..  ........     3,488  ........     4,176
Joint Strike Fighter                  (12)     2,411      (12)     2,411
 (Procurement)..................
V-22 airlift a/c................      (26)     2,685      (26)     2,685
Air Force Unmanned Aerial
 Vehicles:
    Global Hawk.................       (5)       514       (3)       403
    Predator....................      (24)       278      (24)       278
    Reaper......................       (4)        58       (4)        58
CVN-21 Aircraft Carrier.........       (1)     2,848       (1)     2,828
DDG-I000 Destroyer..............  ........     2,954  ........     2,924
Littoral Combat Ship............       (3)       910       (1)       339
LPD-17 amphibious ship..........       (1)     1,399       (2)     3,092
Virginia Class submarine........       (1)     2,499       (1)     3,087
T-AKE auxiliary ship............       (1)       456       (4)     1,866
LHA(R) amphibious ship..........       (1)     1,377  ........     1,375
Army Future Combat System (R and  ........     3,563  ........     3,157
 D).............................
Army Stryker armored vehicle....     (127)     1,039     (377)     1,913
M-l tank upgrade--MIA2 SEP......      (18)        53  ........         0
Evolved Expendable Launch              (5)     1,167       (4)     1,102
 Vehicle........................
Missile warning satellites:
    Space-based Infrared          ........     1,066  ........    1 ,094
     satellite..................
    Alternative Infrared Space    ........       231  ........        76
     System.....................
Communications satellites:
    Transformational satellite..  ........       964  ........       964
    Advanced EHF................  ........       604  ........       729
    Wideband Gapfiller..........       (1)       345       (1)       345
Space-based radar...............  ........         0  ........       186
Global Positioning System:
    GPS III.....................  ........       587  ........       507
    GPS Extension...............  ........        81  ........        35
    GPS User Equipment..........  ........        93  ........       156
Missile Defense:
    Missile Defense Agency......  ........     8,796  ........     8,498
    Patriot missiles and MEADS..     (108)       845     (108)       845
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total...................  ........     9,641  ........     9,343
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix: Sections in the Committee Report Regarding Fiscal Management 
                          and Contracting Out


                           FISCAL MANAGEMENT

       For some time now, the Committee has expressed considerable 
     concern over an erosion of DoD's fiscal discipline. That 
     erosion is reflected primarily in the Department's use of 
     emergency supplemental funding to cover what were once 
     considered to be base budget costs, particularly weapons 
     modernization and force structure costs. In this bill, the 
     Committee has endeavored to begin restoring traditional 
     funding criteria to these respective appropriations matters. 
     Thus, recommendations for this fiscal year 2008 Defense 
     Appropriations bill focus on non-incremental war costs and 
     preparing 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. The Committee's deliberations on the 
     fiscal year 2008 war supplemental, however, will be tailored 
     to funding those programs and incremental costs that are 
     arguably related to the war efforts. Satisfying these 
     criteria requires the shifting of funds between the base bill 
     and supplemental requests. As such, the Committee recommends 
     deferring consideration of certain funding requests made for 
     the base fiscal year 2008 Defense bill to the emergency 
     supplemental. Conversely, the Committee recommends that 
     certain programs requested by the Administration in its 
     fiscal year 2008 Global War on Terror emergency supplemental 
     receive funding in this legislation.
       Further, the Committee believes that seeking funding for 
     weapons modernization programs and enduring force structure 
     transformations in emergency supplemental requests 
     conveniently eludes the procedural mechanisms designed to 
     ensure that the most important priorities are resourced. 
     There can be no doubt that the Department's financial 
     officers have faced considerable challenges in managing both 
     the war and base budgets. Nonetheless, a fiscal 
     ``flabbiness'' has infected the Defense budgeting process--a 
     situation that must be corrected. To ensure that sound 
     budgetary and fiscal procedures are re-invigorated, the 
     Committee recommends a general provision that requires the 
     Department to include all funding for both non-war and war-
     related activities in the President's fiscal year 2009 annual 
     Defense budget request.
       PPBS. For over 40 years, the Department of Defense followed 
     the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) as the 
     process for assessing and prioritizing requirements and 
     allocating resources. The PPBS process established long-range 
     national security planning objectives, analyzed the costs and 
     benefits of alternative programs that would meet those 
     objectives, and translated programs into budget proposals. 
     The improvements that PPBS offered over previous budgeting 
     processes were that: (1) it emphasized objectives, focusing 
     less on changes from the prior-year budget and more on long-
     term objectives, and (2) it linked planning and budgeting. 
     PPBS instilled a process that clearly defined a procedure for 
     distributing available resources equitably among competing 
     programs.
       Beginning in 2003, the PPBS process has been significantly 
     altered, splintering planning into two phases and requiring 
     that the program budget reviews occur simultaneously. The 
     process changes were ill-conceived and have had significant 
     and lasting adverse implications. Today, sequential steps to 
     plan adequately or refine a plan into budget-level detail do 
     not exist. Further, simultaneous program and budget review 
     eliminated the inherent discipline in the process which 
     forced resource allocation decisions to occur deliberatively, 
     resulting in unnecessary confusion and wasted effort. The 
     time and attention required to harmonize simultaneous program 
     and budget review detract from the Department's ability to 
     scrutinize fully its fiscal requirements. As a result:
       the focus on program objectives has diminished;
       the inextricable link between planning and budgeting has 
     been severely damaged;

[[Page H9970]]

       reliance on funds transfers and reprogramming within DoD 
     have grown significantly, often correcting inadequacies that 
     should have been identified earlier in the Department's 
     internal review process; with the purpose being to fix holes 
     in key programs originally created during the DoD budget 
     review;
       supplemental requests and the Department's reliance on them 
     have grown and, increasingly resemble base budget requests; 
     and lastly,
       Congress is forced to make increasingly difficult funding 
     decisions in the absence of a rigorous budget review by the 
     Department.
       Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Secretary of 
     Defense institute a process for assessing and prioritizing 
     requirements and allocating resources which is supportive of 
     thorough, deliberative program and budget review and more 
     fully utilize the efforts of the dedicated and talented DoD 
     civil servants. The Committee's recommendation includes 
     several directions to address the budget execution process 
     within the department, as discussed below.
       Re-baselining.--Generally-accepted reprogramming procedures 
     and those procedures outlined in the Department of Defense 
     Financial Management Regulation require the approval of 
     Congress prior to transferring of operation and maintenance 
     funding in excess of $15,000,000 from those levels 
     appropriated by Congress. However, through a ``rebaselining'' 
     process or ``free move'', the Department has transferred 
     excessive amounts of funds--a total of $2,500,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2007--without the approval of Congress. This re-
     baselining process, as it has evolved, vitiates 
     Congressionally-approved resource allocations provided in 
     annual appropriations Acts, impedes the ability of Congress 
     to perform its oversight responsibilities, and abrogates 
     Congressional intent. Moreover, the Committee notes that the 
     Department has failed to comply with certain reprogramming 
     requirements as they relate to specific subactivity groups 
     within the operation and maintenance appropriations. These 
     actions reflect a continuing erosion of fiscal discipline 
     within the Department of Defense.
       Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department to cease 
     the reallocation of funds through a re-baselining procedure, 
     and further directs the Department to comply fully with the 
     reprogramming procedures contained in this report. The 
     Committee remains cognizant of the need for the Department to 
     re-align certain appropriations and commits to work with the 
     Department to address these concerns.
       Base for Reprogramming Actions.--The Committee notes that 
     the Department was not able to provide in a timely manner the 
     Base for Reprogramming Actions report, or DD form 1414, for 
     the current fiscal year. This report is to be provided to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations soon after the 
     enactment of the annual appropriations Act to establish the 
     baseline from which the Department is to execute its 
     programs. The report also serves as the benchmark from which 
     Congress and the Committee can assess all transfers and 
     reprogrammings. However, the DD 1414 was not submitted to the 
     Committees on Appropriations until nearly nine months after 
     the fiscal year had commenced and after the Department has 
     submitted over $700,000,000 in reprogramming requests 
     requiring Congressional approval. When the report was 
     submitted, it was incomplete, omitting each of the active 
     services' operation and maintenance accounts. Moreover, it 
     excluded a ``re-baselining'' or realignment in excess of 
     $2,500,000,000 in operation and maintenance funds from 
     activities for which they were originally appropriated. 
     The Committee believes that such funds management is 
     unacceptable and suggests that the Department does not 
     execute its programs consistent with Congressional 
     direction. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended a 
     provision that requires the department to submit the DD 
     1414 within 60 days after the enactment of the Act. In 
     addition, the provision prohibits the department from 
     executing any reprogramming or transfer of funds for any 
     purpose other than originally appropriated until the 
     aforementioned report is submitted to the Committees of 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives.
       Items or subactivities for which funds have been 
     specifically provided in an appropriations Act (including 
     joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations), 
     accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint 
     explanatory statements of the committee of conference shall 
     be carried in the Base for Reprogramming Actions (DD form 
     1414), irrespective of whether or not the report uses the 
     phrases ``only for'' or ``only to''.
       New starts.--The Committee recommends a general provision 
     that prohibits the initiation of a new start program through 
     a reprogramming of funds unless such program must be 
     undertaken immediately in the interest of national security 
     and only after written notification by the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense and to the congressional defense 
     committees. The use of reprogramming authorities to initiate 
     new starts should be used seldom, and if at all, only in 
     times of national emergency. Starting new programs through 
     the use of reprogramming authorities in the year of execution 
     create additional funding requirements in the ensuing budget 
     year, and rarely does the Administration submit budget 
     amendments to reallocate its funding requirements reflecting 
     the new fiscal realities created by the new program starts. 
     As such, the Committee' ability to review fully the program's 
     cost-effectiveness and mission utility vis-a-vis other 
     military programs is denied. The Committee notes that the 
     fiscal year omnibus 2007 reprogramming includes new starts 
     totaling nearly $110,000,000. The Committee is not pleased 
     with the Department's increasing use of its the reprogramming 
     authorities to initiate new program starts, and accordingly, 
     directs the Department not to use reprogramming authorities 
     provided in this Act to initiate new programs unless such 
     programs are emergency requirements.
       General transfer authority (GTA).--A provision is 
     recommended, consistent with previous appropriations Acts, 
     providing for the transfer of funds for higher priority 
     items, based on unforeseen military requirements than those 
     for which originally appropriated. This authority has been 
     included annually to respond to unanticipated requirements 
     that were not known at the time the budget was developed and 
     after which time appropriations were enacted. This authority 
     has grown significantly over the past several years, from 
     $2,000,000,000 in fiscal years 1997 through 2001, rising 
     precipitously in fiscal year 2005 to $6,185,000,000. In 
     fiscal year 2007, the GTA was $4,500,000,000 and the 
     Department has requested $5,000,000,000 in GTA for fiscal 
     year 2008. While the waging of war certainly has increased 
     the need for flexibility in executing the Department's 
     resources, the Committee fears that the Department has come 
     to rely on reprogramming and transfer authority in lieu of a 
     thoughtful and deliberative budget formulation and fiscal 
     management process. In an effort to restore fiscal management 
     to the Department, while allowing for the flexibility in 
     executing appropriations for a nation at war, the Committee 
     recommends for fiscal year 2008 general transfer authority of 
     $3,200,000,000.
       Reprogrammings for operation and maintenance accounts.--
     Beginning in fiscal year 2008, the Committee imposes new 
     accountability and reprogramming guidelines for programs, 
     projects and activities within the Operation and Maintenance 
     appropriations. The Committee believes that such revisions 
     are necessary given the unique nature of activities funded 
     within these appropriations; continuing concerns about force 
     readiness, and recent budget execution within these accounts. 
     The specific revisions are addressed later in this report in 
     Title II, Operation and Maintenance.


             CONTACTED SERVICES AND ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

       A year ago, the Committee expressed concern about the 
     increasing costs of operating our military forces. To gain 
     better insight about the factors generating an increase in 
     operation and maintenance costs, the Committee directed, in 
     House Report 109-504, that the GAO prepare a comprehensive 
     analysis of contracting out services, as well as other 
     factors that may be driving up costs. GAO found that between 
     the years 2000 to 2005, the cost of O&M service contracts 
     increased more than 73 percent. Over the same period, DoD 
     civilian pay costs increased 28 percent, and total DoD pay 
     costs went up by 34 percent. However, despite the growing and 
     seemingly unconstrained reliance on contractors to accomplish 
     DoD's mission, no system of accountability for contract 
     service cost or performance has been established.
       The Committee is frustrated by the lack of accountability 
     and management of contracted services. DoD has increasingly 
     relied on private sector contractors, rather than uniformed 
     or DoD civilian personnel, to perform operation and 
     maintenance-related work such as logistics, facilities 
     maintenance, base operations support; information technology 
     services; and administrative support. But, responsibility for 
     acquiring services within DoD is spread among individual 
     military commands, weapon system program offices, or 
     functional units on military bases. This decentralized 
     management results in little visibility at either the DoD or 
     military department level over the totality of DoD's use of 
     contractors to provide services. GAO recently found that DoD 
     had reviewed proposed acquisitions accounting for less than 3 
     percent of the funds obligated for services in fiscal year 
     2005, and were in a poor position to regularly identify 
     opportunities to leverage buying power or otherwise change 
     existing practices.
       Focused management attention.--The Committee contends that 
     DoD is not providing sufficient management attention to 
     improve the acquisition and management of contractor 
     services. Tens of billions of dollars are expended for 
     contract services each year. Management of contract services 
     should be among DoD's top priorities. The Committee believes 
     that the Department must improve management of contract 
     services by instituting clear accountability mechanisms; 
     instituting unambiguous and short chains of command to the 
     most-senior decision makers; and improving the tracking and 
     reporting of contract service costs, and management of 
     contract service performance.
       Increased contractor oversight.--The Committee directs the 
     Department to provide more robust staffing of contractor 
     management and oversight personnel. It is clear that DoD 
     currently lacks the means to provide proper oversight of its 
     service contracts, in part because of an insufficient number 
     of contract oversight personnel. While the spending for 
     contracted services has grown, the size of DoD's workforce, 
     including its contracting and acquisition workforce, has

[[Page H9971]]

     been decreased significantly. For example, the Defense 
     Contract Management Agency's (DCMA) workforce has been 
     reduced by over 50 percent between the period 2000 to 2005, 
     making it more difficult for DCMA to provide through and 
     meaningful oversight of the department's increasing reliance 
     on contracted services.
       The Committee recommends adding funds for additional DoD 
     civilian personnel to provide enhanced contract-service 
     management and oversight. Further, the Committee added funds 
     for the temporary assignment of six-hundred General Services 
     Administration contract specialists on a reimbursable basis. 
     The Committee provides the following:

                 CONTRACT-SERVICE MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
                             ($ in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                                                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Contract Audit Agency...........................          +12.0
Defense Contract Management Command.....................          +17.0
Defense Inspector General...............................          +24.0
Reimbursable GSA Assistance.............................          +21.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Minimum Standards for Contracted Security Service 
     Personnel.--DoD relies heavily on contracted security, both 
     in the theaters of operation as well as at home. The 
     Committee is particularly concerned that the oversight and 
     administration of contracted security services is woefully 
     inadequate. This lack of oversight seemingly has resulted in 
     few, if any, operational standards and rules-of-engagement to 
     which contracted security organizations and individuals must 
     adhere. As such, the Committee directs the Secretary of 
     Defense to develop, no later than 90 days after the passage 
     of this Act, uniform minimum personnel standards for all 
     contract personnel operating under contracts, subcontracts or 
     task orders performing work that includes private security 
     functions. The standards, at a minimum, must include 
     determinations about contractors using personnel with 
     criminal histories, must determine the eligibility of all 
     private contract personnel to possess and carry firearms, and 
     determine what assessments of medical and mental fitness of 
     contracted security personnel must be undertaken. The 
     Secretary of Defense should develop a mechanism for contract 
     accountability that specifies consequences for noncompliance 
     with the personnel standards, including fines, denial of 
     contractual obligations or contract rescission. Finally, the 
     Secretary is directed to establish a clear set of rules-of-
     engagement for all contracted security personnel operating in 
     the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations. The 
     Secretary shall submit the prescribed standards to the 
     congressional defense committees once the 90-day period 
     referenced above is completed.
       Improving the Acquisition Workforce.--The Committee directs 
     that the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics to submit, within 90 days of 
     enactment of this Act, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees analyzing the current acquisition workforce 
     personnel needs and the tools to recruit and retain a 
     workforce best positioned to provide appropriate contract 
     management and oversight of contractor performance. The 
     report should identify the most urgent shortages in the 
     current acquisition workforce. The report should also 
     recommend revisions to the Department's Strategic Human 
     Capital Plan geared to enhancing the Department's ability to 
     recruit and retain high performing acquisition and 
     contracting personnel and overcome obstacles to the expedited 
     hiring of talented acquisition professionals.
       Enhancing Access to Small Business.--The Committee is 
     concerned about the access of small businesses to Department 
     of Defense contracting and procurement. Moreover, the 
     committee recognizes that harvesting mature innovative 
     technologies from the Small Business Innovative Research 
     (SBIR) programs has resulted in cost avoidance and savings in 
     Defense Department acquisition programs. SBIRs have been 
     invaluable in reintroducing competition and developing better 
     capabilities for the warfighter. For example, efforts such as 
     open architecture technologies and improved manufacturing 
     processes championed by small businesses should reduce 
     acquisition costs and ensure that the military services can 
     continue to support weapons systems once they become 
     operational. In order to facilitate entry into the defense 
     market by small businesses, the Committee recommends 
     providing a total of $100,000,000 more than requested for the 
     Department's SBIR program. These funds are allocated as 
     follows: $25,000,000 is recommended for the Army's Future 
     Combat System to enhance small business participation in that 
     program; $25,000,000 is allocated to each of the Navy's 
     surface ship and submarine research and development 
     activities for the SBIR program; and, $25,000,000 is provided 
     to enhance small business participation in the Joint Strike 
     Fighter program.
       Further, the Committee directs the Director of the 
     Department of Defense Office of Small Business Contracting to 
     submit, no later than June 1, 2008, a report to the 
     congressional defense committees which identifies the 
     impediments to small business owners to contracting or 
     subcontracting with the Department, including, but not 
     limited to, an analysis of the small business threshold size, 
     small business contract bundling, the distribution of small 
     business subcontracts between professional services and 
     research and development, the transition from SBIR II 
     programs to procurement, the impact of the Departments vendor 
     pay system on small businesses, and the effectiveness of the 
     mentor-protege program. The report should identify any 
     impediments to the successes of businesses that graduate from 
     the small business qualifications and offer recommendations 
     to support the transition of small businesses to middle-sized 
     businesses.
       Improvements in contract management need not take years to 
     implement; rather, with intent leadership and executive 
     attention, considerable efficiencies can be achieved in the 
     near-term. Accordingly, the Committee recommendations reduce 
     the Department's funding requests for contracted services in 
     the O&M budgets by five percent, recognizing contract service 
     efficiencies and savings with enhanced oversight.

[[Page H9972]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU07.001
     


[[Page H9973]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU07.002
     


[[Page H9974]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU07.003
     


[[Page H9975]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH04AU07.004
     


[[Page H9976]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, earlier this week the 
Appropriations Committee filed the fiscal year 2008 Defense 
Appropriations bill and report. There were no minority views on this 
bill, because it is broadly supported by both Democrats and Republicans 
in its current form.
  The bill totals over $459 billion, and is $3.5 billion below the 
President's request. However, it is $40 billion above the fiscal year 
2007 level.
  The fiscal year 2008 war supplemental request of $147 billion is not 
included in this bill. That package will be marked up and brought to 
the floor in September. At that time we will also be addressing the 
President's new request of $5.3 billion for additional MRAP vehicles 
for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I strongly support this bill as reported. It provides for a number of 
Presidential and Congressional priorities, including: $6 billion in 
equipment to grow the Army and Marines; 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 $925 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 I 
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 20 F-22 aircraft; Procurement of nine ships for the Navy, 
including initial funding for the next generation aircraft carrier; and 
$1.1 billion to outfit a new Stryker brigade, either for the National 
Guard or the active Army.
  To summarize, unlike many bills we're dealing with this week, I can 
state that this bill has broad bipartisan support.
  I appreciate the cooperation and courtesy shown by my chairman, Mr. 
Murtha, throughout this process. We keep trading places as chairman of 
this subcommittee; perhaps in the next Congress we'll trade places 
again. Whatever happens, I know we will continue the bipartisan 
partnership that has been the hallmark of this subcommittee.
  I also want to thank the members of the Defense subcommittee for 
their contributions to this bill, 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. Chairman, again I want to say that I strongly support this bill, 
and urge its adoption by the House.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as a proud member of the 
Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise in support of H.R. 
3222, the ``Defense Appropriations Act of 2008.'' I commend the 
leadership of Chairman Obey and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee 
Chairman Murtha for his patient and careful crafting of this bill, 
which relieves our troops and helps our military families. The 
committee carefully separated the funding from the Iraq War funding.
  Speaking of Chairman Murtha, let me say also that historians will 
record that it was he who awakened and educated the Nation regarding 
the failure and folly of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq when 
he courageously spoke this truth to power: The war in Iraq is not going 
as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American 
public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have 
done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. 
Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can 
not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued 
military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United 
States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.
  The principled stand of the gentleman from Pennsylvania changed the 
course of America history by signaling the beginning of the end of the 
Iraq War. More importantly, Chairman Murtha's actions have and will 
result in the saving of countless thousands of lives of brave young 
servicemen and women that would otherwise be lost trying to salvage the 
Administration's ill-conceived and terribly mismanaged war in Iraq. I 
cannot thank you enough for all you have done for our county.
  In supporting this legislation, I stand in strong support of our 
troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under 
pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American 
people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice-
President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the 
public trust and patience.
  I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid more than $400 
billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,664 
fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last 
full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Madam 
Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 
3222.
  Mr. Chairman, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am 
proud of that vote. And I have consistently voted against the 
Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding 
through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular 
appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more 
rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing 
national priorities.
  But I strongly believe that when a nation sends its sons and 
daughters into harms way, it has an obligation to ensure that they have 
everything they need to wage the battle, emerge victorious, and return 
home safely to their loved ones and to a grateful nation. That is why I 
proudly support this legislation. H.R. 3222 provides for the security 
of our nation and addresses that responsibility squarely, fully funding 
our troops so that they are prepared for whatever emergencies may 
arise, providing them with first class weapons and equipment, and 
ensuring that they and their families are cared for properly.
  At the same time, H.R. 3222 recognizes our obligation to meet the 
recent dependence on the use of contractors with increased support for 
their management and oversight. It likewise makes a commitment to 
fiscal responsibility. In this regard, I note that the amount 
appropriated in this bill, $459.6 billion, represents an increase of 
nearly $40 billion over the previous year but is $4 billion less than 
the amount requested by the Administration.
  Mr. Chairman let me briefly address some of the important components 
of this legislation. I think it important that all Americans know that 
H.R. 3222 achieves the following .critical objectives: (1) keeps our 
commitments to our troops and their families; (2) prepares our forces 
to meet future needs; (3) imposes fiscal discipline on the Pentagon; 
and (4) prohibits permanent military bases in Iraq and the use of 
torture by American forces everywhere.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3222 addresses equipment shortfalls 
in the Guard and Reserve by providing $925 million, $635 million above 
2007, specifically to address equipment shortfalls in order to help 
forces meet the demands of overseas deployments and respond to natural 
disasters here at home. This amount meets the requirements identified 
by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the ``Essential 10 
Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror.''
  The legislation supports military families by providing $2.9 billion, 
$558.4 million above the President's request, for programs including 
childcare centers, education programs and the family advocacy program 
which provides support to military families affected by the demands of 
war and episodes of child or spouse abuse.
  In the important area of medical treatment and healthcare, the bill 
provides $22.957 billion, $1.7 billion above 2007 and $416 million 
above the President's request. The bill rightly rejects the President's 
proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases 
on our troops and makes much needed investments in improving the 
Defense Department's electronic medical records systems and fostering 
better coordination between the Defense Department and the Department 
of Veterans Affairs.
  I particularly commend Chairman Murtha for his successful efforts to 
secure more than $400 million in funding to conduct research and treat 
the increasing incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, among 
American servicemen and women. And I especially appreciate his 
commitment to work with me to establish a PTSD facility at Riverside 
General Hospital, located in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, 
to treat PTSD in veterans, whether on active duty, discharged, or on 
leave in the metropolitan Houston area, including Harris and 
surrounding counties. There are nearly 200,000 military veterans in 
Harris County alone and Riverside General Hospital has proven itself 
capable of providing psychiatric, medical, emergency medical, 
inpatient, and outpatient services to crisis populations.
  Riverside General Hospital, by the way, was formerly known as the 
Houston Negro Hospital and was founded in 1926 in memory of Lt. John 
Halm Cullinan, 344th FA, 90th Division of the American Expeditionary 
Forces. Lt. Cullinan was one of the thousands of African Americans who 
risked life and limb to defend America and its allies at a time when 
those of his race did not enjoy the legal rights they fought so hard to 
secure for others.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an unmet need for more medical facilities 
specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder located in underserved 
urban areas. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is 
especially important since veterans living in such areas are less 
likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Riverside General Hospital is uniquely positioned to this need and I 
look forward to working with this Defense Appropriation Sub-Committee 
to bring this historic project to fruition.
  I also strongly approve of the allocation of $1.252 billion above the 
President's request to

[[Page H9977]]

repair barracks, improve child care facilities, and improve community 
services, to address the strain put on facilities by changes in force 
structure, base closures, and a global repositioning of forces all 
while meeting the demands of war. Similarly, the appropriation of 
$268.1 million, $141.9 million above the President's request, for 
perimeter security force protection and related security improvements, 
to protect bases, schools, hospitals, base housing, churches and 
childcare centers from terrorist attacks makes sense in light of the 
recent failed terrorist plot at Fort Dix in New Jersey. As does the $15 
billion, $1.6 billion above 2007, set aside to ensure there are no out-
of-pocket expenses for service personnel and support the privatization 
of housing for military families.
  Mr. Chairman, American troops are the best in the world because they 
are the best equipped and the best trained. H.R. 3222 ensures that will 
remain the case by providing $7.548 billion, a 13 percent increase for 
all home-stationing training, so that our troops are well prepared for 
any eventual deployment.
  The legislation also takes into account the fact that the size of our 
Army and Marine Corps must be increased if we are to reduce the 
pressure to extend troop deployments. The bill provides funds to covers 
the costs of adding 7,000 new soldiers and 5,000 new marines.
  Finally, H.R. 3222 provides $76.229 billion, $1.112 billion above the 
President's request and $508 million above 2007, for research, 
development, testing, and evaluation of weapons systems, and military 
medical research.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before represents responsible, visionary, and 
competent policy making. Our vote today will put the House on record 
squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other 
way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a 
free people with as much commitment and dedication to the security and 
happiness of its citizens as has been shown by the heroic American 
servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 
3,600 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the 
chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, 
establish their own government, and build a future of peace and 
prosperity for themselves and their posterity.

  Mr. Chairman, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is 
a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was 
left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions 
which we think would improve the quality of life for our brave men and 
women in uniform. Indeed, during this first session of the 110th 
Congress, I have offered several amendments to do just that.
  For example, I offered an amendment to the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 1591, that would have led to the redeployment 
and return of American troops. It would achieve this objective by 
terminating the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 
2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the 
objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been 
achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use 
military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives: to 
disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the 
security of the United States and international peace in the Persian 
Gulf region; to change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his 
Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its 
neighbors; to bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found 
to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United 
States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that 
occurred on September 11, 2001; to ensure that the regime of Saddam 
Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international 
terrorists, including al Qaeda; and to enforce all relevant United 
Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United 
States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of 
mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American 
troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the 
Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will 
ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the 
region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass 
destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military 
has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq 
remotely responsible for the 911 attack on our country. Last, all 
relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced.
  In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq 
was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with 
spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of 
our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, 
acknowledge, and honor this fact.
  Another amendment, this one to the Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 
1585, required the Secretary of Defense to study and report back to 
Congress the financial and emotional impact of multiple deployments on 
the families of those soldiers who serve multiple tours overseas.
  Words cannot explain the pain and the sense of pride that some 
families feel when they say good-bye to a loved one. Behind those brave 
smiles, hugs, and kisses is an undying and unnerving uncertainty about 
what can happen to a spouse, child, father, or mother. Depending on the 
extent of that soldier's injury a family can suffer serious economic 
consequences as a result, not to mention the emotional impact of seeing 
a loved one in that state. Even under the best of circumstances, where 
a soldier serves multiple terms and returns with no major injuries, 
valuable time is lost between a parent and child and between spouses 
that can never be returned.
  One in five soldiers suffers from depression, anxiety or stress. 
Likewise 20 percent face marital problems including divorce or legal 
separation from their spouse. Military families need greater 
psychological, emotional, and organizational assistance according to 
the results of a new survey released March 28 of this year by the 
National Military Family Association, NMFA. The study, ``Cycles of 
Deployment Report,'' which focused on the needs of military families, 
shows service members and military families are experiencing increased 
levels of anxiety, fatigue, and stress. In response, NMFA outlined 
recommendations for meeting these challenges amid multiple and extended 
deployments, increased rates at which service members are called upon 
for service, and the heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve 
forces.
  Military families have also expressed concern that when entering a 
second or third deployment, their loved ones carry unresolved anxieties 
and expectations from the last deployment(s). While they may have 
gained knowledge of resources available to them, service members who 
have been deployed multiple times report being more fatigued and 
increasingly concerned about their family relationships.

  Mr. Chairman, at bottom, H.R. 3222 ensures that U.S. forces in the 
field have all of the resources they require. Second, it improves 
healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Third, it 
imposes fiscal restraint upon the Administration and Pentagon.
  Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, I want to take a few minutes to 
discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has 
come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on 
American military assistance to the Government of Iraq.
  As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former 
senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, ``The 
Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The 
Reconstruction,'' in ``Middle East Review of International Affairs'' 
(December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of 
incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy.
  The Bush Administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on 
nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the 
invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its 
mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its 
original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored 
intelligence that contradicted its own views.
  It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the 
necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, OSD, and the White House Office of 
the Vice President, OVP, worked together to ensure that the State 
Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the 
reconstruction of Iraq.
  The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that 
the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little 
impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that 
Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable 
of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They 
likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain 
cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all 
this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the 
postwar environment.
  As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated 
little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. 
The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services 
stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions 
would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those 
responsibilities.
  But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply 
lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the

[[Page H9978]]

need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it 
brought the entire offensive to a halt.
  It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate 
planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in 
Iraq.
  The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the 
immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and 
destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in 
the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We 
removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the 
military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence 
was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for 
the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of 
governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most 
basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a 
minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment.
  Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United 
Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. 
had far more expertise and experience in nation building.
  The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack 
of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find 
the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's 
claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next 
set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military 
and security services.
  Mr. Chairman, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify 
an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain, 
DDR, the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, 
cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other 
facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and 
prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an 
outlaw militia.

  By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR 
program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no 
money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how 
to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers 
went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency.
  The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to 
create an Iraqi Governing Council, IGC, which laid the foundation for 
many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were 
horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and 
encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for 
later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of 
Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed.
  Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were 
caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the 
country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration 
set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the 
wrong problems.
  This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were 
disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and 
kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by 
the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly 
advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term 
impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather 
than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were 
playing ``whack-a-mole'' with insurgents in the sparsely populated 
areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to 
take over by militias.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi 
Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and 
gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get 
them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises 
because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government 
positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense 
both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central 
government itself.
  All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight 
falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last 
November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. 
They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They 
voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil 
war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we 
Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held 
more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, 
investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of 
Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group 
Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at 
Walter Reed Medical Center.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is not asking us to expand or extend 
the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, 
this bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come 
home where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his 
widow and orphan.'' This bill helps to repair the damage to America's 
international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue 
oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and 
reconstruction contracting and procurement.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3222, the ``Defense 
Appropriations Act of 2008.''
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a very 
important provision in the Defense Appropriations Act for 2008, which 
yet again confronts President Bush over his inhumane and un-American 
torture policies.
  I want to thank Chairman Murtha for agreeing once again to include my 
language regarding torture in this bill. The provision, in Section 8104 
of the bill, states that none of the funds in the Defense 
Appropriations bill may be used in contravention of the United Nations 
Convention Against Torture. This is a crucial provision because, as we 
all know, for years the President has been willing to ignore our 
obligations under international and domestic law to protect the basic 
human rights of detainees. This disregard for treaty and legal 
obligations also undermines our efforts in the war on terror, serving 
as a valuable recruiting tool for terrorists and putting our brave men 
and women in uniform at risk of similar mistreatment if captured by our 
enemies.
  I have inserted this provision into a number of funding bills over 
the past several years, and I will continue to do so until we can 
legislatively restrain this and every future President from 
intentionally misinterpreting our obligations to respect the 
fundamental human rights of all people. In the period of the Republican 
majority, I had to come to the floor and offer amendments to insert 
this funding restriction into the appropriations bills. Fortunately, my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that our obligations to 
treat individuals humanely are paramount, and my amendment repeatedly 
prevailed with near unanimity. I commend Mr. Murtha for including this 
language in the bill, which reflects his deep concern for our troops 
and his commitment to upholding our obligations to fundamental human 
rights.
  With his policies of extraordinary rendition, President Bush has 
shipped countless prisoners to countries such as Syria and Uzbekistan 
where they are brutally tortured--without ever having been afforded a 
lawyer, a trial, or any opportunity to challenge their transfer based 
on probability of abuse. By allowing senior officers and officials to 
implicitly encourage the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, 
President Bush not only allowed a situation to develop where Americans 
horribly abused detainees but also created one of the greatest public 
diplomacy disasters in American history. By establishing a network of 
black-site CIA prisons around the world, where prisoners are held in 
total secret and without access to international monitors such as the 
Red Cross, the President engages in the grossest hypocrisy and 
undermines the very international protections for prisoners that our 
own troops abroad count on as their last line of defense should they be 
captured.
  These policies must come to an immediate and permanent end. I look 
forward to passing my Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act to end 
extraordinary rendition once and for all, and it is essential that 
Congress reinstate habeas corpus. Until then, I am proud that the 
Congress will, with this funding restriction, once again bar any 
appropriations in violation of the Convention Against Torture.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222, 
the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. I would like to 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Murtha, and the 
gentleman from Florida, Ranking Member Young, for their efforts to 
craft a strong bipartisan bill and for their tireless dedication to our 
national security and to the men and women in uniform who protect us.
  Ensuring a strong national defense is one of Congress's greatest 
responsibilities, and at no time is that more evident when our 
servicemembers are overseas in harm's way. While the members of this 
body may disagree about our next steps in Iraq, we all agree that we 
must support the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and civilians who 
are serving their country and facing some challenging missions. 
Further, we agree that we must have a military that can protect our 
Nation against current threats and respond to emerging challenges we 
may face in the future. As a member of the Intelligence Committee and a 
former member of the House Armed Services Committee, I believe we need 
a flexible and an adaptive

[[Page H9979]]

military--one whose efforts are coordinated with other assets of 
national power such as diplomacy, foreign assistance and international 
cooperation--to achieve our national security goals.
  Congress recognizes that our Nation is only as strong as those who 
defend us, and the bill before us makes important steps to enhance the 
health and well-being of those serving our Nation. It provides a 3.5 
percent pay increase for our men and women in uniform, an increase over 
the President's recommendation of 3.0 percent. It continues our efforts 
to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps in order to reduce 
the strain on our military caused by repeated troop deployments. In 
order to treat those currently in our military health system and to 
meet the needs of those returning from combat, it includes $23 billion 
for defense health programs, $416 million more than the President 
requested. It also postpones the President's recommended cost share 
increases for Tricare beneficiaries, a proposal that would have caused 
hardship to our military families and retirees.
  H.R. 3222 also makes significant increases to vital non-proliferation 
programs. For years, the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction 
program has allowed the U.S. to work with Russia and other nations in 
the former Soviet Union to dismantle their nuclear, chemical and 
biological weapons. As the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and 
Technology, I know that one of the most important safeguards to 
preventing an attack using a weapon of mass destruction in the U.S. is 
to secure dangerous materials at their source to prevent them from 
getting into the hands of terrorists. To this end, the Defense 
appropriations bill includes $398 million for Cooperative Threat 
Reduction--$26 million more than the current level and $50 million more 
than the President's request.
  Finally, H.R. 3222 invests in systems and technology to protect 
against current and future threats. I am extremely pleased that the 
measure includes an additional $588 million for advance procurement of 
materials that could lead to the construction of a second Virginia-
class submarine as early as next year. Our Navy has estimated that we 
need 48 attack submarines to meet the needs of our military commanders. 
Yet, under the Navy's current 30-year shipbuilding plan, they do not 
expect to increase production to two subs per year until 2012, causing 
a perilous decline in our future sub fleet--dropping below 48 ships in 
FY2020-33 and hitting a low of 40 in FY2028 and FY2029. I have long 
advocated increasing our build rate of Virginia-class submarines to two 
per year so that we have sufficient capabilities to address emerging 
threats. However, the Navy has repeatedly delayed its two per year 
target date, causing instability in the industrial base. In FY2004, the 
Navy expected to build two subs per year in FY2007. By FY2005, the 
target had moved to FY2009. That date was pushed back again and again, 
and now stands at FY2012. Meanwhile, our defense industrial base in 
Southeastern New England has suffered layoffs of submarine designers 
and engineers, whose specialized skills would be very difficult to 
reconstitute if lost. Without immediate action, we risk shrinking our 
sub fleet to perilously low levels, precisely when nations such as 
China are expanding and modernizing their navies. After visits to Rhode 
Island and Connecticut earlier this year, Chairman Murtha stated that 
building more submarines would be a priority, and this legislation 
demonstrates his commitment to fixing this dangerous problem. On behalf 
of the submarine industrial base in Rhode Island, I thank him and 
Ranking Member Young for their leadership on this important national 
security issue.
  I am pleased that one of our final actions before departing for the 
August work period will be passing this important legislation, which 
demonstrates Congress's commitment to national security and deserves 
the support of all in this chamber.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in 
strong support of the H.R. 3222, the Department of Defense and related 
agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.
  As a member of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am extremely 
proud of the work of the Subcommittee and our members on both sides of 
the aisle, in crafting a bill which truly provides for the defense and 
security of our Nation, our friends and allies, and promotes, supports 
and preserves the mutual security interests of both our friends and 
allies around the world.
  More importantly, I would remind all of us here this evening, that 
anyone inside, or outside our shores, or for that matter, hiding in the 
most obscure and remote cave, or under a rock for that matter, who 
might wish upon us, our citizens and friends--the slightest of ill will 
or harm--should be very clear that this bill also serves as a stark, 
ominous and indisputable reminder of this Congress's and our Nation's 
resolve and dedication to our absolute domestic and global security--
particularly in the face of those who would threaten the very rule of 
law, democratic ideals, and more importantly, the God-ordained 
principles of peaceful, fair, and progressive coexistence, among all 
God's children and nations.
  It is important that our men and women who honorably serve in the 
defense of our Nation, have all the equipment, material and other 
resources they need to provide for the security of this Nation and our 
interests around the world.
  Without question, the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan has placed 
a tremendous strain in this area, as well our potential ability to 
effectively respond to eminent security treats which may occur 
elsewhere throughout the world.
  However, I firmly believe that our bill indeed goes far in meeting 
those needs and addressing any potential threats which might exist 
wherever they might arise.
  More importantly, I, as well as my fellow Committee Members, are 
absolutely committed to providing our troops every dollar, dime and 
penny they need to defend our Nation and our interests--both here and 
abroad.
  In this regard, our bill fully supports the Defense Department's 
plans to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps to reduce the 
pressure to extend troop deployments.
  Our bill will cover the costs of increasing the Army by 7,000 new 
members and the Marine Corps by 5,000 new members--including both the 
personnel costs and the associated equipment and outfitting costs. For 
the Army alone, the equipping costs amount to more than $4 million and, 
for the Marine Corps, the equipping costs amount to more than $2 
million.
  Our bill also provides $925 million, $635 million above 2007, 
specifically to address equipment shortfalls of the National Guard and 
Reserve in order to help these forces meet the demands of overseas 
deployments and respond to natural disasters here at home. This amount 
meets the requirements identified by the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau in the ``Essential 10 Equipment Requirements for the Global War 
on Terror.''
  Additionally, our bill provides an overall increase of 13 percent for 
home-station training, so that our troops are prepared for any eventual 
deployment. It also outfits a new 8th Stryker Brigade of the highly 
successful troop carrier to support the Army's evolution to a larger, 
more rapidly deployable force.
  But lest anyone of us here tonight forget no matter the short-term 
outcome of the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan--whether it 
ends in the next few months, or extends through next year or beyond--it 
``will end'' at some point, hopefully very soon.
  And it is on this issue that I am particularly proud of the work of 
our Committee.
  Ladies and gentlemen, not withstanding what we may individually 
believe to be our moral, national security or political interests in 
the war in Iraq and Afghanistan we need to meet and provide for the 
needs of our troops when they return home from the conflict in the 
Middle East.

  And, I am very proud that the bill recommended by the Committee takes 
a proactive stance in addressing the needs of and improving the 
facilities which our men and women serving overseas will return to, and 
the resources provided to their families, both in the near and long 
term.
  Mr. Chairman, our bill provides $558.4 million more than the 
President's request, for military family support, including childcare 
centers, education programs and the family advocacy program which 
supports military families affected by the war and child and spousal 
abuse.
  Additionally, the bill contains $1.3 billion more than the 
President's request to repair barracks, improve child care facilities, 
and improve community services at military bases, to address the strain 
put on facilities by changes in force structure, base closures, and a 
global repositioning of our troops.
  Our bill will significantly bolster base security, investing $141.9 
million above the President's request for perimeter security force 
protection and related security improvements, to protect DOD bases, 
schools, and hospitals from terrorist attacks.
  I am very proud that Ft. Benning, the ``home'' of the Infantry, is 
located in my district. And I am particularly pleased that our bill 
places a very high priority on investing in vital facilities like Ft. 
Benning, in anticipation of our troops return from the war.
  As a new member of the Appropriation's Subcommittee on Defense, I was 
struck by the Department's ongoing challenges in effectively managing 
its procurement activities, particularly in terms of contractor 
oversight, and our long term, multi-year plans, commitments and 
management in this area.
  From 2000 to 2005, DOD contracting-out increased by 73 percent, but 
oversight has actually decreased.
  I am very pleased that the Committee's report on the bill directs 
several steps to improve the oversight of contractors, including

[[Page H9980]]

the following: In order to improve the oversight of contractors, the 
bill increases the budget of certain critical DOD oversight agencies--
including providing an increase of $24 million for the DOD Inspector 
General, $17 million for the Defense Contract Management Agency, and 
$12 million for the Defense Contract Audit Agency. The bill also 
provides $21 million to permit the temporary assignment of 600 contract 
specialists from the General Services Administration to help DOD 
oversee contracts.
  The Committee report requires the Secretary of Defense to develop 
minimum standards for all contractors performing security functions and 
to establish a clear set of rules of engagement for those operating in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, within 90 days of the bill's enactment.
  The Committee report also requires a report that identifies: (1) DOD 
acquisition workforce needs; and (2) tools to recruit and retain these 
personnel in order to provide adequate management of contracts and 
oversight of contract performance.
  Finally, I would like to congratulate my Chairman, Jack Murtha, and 
Ranking Member Bill Young, for the outstanding job they have done in 
stewarding and leading the important work of our Subcommittee.
  And I would be remiss if I did not recognize and thank the staff of 
Subcommittee--David Morrison and his outstanding staff, as well as John 
Shank and the minority staff, in the outstanding work they do on behalf 
of this body and the Nation.
  This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the FY08 
Defense Appropriations bill.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today--as we consider 
the FY 2008 Defense Department Appropriations bill to speak about the 
need to ensure that every soldier returning from Iraq gets access to 
health care including mental health care servIces.
  One of the most important things funded in the bill is the program to 
help the Defense Department deal with the rising number of soldiers 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from mental health 
conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or PTSD.
  As you know Mr. Chairman, PTSD is a chronic medical disorder that 
follows exposure to an overwhelming traumatic event. Its symptoms can 
include flashbacks, sleeplessness, restlessness, irritability. The 
majority of those with PTSD meet the diagnostic criteria for several 
psychiatric disorders, especially depression and substance abuse, and 
many also attempt suicide.
  Our military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan are constantly at risk 
for car bombs, suicide bombers, and improvised explosive devices. 
Combat imposes a psychological burden that affects all combatants, not 
only those who sustain physical wounds.
  Yet, despite a renewed interest and focus on this problem by 
Congress, I am disturbed by recent reports about the use of 
administrative discharges to ``involuntary separate'' ``unfit'' 
soldiers in order to maintain ``good order and discipline'' among the 
ranks.
  While this may seem quite normal, these reports indicate that these 
discharges may be pushing men and women out of the service for conduct 
that may be tied to undiagnosed or untreated post-traumatic stress 
disorder symptoms even as the Army's Surgeon General has stated that 
the ``army does not want PTSD treated as a discipline problem.''
  PTSD and other mental health challenges often include complex 
behaviors which include difficulty controlling one's emotions and self-
medicating with alcohol, other medications, or illicit drugs in an 
attempt to return to ``normalcy.'' Without a thorough evaluation by 
trained professionals during this process, many soldiers suffering with 
PTSD may be discharged and cut off from needed healthcare, with deadly 
consequences.
  This problem was brought to my attention recently and tragically 
through the case of a constituent who my office was working to help 
access VA health services which he thought he had earned through his 
sacrifice on the battlefield.
  This constituent served his country in Iraq for 10 months only to 
come back to be discharged as a ``disciplinary problem'' even though he 
manifested many symptoms that would indicate PTSD.
  Instead of helping him find the door to diagnosis and treatment, he 
was just plain shown the door. Besides losing access to DoD health 
services, the character of his discharge also unfortunately prevented 
him from receiving any of the VA health and mental health services that 
could have helped him which so many in Congress have fought to make 
available to returning service men and women.
  The Army did eventually clarify his discharge so that my constituent 
could access VA health benefits. Unfortunately, this changee did not 
occur until after his problems had gone untreated for several more 
months and only a few weeks before he ultimately committed suicide.
  However, why we would force our service men and women, who have 
fought the enemy on the battlefield, to fight the enemy of bureaucracy 
anew is beyond me, especially when medical professionals maintain that 
early intervention and treatment can make a difference for those with 
PTSD and other mental health conditions.
  Sadly, the problem is much more widespread than one constituent. 
There are many who have noted the increasing use of the administrative 
discharge process to quickly discharge soldiers considered 
``disciplinary'' problems or ``unfit'' including pressure placed on 
unit commander to remove these soldiers rather than get them help.
  Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer amendments to try and get the DOD 
leadership to address this issue with a renewed sense of urgency 
especially since the DOD's own Mental Health Task Force expressed 
``serious concerns'' about this problem.
  The Task Force found a conflict between the haste to enforce 
discipline and the need to properly evaluate soldiers prior to a 
disciplinary discharge to ensure that reported misconduct is not a 
result of an untreated or undiagnosed mental health condition.
  In June, that Task Force recommended that DOD change its policies to 
``Guarantee a Thorough Assessment of Behavioral Symptoms When 
Evaluating Combat Veterans for Administrative/Legal Dismissal from the 
Military'' including ``carefully assessing a soldier's history of 
exposure to conditions that could cause PTSD, or traumatic brain 
injury, or related diagnoses for those facing administrative or medical 
discharge.''
  While my amendments would have been made in order under the open rule 
under which this bill will be considered, the Defense Subcommittee 
Chairman, Mr. Murtha, graciously offered to work with me on this issue 
as the bill moves forward, including conference report language. On 
that basis, I will not offer my amendments today.
  In the word ofthe DOD's task force, ``the military also has a clear 
responsibility to restore to full level of function a service member 
damaged in the line of duty, and to be cognizant of and attentive to 
the psychological aftermath of deployment, manifested in hidden 
injuries of the brain and mind.''
  We can and must do better for our soldiers.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and 
want to thank Chairman Murtha, Ranking member Young and their very able 
staff for their hard work.
  The challenge before our Subcommittee was this: strike the 
appropriate balance between present and the future needs for our 
military in a time of war.
  Clearly, we must provide the funding necessary to support our 
courageous young warfighters--troops in the current fight--and their 
families.
  In this regard, I am pleased that the bill:
  Fully funds a 3.5 percent pay raise for troops;
  Provides an additional $2.5 billion for family support activities--
more counselors, teachers, day care providers, better housing, etc;
  That the bill: Contains significant increases in many Defense Health 
accounts and provides funding to improve military mental health and 
PTSD programs;
  Includes new efforts on preventative medicine in DOD and enhancements 
to military medical research;
  The $1.9 billion shortfall in the military's TriCare program is 
erased in this bill;
  Contains new initiative to consolidate the DOD and VA medical record-
keeping systems to assure that our soldiers' medical records do not 
fall through bureaucratic cracks.
  Further, the bill:
  Fully funds flying hours for our aviators and home training for all 
those who fight on our behalf;
  Includes an additional $142 million to I provide enhanced security at 
DOD bases here in the U.S. As the recent incident at Fort Dix 
demonstrates, our military bases are terrorist targets.
  But Mr. Chairman, this Committee also applied its best judgment as we 
look to the future and how this Nation will confront future opponents 
in future conflicts. The bill:
  Provides nearly a billion new dollars to upgrade the equipment of our 
National Guard and Reserves for both military and home state civil 
operations;
  Fully funds the ``end strength'' increases for the Army and the 
Marines;
  Moves the F-22 Raptor program forward and retains language that bars 
its foreign sale;
  Advances the Joint Strike Fighter program and directs production of a 
2nd engine;
  Establishes a new Army Stryker Brigade and contains funding for five 
new ships for the Navy.
  Mr. Chairman, if I had written it this bill, I might have written 
sections differently. For example, one could argue with the total 
funding levels. And I wonder if we have ``gotten it right'' with 
respect to reductions to Future Combat Systems--the Army's signature 
modernization program.
  But all-in-all, this is a good package worthy of our support. I thank 
the Chairman. I thank

[[Page H9981]]

the Ranking Member. And I thank the staff and urge support of the bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to extend my 
support for the fiscal year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. The bill, 
as recommended by Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young, is a clean bill. It is 
a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill.
  This bill provides almost $460 billion for our Nation's defense, an 
increase of $39.7 billion over the fiscal year 2007 appropriations. It 
funds the country's priorities during a period where we find ourselves 
developing a force structure for the future and carrying out a Global 
War on Terrorism. The bill provides balance with support for 
development and deployment of near-term capabilities, while investing 
in the future through robust science and technology efforts. In 
particular, the bill:
  Continues the establishment of a strong missile defense against the 
threats of our adversaries;
  Furthers the revitalization of our human intelligence efforts, a 
critical capability lost in the 90's, while maintaining our technical 
intelligence assets;
  Focuses the evolution of tomorrow's blue water navy;
  Grows the force structure necessary to meet the operational demands 
and reduce the burdens carried by our military families;
  Addresses the health care needs of our soldiers; and,
  Does all of these things while providing the necessary resources to 
train and equip today's forces that are currently in harm's way.
  I believe, however, that it may be more important to appreciate what 
this bill doesn't do rather than what it actually does.
  This bill doesn't bog us down in the useless exercise of academic 
debate on issues better discussed elsewhere.
  It doesn't step into the authorizations world with misguided attempts 
to solve issues associated with topics like Iraq or detainee policy.
  And, most importantly, it doesn't delay providing our men and women 
in uniform our unqualified support and the resources they need to 
complete their mission successfully. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
preserve this quality of the bill before us today.
  Over the years that I have been privileged to serve on the 
Appropriations committee, we have made every effort to leave partisan 
politics at the door. We have teamed up in a bipartisan fashion to do 
what is best for the country. This bill follows that longstanding, 
time-honored tradition.
  For us to get our work done--for us to be successful--it must remain 
that way. National security demands that this bill focus on the needs 
of our troops. In its current form, this bill does that.
  National security also demands that Congress move swiftly. The House 
is doing its part and I would urge our colleagues in the Senate to join 
us in moving this bill--and others--quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the swift adoption of this Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman 
Murtha, Ranking Member Young, Chairman Obey, and Ranking Member Lewis 
for guiding the committee work that brings this bill to the floor for 
consideration today. I expect that other committee members took as much 
satisfaction as I did in being able to report out this bill with 
unanimous, bipartisan support from both the subcommittee and the full 
committee.
  One area that I want to comment on in particular regarding this bill 
has to do with the classified accounts. In preparing this bill, we 
undertook a new approach in which Members from both the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence worked jointly in a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. I 
was pleased to have been able to participate in this panel that was 
ably led by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Holt.
  Because we cannot comment in any detail on the classified accounts in 
this bill, I hope it is useful to my colleagues to hear that the Select 
Intelligence Oversight Panel undertook thorough reviews of the 
classified accounts, including many probing sessions with 
representatives of the intelligence agencies. In the end, the panel 
made recommendations on the classified accounts to the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the bill before us today reflects 
those recommendations.
  Mr. Chairman, like all other agencies of the Federal Government, the 
intelligence agencies need to be subject to oversight and 
accountability. I believe that we have done that in developing the 
appropriations levels that are provided for in the classified accounts 
of this bill.
  I also would like to call attention to a few additional areas of the 
bill that I think are significant. Equipment shortfalls for our Guard 
and Reserve forces have been an area of real concern to the committee. 
In order to continue to address this, the bill adds $925 million, $700 
million of which is designated for the Army National Guard.
  Recognizing the need to help the Army provide the facilities that it 
needs as it deals with the combined effects of growing its forces, 
rebasing its forces and transforming to the modular force, the bill 
adds $1.25 billion for facilities sustainment and restoration. These 
funds will be used to fix barracks, improve childcare facilities and 
enhance community services at installations around the world.
  The Navy has some challenges too, some of which this bill attempts to 
address. In shipbuilding, the bill adds $3.7 billion above the budget 
request to provide funds for an additional five ships. Furthermore, I 
am pleased that the bill fully funds the account for ship depot 
maintenance to ensure that the Navy can continue to maintain the 
readiness of its current fleet.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I point out that the bill funds a 3.5 percent 
pay increase for our military personnel, and it includes $2.9 billion 
(an increase of $558 million over the budget request) for family 
advocacy programs, childcare centers, and dependent education programs.
  There is much more that is very good about this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to support it.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, rise today in strong support 
of this legislation.
  This legislation along with the passage of the Rest and Recuperation 
for Troops Act yesterday and the Military Construction and VA 
Appropriations bill earlier this year, continues a strong record in 
this Congress of providing our troops with the funding and equipment 
they need in the field, and ensuring they have the healthcare and rest 
they need when they come home.
  I applaud the Appropriations Committee's work to provide more than 
the President's request for combat equipment depleted in Iraq, 
operational training, National Guard and reserves' battle gear, support 
services for military families, and shipbuilding.
  This bill appropriates $459.6 billion for Defense Department programs 
in FY 2008. The bill's total is $3.5 billion, just 1 percent less than 
the President's request, but $39.7 billion, or 9 percent more than 
comparable levels for last year's regular defense appropriations--not 
accounting for $165 billion in FY 2007 emergency supplemental defense 
funds for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan we sent the President 
earlier this year.
  I thank the Committee for including an important project being worked 
on by a consortium of universities in Texas in collaboration with the 
Air Force, the Consortium for Nanotechnology in Aerospace Commerce and 
Technology (CONTACT). Through collaborations among the universities, 
the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the aerospace commercial sector, 
this unique partnership will develop leading-edge nanotechnology 
aerospace applications faster and better than could be achieved 
individually at each institution.
  I hope to work with the Committee as they move to conference and in 
next year's cycle to highlight the importance of three other projects I 
requested that did not get funded.
  The Radar/Video Fusion Vessel and Port Security Demonstration Project 
will develop a sensor package integrated to provide surveillance, 
warning, monitoring and tracking of ships, vessels, and integrate into 
current and future Houston Ship Channel surveillance capability. 
Increased security at ports and waterways, landside and waterside, is 
now an essential part of homeland defense. This is particularly true in 
Houston where ships and barges have direct access to high value sites 
where destruction of assets will cause major casualties and/or economic 
impact.
  Two other projects, the Battleship TEXAS Restoration Project, and the 
Manganese Health Research Project, have each been funded in the past, 
and I hope the Chairman would work with me to see that these important 
projects receive the funding necessary to complete the projects in the 
future.
  Again, I strongly support this bill which will provide essential 
funding for the military and our troops, and I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in recognition of all the 
hard work the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and 
their staffs, have put in on behalf of our Nation on the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008--and in gratitude for 
their work on behalf of the 11th District of Georgia.
  And I would like to commend Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young 
for their efforts on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines who are so bravely defending us at home and abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, in its current form, this appears to be legislation 
that--although not perfect--does a fine job covering a wide range of 
priorities that are vitally important to our Armed Services. While 
regrettably cutting funding for both missile defense and future combat 
systems, the bill does appropriately include an across-the-board 3.5 
percent pay raise and provisions addressing both Guard and Reserve 
readiness concerns. This bill also provides much-needed funds to grow 
the

[[Page H9982]]

Army--by 7,000 soldiers--and the Marine Corps--by 5,000 Marines.
  Our House colleagues also did a good job providing funding for many 
important programs which are our military's top priorities. Chief among 
these, Mr. Chairman, is the F-22 Raptor.
  I am particularly encouraged by the work the Appropriations Committee 
has done to fund F-22 procurement this year, as this aircraft is vital 
to our Nation's defense. This bill contains $3.153 billion for 20 F-22 
Raptor aircraft as part of the multi-year procurement strategy of 60 F-
22s over the next three years. This will go a long way toward providing 
stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air 
dominance for the foreseeable future.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, as we fight the global war on terror, the 
United States must without question continue to modernize and 
strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way. 
Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this 
mission, and I would like to applaud the Committee for their 
recognition of this by including funding for the modernization of the 
C-5 fleet, in line with the Air Force's program of record.
  The Committee also responsibly recognizes the importance of 
developing life-saving innovations to benefit our war-fighters. 
Accordingly, $2.5 million dollars was included for the research and 
development of BioFoam Protein Hydrogel, which is manufactured in my 
district. BioFoam has the potential to save lives on the battlefield by 
using an expanding, adhesive, foam sealant to stop uncontrollable 
bleeding from internal wounds where tourniquets cannot be applied. 
Additionally, I am grateful that the Committee worked with me to 
provide funding for the Covert Waveform Program and for the development 
of Active/Smart Packaging for combat feeding.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank my colleagues for their 
hard work on this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which will 
provide our men and women in uniform with the tools to defend America 
and its people. Overall, this bill provides $459.594 billion for the 
operations of the Defense Department for fiscal year 2008, which is 
more than $43 billion above last year's level.
  This bill keeps faith with our troops and their families in three key 
areas. First, this bill provides $2.9 billion ($558.4 million above the 
President's request) for programs including childcare centers, 
education programs and the family advocacy program which provides 
support to military families affected by the demands of war and 
episodes of child or spouse abuse. Second, the bill addresses the 
health care needs of military families and retirees by providing 
$22.957 billion ($1.7 billion above 2007 and $416 million above the 
President's 2008 request) for their care. The bill rejects the 
President's proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium 
increases on our troops, their families, and our military retirees. 
Finally, the bill provides $2.2 to cover the cost of a 3.5 percent 
military pay raise, as approved in the House version of the Defense 
Authorization bill.
  This bill also prepares our forces to meet future needs. The bill 
provides $7.548 billion, a 13 percent increase for all home-stationing 
training, so that our troops are well prepared for any eventual 
deployment. The bill also supports DoD's plans to increase the size of 
the Army and Marines by providing $4 billion to cover the equipment 
costs of adding 7,000 Army troops and $2 billion to cover cost of 
adding 5,000 Marines. These force structure increases may reduce the 
number of deployments individual servicemembers may face in the years 
ahead.
  The bill also addresses Guard and Reserve equipment shortfalls by 
providing $925 million ($635 million above 2007 levels) in order to 
help forces meet the demands of overseas deployments and respond to 
natural disasters here at home. This amount meets the requirements 
identified by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in the ``Essential 
10 Equipment Requirements for the Global War on Terror.''
  To help America maintain its technological edge in the military 
arena, the bill provides $76.229 billion ($1.112 billion above the 
President's request and $508 million above 2007 levels) for research, 
development, testing and evaluation programs, including military 
medical research.
  Funding for production of the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter was 
zeroed out because they are not ready to go into production. Research 
and development will continue. Regarding ballistic missile defense 
programs, the committee cut some $298 million from the President's 
$8.498 billion request. I continue to believe that this is the single 
most wasteful, technologically impractical, and politically 
shortsighted programs in the entire Pentagon budget, and I hope that 
further cuts to this program will be forthcoming when the House and 
Senate conferees meet later this year.
  The bill also cuts $406 million from the President's $3.157 billion 
request for the Future Combat System, the Army's projected next 
generation of armor, artillery, and related vehicle programs. This is 
another example of a Cold War legacy program that continues to receive 
massive funding despite its complete irrelevance to the wars we've been 
waging since 9/11.
  If we've learned anything from our experience in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, it's not that our soldiers' greatest need has been 
additional firepower from new tanks and artillery pieces--it's been 
their need for translators and cultural specialist who could help them 
bridge the language and culture gap with the Iraqis and Afghans who 
want to help us find the insurgents and terrorists who are destroying 
their societies. I'm glad the committee has taken this initial step in 
reducing expenditures on this Cold War legacy program, but I hope that 
it represents only the beginning of a fundamental reevaluation of this 
program and the eventual reprogramming of its funds towards more 
productive ends.
  Finally, I wanted to take a moment to address a structural change 
that was made to the committee at the beginning of this Congress, one 
that has significantly enhanced this body's oversight of intelligence 
programs. Earlier this year and under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, 
the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select Intelligence 
Oversight Panel, which I have the honor of chairing. This step was in 
direct response to the 9/11 Commission recommendation that Congress 
take steps to reform how it conducts oversight of the intelligence 
community.
  Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations 
Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our 
charter is to review the operations of the intelligence community and 
to recommend policies and funding levels where necessary. The bill 
before you incorporates our recommendations. The majority of these 
recommendations are detailed in the classified annex to this bill and 
cannot be discussed in open session. However, one specific 
recommendation can be outlined for this body and the public, and it 
involves those critical foreign language programs of which I spoke 
earlier.
  Our panel recommended a more than $10 million increase in funding for 
the National Security Education Program, or NSEP for short. NSEP was 
established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act 
(NSEA), as amended, P.L. 102-183, codified at 50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. It 
was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on December 4, 1991. 
The NSEA mandated the Secretary of Defense to create the National 
Security Education Program (NSEP) to award: (1) scholarships to U.S. 
undergraduate students to study abroad in areas critical to U.S. 
national security; (2) fellowships to U.S. graduate students to study 
languages and world regions critical to U.S. national security; and (3) 
grants to U.S. institutions of higher education to develop programs of 
study in and about countries, languages and international fields 
critical to national security and under-represented in U.S. study. Also 
mandated in the NSEA was the creation of the National Security 
Education Board (NSEB) to provide overall guidance for NSEP.
  NSEP's mission is to build a broader and more qualified pool of U.S. 
citizens with foreign language and international skills. It consists of 
five initiatives that represent broad strategic partnerships with the 
U.S. education community designed to serve the needs of U.S. national 
security and national competitiveness. NSEP focuses on the critical 
languages and cultures of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle 
East, and Latin America, and is unique in the commitment of its award 
recipients to proceed into public service upon completion of their 
academic studies. Each NSEP award recipient must demonstrate a 
commitment to bring his or her extraordinary skills to the Federal 
Government through employment within one of its many agencies and 
departments.
  I'm pleased that our panel has placed such bipartisan emphasis on 
closing the foreign language and cultural literacy gaps that still 
exist within our national intelligence and defense agencies. However, 
it is clear that our deployed forces still do not have anything 
approaching the number of qualified linguists and cultural experts to 
help them effectively interact with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and most of the other countries of the Arab and Islamic world that are 
the critical battlegrounds in the war of ideas, hearts, and minds 
against al Qaeda. I will work with Chairman Murtha in the coming year 
to address this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, on balance, this is a good bill that provides our armed 
forces what they need to protect our citizens, our allies, and our 
vital interests, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the subcommittee for bringing this bill to 
the floor. Let me also take a moment to commend the outstanding staff 
of both the Defense subcommittee and the staff of the Select 
Intelligence Oversight

[[Page H9983]]

Panel for their hard work and expert contributions to our final 
product. I also want to thank the Panel's ranking member, Mr. LaHood, 
for his many thoughtful contributions to our work this year.
  Speaker Pelosi is a leader of vision and boldness. Under her 
leadership, the House passed H. Res. 35, which created the Select 
Intelligence Oversight Panel, which I have the honor to chair. This 
step was in direct response to the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission that Congress reform how it conducts oversight of the 
intelligence community. Specifically, the Commission said ``Congress 
should create a joint committee for intelligence, in with combined 
authorizing and appropriations powers.'' The Speaker created a panel 
consisting of appropriators and authorizers .
  Our panel contains a mix of members from both the Appropriations 
Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Our 
charter is to review all aspects of the intelligence community and 
report to the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense. The 
bill before you contains our first such set of recommendations, which 
have put everyone on notice that real Congressional oversight of 
intelligence activities has resumed after a long and dangerous lapse.
  This panel--unprecedented in Congressional history I believe--appears 
to be making a difference. Chairman Obey and Chairman Murtha have taken 
the Speaker's proposal and made it succeed. Working in a bipartisan 
manner, the panel has made numerous recommendations ranging from 
increased funding for foreign language programs to restructuring of 
major intelligence programs. Those recommendations are incorporated 
into this bill.
  I think almost all Americans now know that our national intelligence 
agencies activities around the globe affect their safety and prosperity 
at home. What I hope they will now also know is that we in the House 
have made the oversight changes necessary to help keep them safe and 
their liberties secure.
  Let me close by saying that our Panel's work is just beginning, and 
that I look forward to reporting to the House occasionally on our 
activities.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, given the many challenges faced by our 
Nation--and our military--I'm pleased that the House moved the Defense 
Appropriations bill quickly.
  Chairman Murtha is doing some very heavy lifting for the Nation, and 
I thank you for your work.
  This bill also contains a significant investment for South Texas, 
which contributes significantly to the Nation's military readiness. As 
the House point man on Readiness matters in our military, I have been 
deeply concerned that the Iraq conflict has eroded the readiness of the 
U.S. armed forces, perhaps for a generation.
  At a time when we need to be more ready than before, this is a 
tremendous cause for alarm.
  Today's bill addresses many of our current needs associated with: 
beefing up today's ground forces--our boots on the ground overseas; 
addressing the many failings of this administration and the last 
Congress in ensuring our military is ready for any challenge we need to 
meet, such as finally providing oversight of contractors in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; fully funding critical needs at depots that supply our 
troops; providing funds for National Guard equipment to make us safer 
here, and make our soldiers safer on the battlefields; and providing 
assistance for wounded warriors.
  I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work on the 
bill; and the gentlewoman from New York for her work on this rule.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal Year 
2008 Appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member 
Young for crafting a bipartisan measure that carefully balances support 
for or troops and their families and fiscal responsibility. It 
maintains and enhances our Nation's commitment to a defense second to 
none and our abiding responsibility to protect and defend our Nation 
from all enemies at home and abroad.
  As a member of this distinguished subcommittee, I am pleased with the 
body of work that we produced under the strong leadership of Chairman 
Murtha. The Defense subcommittee held over 30 hearings this year, 
nearly double that of the previous Congress. We received testimony from 
dozens of witnesses--from both inside and outside the Department of 
Defense--in order to allow the Members and our extraordinary staff to 
fashion this well balanced bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a difficult year for our Nation. The 
economy is in fragile shape, the public is losing faith in this body 
and the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on the morale and well 
being of U.S. soldiers. As this conflict extends well into its 5th 
year, I must soberly remind each and every Member of this body that 
3,651 U.S. soldiers have been killed and 27,104 injured. Those are 
staggering numbers.
  Thankfully, this bill seeks to provide robust funding for those 
programs most important to the soldiers and to their families. The 
Committee fully-funded a 3.5 percent military pay raise without 
charging higher health care fees for military retirees, as the 
Administration proposed to do. Included in this bill is just under 
three billion dollars for family advocacy programs, childcare centers 
and dependent's education programs.
  I am also very supportive of strong language and related funding in 
this bill providing for increased oversight and accountability of 
contractors and contracting out services. We have been calling on the 
Department of Defense to get its fiscal house in order for years. They 
chose to ignore Congress. This bill provides much needed guidance on 
the steps they must take to increase transparency on how they spend the 
public's money. Corruption and fiscal irresponsibility cannot stand. I 
agree with my Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
who maintains: ``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.'' As a result, we provide increased funds for 
the Contract Audit Agency, the Contract Management Agency, and the 
Department of Defense Inspector General. We also provide authority for 
the DoD to hire up to 500 GSA and GAG efficiency experts for 
assistance.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I want to draw each Member's 
attention to language in this bill that notes the Department of Defense 
has been slow ``to establish aggressive goals and timelines to achieve 
increased energy efficiency.'' The utter dependence of the United 
States on imported petroleum creates the major strategic vulnerability 
for our Nation, coupled with nearly half of the energy supply of the 
United States dependent on foreign sources. From the economically 
damaging Arab oil embargoes of 1973-74 and 1979 to the current 
recession precipitated by rising oil prices, which began in 1999, 
economic forces outside our borders have too often shaken the economic 
stability of the United States. We must shift America's dependence away 
from foreign petroleum as an energy source toward alternative, 
renewable, domestic sources. We must aim to balance the current 
petroleum trade deficit by replacing foreign sources of supply with 
steady increases of domestically-produced fuels and power system.
  The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of fuel in the 
United States. It maintains the largest energy footprint in our 
Govemment. I believe the Department of Defense can and must lead all 
other agencies in making the United States energy independent again.
  I encourage every Member to vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222 
and thank Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Young for the fine bill 
they have crafted. I would particularly like to highlight one item that 
is not in the bill. It's funding for the Administration's proposal to 
build a new nuclear weapon, the so called Reliable Replacement Warhead. 
The Administration proposed funding in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations measure for the warhead. They also asked for $30 million 
for design and development of the warhead in H.R. 3222.
  In conjunction with my Ranking Member, Mr. Hobson, we did not provide 
funds for this proposal in the Energy and Water Bill. I thank Chairman 
Murtha and Mr. Young for their foresight and correct policy decision in 
also eliminating funding for this program in H.R. 3222.
  Profound decisions on the use of nuclear weapons stockpile need to be 
made--this is a serious and fundamental responsibility. Plans need to 
be articulated with specificity before this Nation should consider 
proceeding with the President's call for a new nuclear weapon.
  First, there is a need for a comprehensive nuclear defense strategy 
and stockpile plan to guide transformation and downsizing of the 
stockpile and nuclear weapons complex--and until progress is made on 
this critical issue, there will be no new facilities or Reliable 
Replacement Warhead. Only when a future nuclear weapons strategy is 
established can the Departments of Defense and Energy determine the 
requirements for the future nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear 
weapons complex plan. To date no Administration has developed and 
articulated a policy that takes into account the changes in our world 
situation since the end of the Cold War, the advent of regional 
conflicts such as we've seen in Kosovo and the terrorist attacks of 9/
11.

[[Page H9984]]

  Further, testimony before the subcommittee has pointed to the 
potential for the international community to misunderstand development 
of a new nuclear weapon by the United States. Moreover, for the last 
decade, the Administration has said that Stockpile Stewardship was the 
path to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear 
stockpile. Now, with three major stockpile stewardship facilities all 
over budget, over their deadlines, and not completed, we are told, 
``Let's do something else.''
  Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. 
initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical 
that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before 
funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex 
can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over 
multiple sessions of Congress and multiple Administrations. I don't 
think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear strategy before 
we build a new nuclear weapon.
  The Administration has proposed funding to begin engineering and cost 
studies of a reliable replacement warhead. In this, they have got the 
cart well before the horse. No funds should be provided for this 
activity. Future funding should only be considered following the 
adoption of a new strategic weapons plan for the Nation whereby the 
President establishes the anticipated threat environment and the role 
of nuclear weapons in addressing the projected threats. The strategic 
weapons plan must then guide a new nuclear stockpile plan before it can 
be determined if and when a reliable replacement warhead is needed.
  In closing, I again want to thank Chairman Murtha and Mr. Young for 
their wise and positive decision in this matter.
  The Chairman. No general debate is in order. The bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  No amendment to the bill may be offered except those specified in the 
previous order of the House of today, which is at the desk.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3222

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2008, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of the 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant 
     to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $31,346,005,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; for members of the Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement 
     Fund, $23,300,801,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $10,269,914,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; for members of 
     the Reserve Officers' Training Corps; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $24,379,214,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $3,629,620,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,776,885,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $513,472,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 
     of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $1,365,679,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $5,815,017,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,621,169,000.

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $11,478,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $26,404,495,000: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, up to $12,500,000 
     shall be transferred to ``U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
     Operation and Maintenance'' for expenses related to the 
     dredging of the Hudson River Channel and its adjacent areas, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same time 
     period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided 
     further, That the transfer authority provided in this 
     paragraph shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority elsewhere provided in this Act.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance

[[Page H9985]]

     of the Navy and the Marine Corps, as authorized by law; and 
     not to exceed $6,257,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Navy, and payments may be 
     made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $32,851,468,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $4,471,858,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,699,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $31,613,981,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $22,343,180,000: Provided, That not 
     more than $25,000,000 may be used for the Combatant Commander 
     Initiative Fund authorized under section 166a of title 10, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $36,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary 
     expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the 
     Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, not less than $27,380,000 shall be made available 
     for the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative 
     Agreement Program, of which not less than $7,000,000 shall be 
     available for centers defined in 10 U.S.C. 2411(1)(D): 
     Provided further, That of the funds provided under this 
     heading, not less than $245,075,000 shall be available only 
     for the Combatant Commander's Exercise Engagement and 
     Training Transformation program: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act may be used to plan or implement the consolidation of a 
     budget or appropriations liaison office of the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a 
     military department, or the service headquarters of one of 
     the Armed Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative 
     liaison office: Provided further, That no more than 
     $1,900,000 shall be available for the Office of Legislative 
     Affairs within the Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
     Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 130(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, not less than $41,293,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense, 
     Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer: Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     provided under this heading for personnel security 
     investigations of the Defense Security Service shall be paid 
     at rates not in excess of those rates in effect as of August 
     1, 2006: Provided further, That $4,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, is available only for expenses 
     relating to certain classified activities, and may be 
     transferred as necessary by the Secretary to operation and 
     maintenance appropriations or research, development, test and 
     evaluation appropriations, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same time period as the appropriations to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That any ceiling on the 
     investment item unit cost of items that may be purchased with 
     operation and maintenance funds shall not apply to the funds 
     described in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That 
     the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere 
     in this Act.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $2,510,890,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,144,454,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $207,087,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $2,684,577,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $5,893,843,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; 
     transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     supplying and equipping the Air National Guard, as authorized 
     by law; expenses for repair, modification, maintenance, and 
     issue of supplies and equipment, including those furnished 
     from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department 
     of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same 
     basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel 
     on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $5,021,077,000.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $11,971,000, of which 
     not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $434,879,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $300,591,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $458,428,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided

[[Page H9986]]

     further, That upon a determination that all or part of the 
     funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary 
     for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be 
     transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided elsewhere 
     in this Act.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $12,751,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $268,249,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: 
     Provided further, That the transfer authority provided under 
     this heading is in addition to any other transfer authority 
     provided elsewhere in this Act.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 407, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $103,300,000, of which $63,300,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2009, and of which $40,000,000 shall be 
     available solely for foreign disaster relief and response 
     activities and shall remain available until expended.

  Mr. MURTHA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 18, line 21, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise, and for 
     defense and military contacts, $398,048,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2010.


           Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan

  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Rogers of Michigan:
       Page 19, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 21, after both dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(reduced by $45,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, quite simply, Mr. Murtha and I 
have worked out an agreement on this amendment, and I want to thank the 
chairman for working with me.
  This is incredibly important. We are going to take a little bit of 
this money from the former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Act, some of 
these moneys, and we are going to destroy tens of thousands of liters 
of chemical weapons still stockpiled in Libya. I think we have all come 
to the conclusion that this stuff is better gone than it is negotiating 
away about who pays for the road or for the electricity or for the 
incinerator.
  I want to thank the chairman. I think this is an important national 
security issue which we have come to an agreement that we will do 
something about, and I want to thank you for that. America, and I think 
the world, will be safer when these chemical munitions are 
exterminated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment, as he has announced that he intends to 
withdraw it because of a previous agreement.
  I take this time to advise the chairman of the subcommittee that 
under the unanimous consent agreement, a number of amendments were 
listed. I advise the chairman that some of those amendments will not be 
offered.

                              {time}  2245

  Other amendments we will be able to accept. Others will go to a vote, 
and there are several that will be subject to a point of order.
  But in order to facilitate the evening and allow the House to 
conclude action on this bill, I just took this time to state that.
  I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking 
member on the Military Construction Subcommittee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation to fund our troops.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to thank 
Chairman Murtha and Ranking Member Bill Young for their leadership and 
for working with the members on both sides of the aisle in crafting 
this important bill.
  This measure provides the funds to enable our military to meet the 
challenges it faces in the global war on terror and to protect our 
homeland. It contains resources to address the needs of our military 
families and includes initiatives to produce the advanced weaponry, 
equipment, and training to ensure that our military remains the best in 
the world.
  I am particularly pleased that the Committee did not include 
restrictions on funds that would prevent the President and our military 
commanders in the field from implementing the surge strategy in Iraq.
  In the debate on funding for the troops and the surge earlier this 
year, some of my Democratic colleagues and many in the news media 
proclaimed this operation to be a failure even before it began. Many 
said the war was lost. Despite signs that the new strategy was taking 
hold, the Democratic majority sought to undermine this effort with 
attempts to cut off funding and set a date-certain for withdrawal. 
President Bush and Republicans in this Congress countered that we 
should support the troops fully and give the surge time to work.
  There is solid evidence now that this strategy so ably put into place 
by GEN David Petraeus is working. Two military commanders on the ground 
there reported this week that they are denying freedom of movement to 
Al-Qaeda and that the citizenry have a new level of confidence in the 
Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces. More Iraqis are turning against Al 
Qaeda and working with Coalition forces to make their communities 
safer.
  Further proof about progress in Iraq was provided in a July 30 op-ed 
in the New York Times. The column, entitled ``A War We Just Might 
Win,'' was written by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two fellows 
at the Brookings Institution who have been harsh critics of the war 
effort. They spent eight days in Iraq and spoke of the significant 
changes taking place there.
  They wrote that troop morale is now high, that Coalition forces are 
confident in the strategy, and that they have the personnel on the

[[Page H9987]]

ground to ``make a real difference.'' Army and Marine units are working 
well with Iraqi security units and the political and economic 
arrangements being forged at the local level are helping provide basic 
services to the Iraqi people.

  They visited Anbar province and its capital of Ramadi, which has gone 
from being described as the worst part of Iraq to the best in just six 
months. To quote, ``A few months ago, American Marines were fighting 
for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets 
without body armor.''
  Mr. Chairman, in a previous House debate on this issue, I noted that 
the American people are war-weary and impatient with the progress of 
our efforts there. I also said I believe the American people want us to 
win. I understand the frustration they feel about this engagement, but 
I still believe they want us to succeed in bringing about a free and 
stable government in Iraq and in defeating Al Qaeda. The reports I 
referenced earlier offer encouragement that our strategy may yet 
produce those results.
  Our success there would stymie the plans outlined by Osama Bin Laden 
and his Al Qaeda Jihadists who consider Iraq a central battleground in 
the war on terror. They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate 
in the Middle East and use it as a beach-head to spread their terror 
and intolerance throughout the region and around the world.
  We have taken the fight to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to deny 
them the staging ground to plot more September 11-style attacks in the 
U.S. We have also been vigilant about protecting our homeland since 9-
11, and we must continue to provide the support our military and our 
intelligence communities need to meet that challenge. That includes 
modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to enable our 
intelligence agencies to remove outdated restrictions on the collection 
of information needed to stop terrorist plots before they can be 
carried out.
  The funding in this bill and revising the FISA provisions will send a 
message about our commitment to providing the resources to protect our 
homeland, enable our military to defend American interests, and fight 
terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $3,891,539,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $2,103,102,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $4,077,189,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2010.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $2,215,976,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; communications and electronic equipment; 
     other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and 
     accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training 
     devices; expansion of public and private plants, including 
     the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $11,217,945,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $12,470,280,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2010.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $2,928,126,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,067,484,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows:
       Carrier Replacement Program, $2,703,953,000;
       Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $124,401,000;
       NSSN, $1,796,191,000;
       NSSN (AP), $1,290,710,000;
       CVN Refuelings (AP), $297,344,000;
       SSBN Submarine Refuelings, $187,652,000;

[[Page H9988]]

       SSBN Submarine Refuelings (AP), $42,744,000;
       DDG-1000 Program, $2,772,637,000;
       DDG-1000 Program (AP), $150,886,000;
       DDG-51 Destroyer, $78,078,000;
       Littoral Combat Ship, $339,482,000;
       LPD-17, $3,091,922,000;
       LHA-R, $1,375,414,000;
       Special Purpose Craft, $4,500,000;
       LCAC Service Life Extension Program, $98,518,000;
       Prior year shipbuilding costs, $511,474,000;
       Service Craft, $32,903,000; and
       For outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first 
     destination transportation, $405,011,000.
       In all: $15,303,820,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2012: Provided, That additional 
     obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2012, for 
     engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such 
     budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of 
     ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $5,298,238,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $2,500,882,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of aircraft 
     and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized 
     ground handling equipment, and training devices, spare parts, 
     and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $11,690,220,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $4,920,959,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities, authorized 
     by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $342,494,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2010.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only; lease of passenger motor vehicles; and expansion of 
     public and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon, prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $15,255,186,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2010.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; expansion of public and private plants, 
     equipment, and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway, $3,335,637,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2010.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

       For procurement of aircraft, missiles, tracked combat 
     vehicles, ammunition, other weapons, and other procurement 
     for the reserve components of the Armed Forces, $925,000,000, 
     to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2010, 
     of which $700,000,000 shall be available only for the Army 
     National Guard: Provided, That the Chiefs of the Reserve and 
     National Guard components shall, not later than 30 days after 
     the enactment of this Act, individually submit to the 
     congressional defense committees the modernization priority 
     assessment for their respective Reserve or National Guard 
     component.

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $64,092,000, to remain available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $11,509,540,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2009.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $17,718,624,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2009: Provided, 
     That funds appropriated in this paragraph which are available 
     for the V-22 may be used to meet unique operational 
     requirements of the Special Operations Forces: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     available for the Cobra Judy program.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $26,163,917,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2009.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $20,659,095,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2009.

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation, in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; and administrative expenses in connection 
     therewith, $180,264,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2009.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,352,746,000.

[[Page H9989]]

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), and for the 
     necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $2,489,094,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That none of the funds provided in this 
     paragraph shall be used to award a new contract that provides 
     for the acquisition of any of the following major components 
     unless such components are manufactured in the United States: 
     auxiliary equipment, including pumps, for all shipboard 
     services; propulsion system components (that is; engines, 
     reduction gears, and propellers); shipboard cranes; and 
     spreaders for shipboard cranes: Provided further, That the 
     exercise of an option in a contract awarded through the 
     obligation of previously appropriated funds shall not be 
     considered to be the award of a new contract: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the military department 
     responsible for such procurement may waive the restrictions 
     in the first proviso on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law, $22,957,184,000, of which $22,140,381,000 
     shall be for operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed one percent shall remain available until September 30, 
     2009; of which $363,011,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2010, shall be for 
     procurement; and of which $453,792,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2009, shall be for 
     research, development, test and evaluation: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amount 
     made available under this heading for research, development, 
     test and evaluation, not less than $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for HIV prevention educational activities 
     undertaken in connection with U.S. military training, 
     exercises, and humanitarian assistance activities conducted 
     primarily in African nations.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions, to include construction of facilities, 
     in accordance with the provisions of section 1412 of the 
     Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 
     1521), and for the destruction of other chemical warfare 
     materials that are not in the chemical weapon stockpile, 
     $1,455,724,000, of which $1,198,086,000 shall be for 
     operation and maintenance; $36,426,000 shall be for 
     procurement, to remain available until September 30, 2010; 
     $221,212,000 shall be for research, development, test and 
     evaluation, of which $211,190,000 shall only be for the 
     Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2009; and no less than 
     $124,618,000 shall be for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency 
     Preparedness Program, of which $36,373,000 shall be for 
     activities on military installations and of which 
     $88,245,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009, 
     shall be to assist State and local governments.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for operation and 
     maintenance; for procurement; and for research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $945,772,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the 
     transfer authority provided under this heading is in addition 
     to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this 
     Act.

             Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the ``Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund'', 
     $500,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: 
     Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, 
     not more than $110,000,000 shall be available for operating 
     and administrative expenses: Provided further, That such 
     funds shall be available to the Secretary of Defense, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purpose 
     of allowing the Director of the Joint Improvised Explosive 
     Device Defeat Organization to investigate, develop and 
     provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, 
     personnel and funds to assist United States forces in the 
     defeat of improvised explosive devices: Provided further, 
     That within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, a plan for 
     the intended management and use of the amounts provided under 
     this heading shall be submitted to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report not later than 30 days after the end of 
     each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees 
     providing assessments of the evolving threats, individual 
     service requirements to counter the threats, the current 
     strategy for predeployment training of members of the Armed 
     Forces on improvised explosive devices, and details on the 
     execution of this Fund: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Defense may transfer funds provided herein to 
     appropriations for military personnel; operation and 
     maintenance; procurement; research, development, test and 
     evaluation; and defense working capital funds to accomplish 
     the purpose provided herein: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided 
     further, That upon determination that all or part of the 
     funds so transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purpose provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 5 days 
     prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the 
     congressional defense committees in writing of the details of 
     any such transfer.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $239,995,000, of which 
     $238,995,000 shall be for operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $1,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2010, shall be for 
     procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain the proper funding 
     level for continuing the operation of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, 
     $262,500,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $683,276,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $39,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2010 and $1,000,000 for 
     research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2009: Provided further, That 
     the National Drug Intelligence Center shall maintain the 
     personnel and technical resources to provide timely support 
     to law enforcement authorities and the intelligence community 
     by conducting document and computer exploitation of materials 
     collected in Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, and 
     national security investigations and operations.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.

[[Page H9990]]

       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in 
     this Act which are limited for obligation during the current 
     fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of 
     the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve 
     components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $3,200,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, 
     That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using 
     authority provided in this section must be made prior to June 
     30, 2008: Provided further, That transfers among military 
     personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be 
     transferred under this section: Provided further, That no 
     obligation of funds may be made pursuant to section 1206 of 
     Public Law 109-163 (or any successor provision) unless the 
     Secretary of Defense has notified the congressional defense 
     committees prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8006. (a) Not later than 60 days after enactment of 
     this Act, the Department of Defense shall submit a report to 
     the congressional defense committees to establish the 
     baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 
     authorities for fiscal year 2008: Provided, That the report 
     shall include--
       (1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column 
     to display the President's budget request, adjustments made 
     by Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if 
     appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level;
       (2) a delineation in the table for each appropriation both 
     by budget activity and program, project, and activity as 
     detailed in the Budget Appendix and the supporting 
     justification materials submitted to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     for the respective appropriations; and
       (3) an identification of items of special congressional 
     interest.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 8005 of this Act, none of the 
     funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     reprogramming or transfer until the report identified in 
     subsection (a) is submitted to the congressional defense 
     committees, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies in 
     writing to the congressional defense committees that such 
     reprogramming or transfer is necessary as an emergency 
     requirement.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8007. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8008. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional 
     defense committees.
       Sec. 8009. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act 
     may be used for a multiyear contract executed after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act unless in the case of any such 
     contract--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense has submitted to Congress a 
     budget request for full funding of units to be procured 
     through the contract and, in the case of a contract for 
     procurement of aircraft, that includes, for any aircraft unit 
     to be procured through the contract for which procurement 
     funds are requested in that budget request for production 
     beyond advance procurement activities in the fiscal year 
     covered by the budget, full funding of procurement of such 
     unit in that fiscal year;
       (2) cancellation provisions in the contract do not include 
     consideration of recurring manufacturing costs of the 
     contractor associated with the production of unfunded units 
     to be delivered under the contract;
       (3) the contract provides that payments to the contractor 
     under the contract shall not be made in advance of incurred 
     costs on funded units; and
       (4) the contract does not provide for a price adjustment 
     based on a failure to award a follow-on contract.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     a multiyear procurement contract as follows:
       Army CH-47 Chinook Helicopter; M1A2 Abrams System 
     Enhancement Package upgrades; M2A3/M3A3 Bradley upgrades; and 
     SSN Virginia Class Submarine.
       Sec. 8010. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     as required by section 401(d) of title 10, United States 
     Code: Provided, That funds available for operation and 
     maintenance shall be available for providing humanitarian and 
     similar assistance by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust 
     Territories of the Pacific Islands and freely associated 
     states of Micronesia, pursuant to the Compact of Free 
     Association as authorized by Public Law 99-239: Provided 
     further, That upon a determination by the Secretary of the 
     Army that such action is beneficial for graduate medical 
     education programs conducted at Army medical facilities 
     located in Hawaii, the Secretary of the Army may authorize 
     the provision of medical services at such facilities and 
     transportation to such facilities, on a nonreimbursable 
     basis, for civilian patients from American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall 
     Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8011. (a) During fiscal year 2008, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2009 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2009.
       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for the basic pay and allowances of any member 
     of the Army participating as a full-time student and 
     receiving benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     from the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when 
     time spent as a full-time student is credited toward 
     completion of a service commitment: Provided, That this 
     section shall not apply to those members who have reenlisted 
     with this

[[Page H9991]]

     option prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     section applies only to active components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor 
     Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be available to convert to contractor performance an 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by 
     more than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees 
     unless--
       (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
     private competition that includes a most efficient and cost 
     effective organization plan developed by such activity or 
     function;
       (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines that, over 
     all performance periods stated in the solicitation of offers 
     for performance of the activity or function, the cost of 
     performance of the activity or function by a contractor would 
     be less costly to the Department of Defense by an amount that 
     equals or exceeds the lesser of--
       (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's 
     personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or 
     function by Federal employees; or
       (B) $10,000,000; and
       (3) the contractor does not receive an advantage for a 
     proposal that would reduce costs for the Department of 
     Defense by--
       (A) not making an employer-sponsored health insurance plan 
     available to the workers who are to be employed in the 
     performance of that activity or function under the contract; 
     or
       (B) offering to such workers an employer-sponsored health 
     benefits plan that requires the employer to contribute less 
     towards the premium or subscription share than the amount 
     that is paid by the Department of Defense for health benefits 
     for civilian employees under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) The Department of Defense, without regard to subsection 
     (a) of this section or subsection (a), (b), or (c) of section 
     2461 of title 10, United States Code, and notwithstanding any 
     administrative regulation, requirement, or policy to the 
     contrary shall have full authority to enter into a contract 
     for the performance of any commercial or industrial type 
     function of the Department of Defense that--
       (A) is included on the procurement list established 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 
     U.S.C. 47);
       (B) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified nonprofit agency for the blind or by a qualified 
     nonprofit agency for other severely handicapped individuals 
     in accordance with that Act; or
       (C) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under at least 51 percent ownership by an 
     Indian tribe, as defined in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)), or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as defined in 
     section 8(a)(15) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(15)).
       (2) This section shall not apply to depot contracts or 
     contracts for depot maintenance as provided in sections 2469 
     and 2474 of title 10, United States Code.
       (c) Treatment of Conversion.--The conversion of any 
     activity or function of the Department of Defense under the 
     authority provided by this section shall be credited toward 
     any competitive or outsourcing goal, target, or measurement 
     that may be established by statute, regulation, or policy and 
     is deemed to be awarded under the authority of, and in 
     compliance with, subsection (h) of section 2304 of title 10, 
     United States Code, for the competition or outsourcing of 
     commercial activities.


                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8018. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8019. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That a prime 
     contractor or a subcontractor at any tier that makes a 
     subcontract award to any subcontractor or supplier as defined 
     in section 1544 of title 25, United States Code, or a small 
     business owned and controlled by an individual or individuals 
     defined under section 4221(9) of title 25, United States 
     Code, shall be considered a contractor for the purposes of 
     being allowed additional compensation under section 504 of 
     the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544) whenever 
     the prime contract or subcontract amount is over $500,000 and 
     involves the expenditure of funds appropriated by an Act 
     making Appropriations for the Department of Defense with 
     respect to any fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 430 of title 41, United States Code, 
     this section shall be applicable to any Department of Defense 
     acquisition of supplies or services, including any contract 
     and any subcontract at any tier for acquisition of commercial 
     items produced or manufactured, in whole or in part by any 
     subcontractor or supplier defined in section 1544 of title 
     25, United States Code, or a small business owned and 
     controlled by an individual or individuals defined under 
     section 4221(9) of title 25, United States Code.
       Sec. 8020. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 30 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Strike section 8020.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 8020 of 
this legislation which would have the same anticompetitive effect as 
language already included in almost every other one of the Democrat 
majority's appropriations bill by preventing funds from being spent to 
conduct public-private competitions.
  In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the 
private sector to compete against the government for commercial jobs by 
limiting the Defense Department's ability to spend money on this 
taxpayer friendly activity by putting arbitrary time constraints on the 
length of time that these studies can take place.
  While this policy may be good for increasing dues to the public 
sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for 
Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on 
their core missions when Congress uses this opportunity to take 
competition away from them.
  In 2006, Federal agencies competed only 1.7 percent of their 
commercial workforce which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for 
services is expected to generate a savings of $1.3 billion over the 
next 10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.
  Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 
billion in saving to taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that 
taxpayers will receive a return of almost $31 for every dollar spent on 
competition with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.

[[Page H9992]]

  This provision is obviously intended to stall public-private 
competitions for an entire fiscal year rather than allowing a proven 
process to work as it was intended, and it would harm taxpayers by 
denying the Department of Defense the ability to focus its scarce 
resources and funds and expertise on its core mission.
  This concerted effort to prevent competitive sourcing from taking 
place at the Department of Defense demonstrates that the Democrat 
leadership is hearing clearly from labor bosses that the Defense 
Appropriations bill represents simply another good opportunity to 
increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.
  In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, 
Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find 
taxpayer savings and to reduce the cost of services that are already 
being provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-
first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public 
sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. MURTHA. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:
       Sec. 8021. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8022. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8023. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $31,355,000 shall be available for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation, of which--
       (1) $23,753,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol 
     Corporation operation and maintenance, readiness, counterdrug 
     activities, and drug demand reduction activities involving 
     youth programs;
       (2) $6,727,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft 
     Procurement, Air Force''; and
       (3) $875,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement, 
     Air Force'' for vehicle procurement.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive 
     reimbursement for any funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for 
     counter-drug activities in support of Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies.
       Sec. 8024. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2008 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2008, 
     not more than 5,517 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That this 
     subsection shall not apply to staff years funded in the 
     National Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military 
     Intelligence Program (MIP).
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2009 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs is hereby 
     reduced by $57,725,000.
       Sec. 8025. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8026. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8027. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     Defense Agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8028. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2008. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30,

[[Page H9993]]

     1934, and for other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 
     U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8029. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available during the current fiscal year and hereafter 
     for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
     Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines program.
       Sec. 8030. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act.
       Sec. 8031. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of the Air Force may convey at no cost to the 
     Air Force, without consideration, to Indian tribes located in 
     the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and 
     Minnesota relocatable military housing units located at Grand 
     Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base that are excess 
     to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) The Secretary of the Air Force shall convey, at no cost 
     to the Air Force, military housing units under subsection (a) 
     in accordance with the request for such units that are 
     submitted to the Secretary by the Operation Walking Shield 
     Program on behalf of Indian tribes located in the States of 
     North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota.
       (c) The Operation Walking Shield Program shall resolve any 
     conflicts among requests of Indian tribes for housing units 
     under subsection (a) before submitting requests to the 
     Secretary of the Air Force under subsection (b).
       (d) In this section, the term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     recognized Indian tribe included on the current list 
     published by the Secretary of the Interior under section 104 
     of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe Act of 1994 (Public 
     Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 U.S.C. 479a-1).
       Sec. 8032. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $250,000: Provided, That upon determination by the Secretary 
     of Defense that such action is necessary to meet the 
     operational requirements of a Commander of a Combatant 
     Command engaged in contingency operations overseas, such 
     funds may be used to purchase items having an investment item 
     unit cost of not more than $500,000.
       Sec. 8033. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2009 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2009 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8034. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2009: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That any funds appropriated or transferred 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency for advanced research and 
     development acquisition, for agent operations, and for covert 
     action programs authorized by the President under section 503 
     of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.
       Sec. 8035. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8036. Of the funds made available in this Act under 
     the heading ``Defense Production Act Purchases'', not less 
     than $23,000,000 shall be made available for the competitive, 
     domestic expansion of essential vacuum induction melting 
     furnace capacity and vacuum arc remelting furnace capacity 
     for military aerospace and other defense applications: 
     Provided, That the operator must be experienced and qualified 
     in the production of iron-based vacuum induction melting 
     steel and vacuum arc remelting steel: Provided further, That 
     the facility must be owned and operated by an approved 
     supplier to the military departments and to defense industry 
     original equipment manufacturers.
       Sec. 8037. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8038. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to ensure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support: Provided, That 
     this limitation shall not apply to contracts in an amount of 
     less than $25,000, contracts related to improvements of 
     equipment that is in development or production, or contracts 
     as to which a civilian official of the Department of Defense, 
     who has been confirmed by the Senate, determines that the 
     award of such contract is in the interest of the national 
     defense.
       Sec. 8039. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that the granting of the 
     waiver will reduce the personnel requirements or the 
     financial requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to--
       (1) field operating agencies funded within the National 
     Intelligence Program; or
       (2) an Army field operating agency established to 
     eliminate, mitigate, or counter the effects of improvised 
     explosive devices, and, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Army, other similar threats.
       Sec. 8040. The Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, acting through the Office of Economic 
     Adjustment of the Department of Defense, may use funds made 
     available in this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' to make grants and supplement 
     other Federal funds in accordance with the guidance provided 
     in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 
     Conference to accompany the conference report accompanying 
     this Act.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8041. Of the funds appropriated in Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded from the following accounts and programs in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2006/2008'', 
     $25,786,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2007/2009'', 
     $51,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2007/
     2008'', $24,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2007/2008'', $142,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     2007/2008'', $125,000,000.
       Sec. 8042. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions

[[Page H9994]]

     are a direct result of a reduction in military force 
     structure.
       Sec. 8043. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8044. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands 
     and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of 
     pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be 
     incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and 
     Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve 
     provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to 
     Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence 
     Activities, including the activities and programs included 
     within the National Intelligence Program and the Military 
     Intelligence Program: Provided, That nothing in this section 
     authorizes deviation from established Reserve and National 
     Guard personnel and training procedures.
       Sec. 8045. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2003, 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.
       Sec. 8046. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.
       Sec. 8047. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That this restriction 
     shall not apply to the purchase of ``commercial items'', as 
     defined by section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act, except that the restriction shall apply to ball 
     or roller bearings purchased as end items.
       Sec. 8048. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8049. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any officer or 
     employee of the Department of Defense who approves or 
     implements the transfer of administrative responsibilities or 
     budgetary resources of any program, project, or activity 
     financed by this Act to the jurisdiction of another Federal 
     agency not financed by this Act without the express 
     authorization of the Congress: Provided, That this limitation 
     shall not apply to transfers of funds expressly provided for 
     in Defense Appropriations Acts, or provisions of Acts 
     providing supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Defense.
       Sec. 8050. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority of a United 
     Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) A notice under subsection (a) shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8051. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8052. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $30,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8053. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to one percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8054. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8055. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8056. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Intelligence 
     Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying 
     in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8057. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense in this Act 
     shall be made available to provide transportation of medical 
     supplies and equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to 
     American Samoa, and

[[Page H9995]]

     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8058. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22A advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.
       Sec. 8059. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       Sec. 8060. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to support any training program involving a unit 
     of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary 
     of Defense has received credible information from the 
     Department of State that the unit has committed a gross 
     violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective 
     steps have been taken.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a decision to 
     conduct any training program referred to in subsection (a), 
     full consideration is given to all credible information 
     available to the Department of State relating to human rights 
     violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the 
     Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in subsection 
     (a) if he determines that such waiver is required by 
     extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Not more than 15 days after the exercise of any waiver 
     under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a 
     report to the congressional defense committees describing the 
     extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and duration of the 
     training program, the United States forces and the foreign 
     security forces involved in the training program, and the 
     information relating to human rights violations that 
     necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8061. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the T-AKE class of ships unless the 
     main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
     manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
     entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes or there exists a significant cost or 
     quality difference.
       Sec. 8062. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8063. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     this Act, funds appropriated in this Act under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' 
     for any new start joint concept technology demonstration 
     project may only be obligated 30 days after a report, 
     including a description of the project, the planned 
     acquisition and transition strategy and its estimated annual 
     and total cost, has been provided in writing to the 
     congressional defense committees: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that it is in the national interest to do so.
       Sec. 8064. The Secretary of Defense shall provide a 
     classified quarterly report beginning 30 days after enactment 
     of this Act, to the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Committees, Subcommittees on Defense on certain matters as 
     directed in the classified annex accompanying this Act.
       Sec. 8065. Beginning in the current fiscal year and 
     thereafter, refunds attributable to the use of the Government 
     travel card, refunds attributable to the use of the 
     Government Purchase Card and refunds attributable to official 
     Government travel arranged by Government Contracted Travel 
     Management Centers may be credited to operation and 
     maintenance, and research, development, test and evaluation 
     accounts of the Department of Defense which are current when 
     the refunds are received.
       Sec. 8066. (a) Registering Financial Management Information 
     Technology Systems With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used for a 
     mission critical or mission essential financial management 
     information technology system (including a system funded by 
     the defense working capital fund) that is not registered with 
     the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense. A 
     system shall be considered to be registered with that officer 
     upon the furnishing to that officer of notice of the system, 
     together with such information concerning the system as the 
     Secretary of Defense may prescribe. A financial management 
     information technology system shall be considered a mission 
     critical or mission essential information technology system 
     as defined by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
       (b) Certifications as to Compliance With Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a financial management 
     automated information system, a mixed information system 
     supporting financial and non-financial systems, or a system 
     improvement of more than $1,000,000 may not receive Milestone 
     A approval, Milestone B approval, or full rate production, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) certifies, with 
     respect to that milestone, that the system is being developed 
     and managed in accordance with the Department's Financial 
     Management Modernization Plan. The Under Secretary of Defense 
     (Comptroller) may require additional certifications, as 
     appropriate, with respect to any such system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1).
       (c) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen 
     Act.--
       (1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated 
     information system may not receive Milestone A approval, 
     Milestone B approval, or full rate production approval, or 
     their equivalent, within the Department of Defense until the 
     Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect to that 
     milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance 
     with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). 
     The Chief Information Officer may require additional 
     certifications, as appropriate, with respect to any such 
     system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification 
     shall include a statement confirming that the following steps 
     have been taken with respect to the system:
       (A) Business process reengineering.
       (B) An analysis of alternatives.
       (C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (D) Performance measures.
       (E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the 
     Department's Global Information Grid.
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology system'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section 
     5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       Sec. 8067. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8068. Notwithstanding section 12310(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code, a Reserve who is a member of the National 
     Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under section 
     502(f) of title 32, United States Code, may perform duties in 
     support of the ground-based elements of the National 
     Ballistic Missile Defense System.
       Sec. 8069. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an

[[Page H9996]]

     entity performing demilitarization services for the 
     Department of Defense under a contract that requires the 
     entity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department 
     of Defense that armor piercing projectiles are either: (1) 
     rendered incapable of reuse by the demilitarization process; 
     or (2) used to manufacture ammunition pursuant to a contract 
     with the Department of Defense or the manufacture of 
     ammunition for export pursuant to a License for Permanent 
     Export of Unclassified Military Articles issued by the 
     Department of State.
       Sec. 8070. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under section 2667 of title 10, 
     United States Code, in the case of a lease of personal 
     property for a period not in excess of one year to any 
     organization specified in section 508(d) of title 32, United 
     States Code, or any other youth, social, or fraternal non-
     profit organization as may be approved by the Chief of the 
     National Guard Bureau, or his designee, on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       Sec. 8071. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages 
     only for military installations in States which are not 
     contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.
       Sec. 8072. Funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year 
     may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the 
     satellite and ground control segments of such system's 
     modernization program.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8073. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $34,500,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to other 
     activities of the Federal Government: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Defense is authorized to enter into and 
     carry out contracts for the acquisition of real property, 
     construction, personal services, and operations related to 
     projects carrying out the purposes of this section: Provided 
     further, That contracts entered into under the authority of 
     this section may provide for such indemnification as the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary: Provided further, That 
     projects authorized by this section shall comply with 
     applicable Federal, State, and local law to the maximum 
     extent consistent with the national security, as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense.
       Sec. 8074. Section 8106 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (titles I through VIII of the matter 
     under subsection 101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-111; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) shall continue in effect to 
     apply to disbursements that are made by the Department of 
     Defense in fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 8075. In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $15,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense, to remain available for obligation 
     until expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, these funds shall be available only for a 
     grant to the Fisher House Foundation, Inc., only for the 
     construction and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses to 
     meet the needs of military family members when confronted 
     with the illness or hospitalization of an eligible military 
     beneficiary.
       Sec. 8076. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may carry 
     out a program to distribute surplus dental and medical 
     equipment of the Department of Defense, at no cost to the 
     Department of Defense, to Indian Health Service facilities 
     and to federally-qualified health centers (within the meaning 
     of section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B))).
       (b) In carrying out this provision, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall give the Indian Health Service a property 
     disposal priority equal to the priority given to the 
     Department of Defense and its twelve special screening 
     programs in distribution of surplus dental and medical 
     supplies and equipment.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8077. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-Wide'', $150,572,000 shall be for the Arrow missile 
     defense program: Provided, That of this amount, $37,383,000 
     shall be for the purpose of producing Arrow missile 
     components in the United States and Arrow missile components 
     and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements, 
     consistent with each nation's laws, regulations and 
     procedures; $26,000,000 shall be available for the Short 
     Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program; and, 
     $26,000,000 shall be available only for risk mitigation and 
     preliminary design activities for an upper-tier component to 
     the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture: Provided further, 
     That funds made available under this provision for production 
     of missiles and missile components may be transferred to 
     appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and 
     equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same 
     time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to 
     which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided under this provision is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8078. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'', 
     $511,474,000 shall be available until September 30, 2008, to 
     fund prior year shipbuilding cost increases: Provided, That 
     upon enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall 
     transfer such funds to the following appropriations in the 
     amounts specified: Provided further, That the amounts 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes as the appropriations to which transferred:
       To:
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2001/2008'':
       Carrier Replacement Program, $336,475,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2002/2008'':
       New SSN, $45,000,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2003/2008'':
       New SSN, $40,000,000;
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2004/2008'':
       New SSN, $24,000,000; and
       Under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
     2005/2009'':
       LPD-17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship Program, $65,999,000.
       Sec. 8079. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may exercise the 
     provisions of section 7403(g) of title 38, United States 
     Code, for occupations listed in section 7403(a)(2) of title 
     38, United States Code, as well as the following:
       Pharmacists, Audiologists, Psychologists, Psychology Aides 
     and Technicians, Social Workers, Social Services Assistants 
     and Dental Hygienists:
       (A) The requirements of section 7403(g)(1)(A) of title 38, 
     United States Code, shall apply.
       (B) The limitations of section 7403(g)(1)(B) of title 38, 
     United States Code, shall not apply.
       Sec. 8080. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2008 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
       Sec. 8081. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that creates or initiates a new 
     program, project, or activity unless such program, project, 
     or activity must be undertaken immediately in the interest of 
     national security and only after written prior notification 
     to the congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8082. (a) In addition to the amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, the amount of $990,000 is hereby 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Army National Guard''. Such amount shall be made 
     available to the Secretary of the Army only to make a grant 
     in the amount of $990,000 to the entity specified in 
     subsection (b) to facilitate access by veterans to 
     opportunities for skilled employment in the construction 
     industry.
       (b) The entity referred to in subsection (a) is the Center 
     for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment, 
     a nonprofit labor-management co-operation committee provided 
     for by section 302(c)(9) of the Labor-Management Relations 
     Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 186(c)(9)), for the purposes set forth 
     in section 6(b) of the Labor Management Cooperation Act of 
     1978 (29 U.S.C. 175a note).
       Sec. 8083. The Department of Defense and the Department of 
     the Army shall make future budgetary and programming plans to 
     fully finance the Non-Line of Sight Future Force cannon 
     (NLOS-C) and a compatible large caliber ammunition resupply 
     capability for this system supported by the Future Combat 
     Systems (FCS) Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in order to field 
     this system in fiscal year 2010: Provided, That the Army 
     shall develop the NLOS-C independent of the broader FCS 
     development timeline to achieve fielding by fiscal year 2010. 
     In addition the Army will deliver eight combat operational 
     pre-production NLOS-C systems by the end of calendar year 
     2008. These systems shall be in addition to those systems 
     necessary for developmental and operational testing: Provided 
     further, That the Army shall ensure that budgetary and 
     programmatic plans will provide for no fewer than eight 
     Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.

[[Page H9997]]

       Sec. 8084. In addition to the amounts appropriated or 
     otherwise made available elsewhere in this Act, $70,000,000 
     is hereby appropriated to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall make grants in 
     the amounts specified as follows: $25,000,000 to the United 
     Service Organizations; $25,000,000 to the Red Cross; 
     $5,000,000 for the SOAR Virtual School District; $3,500,000 
     for Harnett County/Fort Bragg, North Carolina infrastructure 
     improvements; $2,500,000 to The Presidio Trust; $1,500,000 to 
     the National Bureau of Asian Research; $6,000,000 to the 
     Jamaica Bay Unit of Gateway National Recreation Area; and, 
     $1,500,000 to the Red Cross Consolidated Blood Services 
     Facility.
       Sec. 8085. The budget of the President for fiscal year 2009 
     submitted to the Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 
     31, United States Code, shall include separate budget 
     justification documents for the costs of United States Armed 
     Forces' named operations exceeding an estimated cost of 
     $100,000,000 for the Military Personnel accounts, the 
     Operation and Maintenance accounts, and the Procurement 
     accounts: Provided, That these documents shall include a 
     description of the funding requested for each named 
     operation, for each military service, to include all Active 
     and Reserve components, and for each appropriations account: 
     Provided further, That these documents shall include 
     estimated costs for each element of expense or object class, 
     a reconciliation of increases and decreases for each named 
     operation, and programmatic data including, but not limited 
     to, troop strength for each Active and Reserve component, and 
     estimates of the major weapons systems deployed in support of 
     each named operation: Provided further, That these documents 
     shall include budget exhibits OP-5 and OP-32 (as defined in 
     the Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation) 
     for all named operations for the budget year and the two 
     preceding fiscal years.
       Sec. 8086. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     research, development, test, evaluation, procurement or 
     deployment of nuclear armed interceptors of a missile defense 
     system.
       Sec. 8087. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act: Provided, That the Air Force shall allow the 53rd 
     Weather Reconnaissance Squadron to perform other missions in 
     support of national defense requirements during the non-
     hurricane season.
       Sec. 8088. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available for integration of foreign intelligence information 
     unless the information has been lawfully collected and 
     processed during the conduct of authorized foreign 
     intelligence activities: Provided, That information 
     pertaining to United States persons shall only be handled in 
     accordance with protections provided in the Fourth Amendment 
     of the United States Constitution as implemented through 
     Executive Order No. 12333.
       Sec. 8089. (a) At the time members of reserve components of 
     the Armed Forces are called or ordered to active duty under 
     section 12302(a) of title 10, United States Code, each member 
     shall be notified in writing of the expected period during 
     which the member will be mobilized.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) in any case in which the Secretary determines 
     that it is necessary to do so to respond to a national 
     security emergency or to meet dire operational requirements 
     of the Armed Forces.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8090. The Secretary of Defense may transfer funds from 
     any available Department of the Navy appropriation to any 
     available Navy ship construction appropriation for the 
     purpose of liquidating necessary changes resulting from 
     inflation, market fluctuations, or rate adjustments for any 
     ship construction program appropriated in law: Provided, That 
     the Secretary may transfer not to exceed $100,000,000 under 
     the authority provided by this section: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary may not transfer any funds until 30 days 
     after the proposed transfer has been reported to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, unless a response from the Committees is 
     received sooner: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided by this section is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this Act.
       Sec. 8091. For purposes of section 612 of title 41, United 
     States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made under the 
     heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' that is not 
     closed at the time reimbursement is made shall be available 
     to reimburse the Judgment Fund and shall be considered for 
     the same purposes as any subdivision under the heading 
     ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' appropriations in the 
     current fiscal year or any prior fiscal year.
       Sec. 8092. Hereafter, the Secretary of Defense may present 
     promotional materials, including a United States flag, to any 
     member of an Active or Reserve component under the 
     Secretary's jurisdiction who, as determined by the Secretary, 
     participates in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom, along with other recognition items in conjunction 
     with any week-long national observation and day of national 
     celebration, if established by Presidential proclamation, for 
     any such members returning from such operations.
       Sec. 8093. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions, the 
     total amount appropriated in title II of this Act is hereby 
     reduced by $126,787,000: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall allocate this reduction proportionally to each 
     budget activity, activity group, subactivity group, and each 
     program, project, and activity, within each appropriation 
     account.
       Sec. 8094. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or TRICARE shall be available 
     for the reimbursement of any health care provider for 
     inpatient mental health service for care received when a 
     patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health 
     care or residential treatment care by a medical or health 
     care professional having an economic interest in the facility 
     to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this 
     limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental 
     health services provided under the program for persons with 
     disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 
     10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or 
     provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of 
     Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of 
     the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who 
     is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the 
     appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of 
     services required by the patient, and the availability of 
     that care.
       Sec. 8095. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8096. Appropriations available to the Department of 
     Defense for the purchase of heavy and light armored vehicles 
     for force protection purposes may be used for such purchase, 
     up to a limit of $250,000 per vehicle, notwithstanding other 
     limitations applicable to the purchase of passenger carrying 
     vehicles.
       Sec. 8097. Supervision and administration costs associated 
     with construction projects outside the United States funded 
     with appropriations available for operation and maintenance, 
     may be obligated at the time a construction contract is 
     awarded: Provided, That for the purpose of this section, 
     supervision and administration costs include all in-house 
     Government costs.
       Sec. 8098. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall remain available for obligation beyond the 
     current fiscal year, except for funds appropriated for 
     research and technology, which shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2009.
       Sec. 8099. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior fiscal year, and the one 
     percent limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8100. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, that 
     not more than 35 percent of funds provided in this Act for 
     environmental remediation may be obligated under indefinite 
     delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with a total contract 
     value of $130,000,000 or higher.
       Sec. 8101. The Secretary of Defense shall create a major 
     force program category for space for the Future Years Defense 
     Program of the Department of Defense. The Secretary of 
     Defense shall designate an official in the Office of the 
     Secretary of Defense to provide overall supervision of the 
     preparation and justification of program recommendations and 
     budget proposals to be included in such major force program 
     category.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8102. In addition to funds made available elsewhere in 
     this Act, there is hereby appropriated $200,000,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That these 
     funds are appropriated to the ``Tanker Replacement Transfer 
     Fund'' (referred to as ``the Fund'' elsewhere in this 
     section): Provided further, That the Secretary of the Air 
     Force may transfer amounts in the Fund to ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'', and ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Air Force'', only for the purposes of proceeding with a 
     tanker acquisition program: Provided further, That funds 
     transferred shall be merged with and be available for the 
     same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That this transfer authority is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of the Air Force shall, 
     not fewer than 15 days prior to making transfers using funds 
     provided in this section, notify the congressional defense 
     committees in writing of the details of any such transfer: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report no 
     later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to

[[Page H9998]]

     the congressional defense committees summarizing the details 
     of the transfer of funds from this appropriation.
       Sec. 8103. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or 
     expended by the United States Government for a purpose as 
     follows:
       (1) To establish any military installation or base for the 
     purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United 
     States Armed Forces in Iraq.
       (2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource 
     of Iraq.
       Sec. 8104. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
     Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at New York on 
     December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sections 1002 and 1003 of the Department of Defense, 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes 
     in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 
     (Public Law 109-148).
       Sec. 8105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay 
     negotiated indirect cost rates on a contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement (or similar arrangement) entered into 
     by the Department of Defense and an entity in excess of 20 
     percent of the total direct cost of the contract, grant, or 
     agreement (or similar arrangement) if the purpose of such 
     contract, grant, or agreement (or similar arrangement) is to 
     carry out a program or programs of mutual interest between 
     the two parties: Provided, That this limitation shall apply 
     only to funds made available in this Act for basic research.
       Sec. 8106. Any request for funds for a fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 2008 for an ongoing military operation overseas, 
     including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, shall be 
     included in the annual budget of the President for such 
     fiscal year as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       Sec. 8107. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to provide 
     award fees to any defense contractor contrary to the 
     provisions of section 814 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
       Sec. 8108. Not more than 90 percent of the funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Defense for contracted 
     services under title II of this Act shall be available for 
     obligation unless and until the Secretary of Defense submits 
     to the congressional defense committees the report required 
     by section 3305 of title III of Public Law 110-28 (121 Stat. 
     136).


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 96, line 12, strike ``$2,500,000 to The Presidio 
     Trust;''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to once again make the case 
that earmarking is out of control in these bills.
  This Defense bill that we are discussing tonight has more than 1,300 
earmarks. The notion that this was adequately vetted and scrubbed, that 
these earmarks had proper review is simply not reasonable. There is no 
way they could have in this short amount of time.
  When you read through this bill, you have to chuckle at the creative 
way that some of these projects have been cast in order to appear that 
there is some defense application.
  Just to highlight a couple, there is one earmark in here for a cold 
weather hand protection system. What could that be? That is a glove to 
you and me, sold at any outdoor outfitters store. But in here, it is a 
cold weather hand protection system, and we are going to be giving an 
earmark to a private company to sell gloves.
  There are more. There is another earmark for a light-weight foam 
sleep pad project. What is that? It sounds like nothing more than a 
mattress. It is one that self-inflates that scouts have been using for 
years and years and years. And yet we are giving an earmark to a 
private company to provide it to the Defense Department. Why are we 
doing that? There are 1,300 earmarks in this bill, many of them like 
this.
  Let me get to the first one I am challenging tonight.
  This amendment would prohibit $2.5 million from being used to restore 
the parade ground in the center of the Presidio's Main Post, and reduce 
funding for the overall bill by a consistent amount. This is just one 
of a long parade of earmarks in the bill.
  The Presidio is located in San Francisco, one of the oldest 
continuously used military posts in the Nation. In 1996, Congress 
turned the bulk of the Presidio, including the large Main Post area, 
over to a congressionally chartered nonprofit organization called The 
Presidio Trust to be managed with the National Park Service.
  In a unique arrangement, the main objective is to achieve financial 
self-sufficiency by the year 2013 largely by renting out housing and 
leasing land to businesses. It has been quite successful in this. The 
San Francisco Chronicle noted last year the Presidio was becoming a 
scenic enclave where only the well-healed need apply with some houses 
being rented for more than $4,000 a month. That is high, even by 
California standards.
  This earmark raises a number of troubling questions, not the least of 
which is why an earmark for a park managed in partnership with the 
National Park Service is receiving an earmark in the Defense 
Appropriations bill. The Defense Appropriations bill, I think we all 
agree, is for the troops. Yet here we are bleeding off funds to spend 
money on an earmark that has been funded in prior bills for a project 
managed with the National Park Service. I am sure taxpayers would like 
to hear a good explanation for this. Why are we doing it in the Defense 
bill?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman who is the sponsor 
of the earmark?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona controls the time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would yield to the gentleman if he would tell us who the 
sponsor of the earmark is.
  Well, I guess I will since he won't. The sponsor is the Speaker of 
the House, and I would hope that the sponsor of the earmark would come 
and defend this. Why are we earmarking defense dollars for a project 
managed in cooperation with the National Park Service, a project that 
is receiving millions and millions of dollars from the outside in a 
very high-rent district in San Francisco. That doesn't seem right, yet 
we are doing it.
  And this is indicative of a lot of the earmarks that are going into 
this bill. It is perhaps not surprising that there isn't much of a 
defense for this. But I would think even if it is nearly 11 on the last 
day of the session that the taxpayers deserve a little better than 
this.
  I have a few more earmarks and we will talk a little more about this. 
But it just seems wrong when you come up with high-sounding words to 
make the earmarks sound like they are more important.
  I started thinking that if this podium right here were described in 
the defense bill, it would be referred to as a multipurpose, ad hoc 
self-generating, voice-projection platform. Or this pen might be a 
stenographic multi-functional polymer language communication system.
  If you name things like this, you might get funding in this defense 
bill. And people might laugh, but we do it year after year after year, 
and it grows. People will point out that there are fewer earmarks in 
this bill than there were in the past couple of years. That is true, 
and it is a good thing. But it is still too much.
  How can we exercise proper oversight when we are spending money like 
this?
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

[[Page H9999]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 8109. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', up to 
     $30,000,000 may be available for financial assistance to 
     eligible local education agencies pursuant to section 386 of 
     Public Law 102-484.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Issa

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Issa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to disclose to the public the aggregate amount of 
     funds appropriated by Congress for the National Intelligence 
     Program (as defined in in section 3(6) of the National 
     Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(6))) for a fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I won't need 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. We will accept the amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I can take ``yes'' for an answer. Thank you 
both very much.
  The Issa amendment simply prevents the Intelligence portion of the 
DOD Appropriations bill to be made public.
  The budget total for the National Intelligence Program is now 
authorized to be made public in a provision that was included in the 
conference report to H.R. 1.
  No amendments were allowed during the Conference to fix this problem. 
The original House-passed version of H.R. 1 did not include this 
provision.
  With so many threats to our Nation's security, it makes no sense to 
disclose vital information to our enemies.
  Traditionally, this number has remained classified for good reason.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2300


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amounts made available under the 
     heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION--
     Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide'', 
     and increasing the amounts made available under that heading, 
     by $97,200,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, praise is due to certain Members on the Appropriations 
Committee on both sides of this aisle who had the foresight and the 
wisdom to fund key missile defense systems in the President's budget.
  We must remind ourselves that in 2006 alone there were close to 100 
foreign ballistic missiles launched around the world. In an age of 
terrorism, when rogue states and non-State entities can acquire these 
dangerous missiles, we must prepare a defense for our homeland, for our 
deployed war fighters and for our friends and allies.
  The Appropriations Committee preserved the Airborne Laser, which is a 
system often deemed futuristic or far-term, but as many of us know, ABL 
is a magnificent ballistic missile defense system that has now been 
built and continues to successfully meet its knowledge points. And 
thanks to the ingenuity and hard work of dedicated Americans, Airborne 
Laser will soon play a critical role in helping us to meet the evolving 
threat of ballistic missiles.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, are you saying that the cuts 
would be restored?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, you may be confused here. We're 
not talking about ABL here. I was just getting to the next. I was 
thanking you for restoring ABL.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman of 
the appropriations committee is saying that the cuts would be restored, 
then I'm willing to withdraw the amendment. If that's not what he's 
saying, then I need to go ahead and offer the amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, that may be. Let me go ahead and 
finish here with my comments, and then I'll ask the Appropriations 
chairman what he feels like would be appropriate at that time.
  I'm also grateful, Mr. Chairman, that we've taken vital steps for 
greater cooperation with Israeli ballistic missile defense because I 
believe that will play a critical role in future pieces of the human 
family.
  Having said that, I'm incredibly concerned tonight that the $97.2 
million that was cut from the only existing active defense system this 
Nation has against intercontinental ballistic missiles is a dangerous 
cut. This is not a far-term system. In fact, this is not a near-term 
system. It is a current system and the only one we have to defend this 
Nation against intercontinental ballistic missiles. This $97.2 million 
cut is inconsistent with even the Democrats' view on the House Armed 
Services Committee for their support for short-term programs and near-
term programs, and it directly conflicts with the legislation passed in 
last year's National Defense Authorization advocating Department of 
Defense focus on near-term capabilities.
  This amendment would restore the $97.2 million for ground-based, mid-
course defense without increasing any dollars to the Defense bill. The 
offset is from research and development defense-wide, which has over 
$20 billion in the account.
  Mr. Chairman, this country must plan on being surprised by our 
enemies. In 1998, intelligence experts indicated that North Korea was 
years away from fielding multistage rockets. That very next month they 
demonstrated that capability when, on July 4 of the American 
Independence Day, North Korea brazenly launched a long-range ballistic 
missile.
  Americans witnessed for the first time that day their country 
activate a missile defense system to protect our

[[Page H10000]]

homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is clear that 
North Korea was using these missiles for coercion and intimidation, and 
I would ask that we neutralize their ability to do that and bring 
critical protection to Americans and our homeland by fully supporting 
the GMB system we currently have.
  Now, I would yield to the chairman if he has any thoughts.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in sincere 
and due respect, if the concern were as great as mine, this $97.2 
million would not have been cut.
  I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. MURTHA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to waive or modify regulations promulgated under chapter 
     43, 71, 75, or 77 of title 5, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would yield, we have no problem with the 
amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. I just note Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Jones and I 
are offering this amendment to protect our civil workers, and thanks to 
the Chair for his consideration of this issue.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment to defund the National Security Personnel System, 
NSPS.
  The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, and the 
staff at the Government Accounting Office, GAO has analyzed the 
development of NSPS. In published reports and testimony before 
Congress, Mr. Walker has criticized the manner in which the Department 
of Defense, DOD, has failed to effectively manage the design and 
implementation of NSPS.
  On July 16, 2007 GAO released a report supporting Defense unions' 
contention that DOD has been underestimating the cost of implementing 
NSPS. According to the report, GAO found that DOD's November 2005 
estimate that it will cost $158 million to implement NSPS ``does not 
include the full cost that the department expects to incur as a result 
of implementing the new system.''
  The report also concluded that the total amount of funds the 
department spent on NSPS during fiscal years 2005 and 2006 cannot be 
determined because DOD has not established an effective oversight 
mechanism to ensure that all these costs are fully captured. Because of 
this extreme mismanagement, we will never know how much DOD spent 
trying to implement NSPS, although the total amount likely runs into 
the billions of dollars.
  For this, and many other reasons, Congress should not provide funding 
for the implementation of this misguided endeavor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleagues 
Representative Jay Inslee and Representative Walter Jones in offering 
this important bipartisan amendment today.
  Our Federal workforce is comprised of hard-working public servants 
who deserve respect on the job and fairness in matters of personnel. 
Over the past several years, it has become increasingly clear that the 
Defense Department's alternative human resources regime known as the 
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) provides neither--and 
therefore should not be supported in this legislation.
  The NSPS was originally authorized in the FY 2004 Defense 
authorization bill at the request of the political leadership in the 
Pentagon with the understanding that the new authority would be 
exercised consistent with congressional intent and in consultation with 
the legitimate representatives of the Nation's 700,000 DoD workforce. 
For all intents and purposes, that hasn't happened. The Pentagon has, 
for example, ignored Congress' requirement that an independent entity 
arbitrate certain disputes between management and labor. And DoD has 
brushed aside provisions mandating the use of a merit system protection 
board with independent judgment.
  As a consequence, the NSPS has been mired in lawsuits, and this House 
has now acted twice to curtail the program: first, by passing an 
essentially identical limitation amendment by voice vote during 
consideration of last year's Defense appropriations bill; and second, 
by effectively eliminating authority for the NSPS in this year's 
Defense authorization legislation. If that weren't enough, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that it 
couldn't even figure out how much money the Defense Department was 
actually spending on the NSPS because ``DoD has not established an 
effective oversight mechanism to ensure that all these costs are fully 
captured.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment pertaining to leave.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point or order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Castle:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8110. Funds made available under title II of this Act 
     shall be used to credit each member of the Armed Forces, 
     including each member of a reserve component, with one 
     additional day of leave for every month of the member's most 
     recent previous deployment in a combat zone.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that the point of order will 
probably be upheld here, but I would like to make this point before I 
withdraw the amendment.
  Today, all members of the Armed Forces, including those serving in 
the Guard and Reserves, receive two-and-a-half days of leave time per 
month, regardless of whether they're deployed in Iraq or back in the 
U.S. or at their home base.
  My amendment would simply credit soldiers one additional day of leave 
time for every month that they are deployed in a combat zone, and this 
could be used when they return Stateside. We learned this from speaking 
to a soldier in particular by e-mail and to soldiers more specifically 
about it, and realized that with some of the mental health problems 
which are going on, the extra leave time, not time on standby but 
actual leave time, would be good as far as our soldiers are concerned, 
and so decided we wanted to push it.
  We tried to do it in the Tauscher bill a couple of days ago, and 
unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not accept it. And I tried to 
put it in this Defense appropriations bill, and I realize it might have 
limitations as far as the point of order is concerned.
  But I think it's an important question, and I just wanted to appeal 
to the chairman and to the ranking member to consider this perhaps in 
conference, perhaps at some other time, perhaps somebody else can 
borrow it. I just believe it's something we ought to be thinking about 
doing for our soldiers who have been called back on a fairly repetitive 
rotating basis. In my judgment, they would benefit from this extra 
leave time.

[[Page H10001]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I say to the gentleman I certainly agree with what it is 
that he's attempting to do, but it is subject to a point of order. But 
I can assure the gentleman that during the conference that we will 
address this very important issue.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. The gentleman's 
got an important point, and we will certainly consider it in 
conference.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the distinguished gentlemen 
for their points.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Delaware?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Walberg:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, 
     ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective 
     contractor.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
Department of Defense appropriations bill that is straightforward, as 
the amendment simply states this: ``None of the funds made available in 
this Act may be used to award a grant or contract based on the race, 
ethnicity, or sex of the grant applicant or prospective contractor.''
  I was glad a similar amendment passed unanimously last week on the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, with 
the acceptance of the Chairman of Appropriations.
  Government contracts and grants should be awarded on the basis of 
work, quality and cost, and all firms should have an equal opportunity 
to compete for taxpayer-funded projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concern of the chairman. 
However, it is a fact that this cuts out none of the minority 
contractors, small business contractors. They still have the great 
number of programs that they can use in the process of contracting.
  Throughout the government, contracts and grants are awarded with 
preference given on the basis of race, sex and ethnicity instead of on 
the basis of work, craftsmanship and cost.
  Though this policy may be motivated by good intentions, I agree with 
Justice Clarence Thomas about preferences in government contracting 
based on race, sex, and ethnicity when he stated, ``The paternalism 
that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the 
principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our 
Constitution,'' as well as, I might add, the quality of our armed 
services.
  The Federal Government continues to engage in these preferences via 
set-asides to contractors.
  Last fall, in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58 
percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State Constitution to 
outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and 
contracting.
  Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose any and all 
forms of discrimination, but I also support nondiscrimination, the 
practice or policy of refraining from discrimination.
  Once again, the Federal Government is behind State governments in 
creating equal opportunity for all Americans, as Michigan followed 
California and Washington banning discrimination in education, 
contracting and hiring.
  My support of nondiscrimination compels me to continue working 
against discrimination in government policies because every American 
deserves equal treatment when competing for business contracts, and our 
Federal Government should treat all applicants for such contracts on an 
equal basis.
  This amendment would require the Department of Defense to make 
contracting decisions based on the quality of work of a firm, the cost, 
and equality among firms. It should be noted that this amendment has no 
impact on programs directed at small business operated by veterans and 
those with disabilities.
  I believe this commonsense amendment will help ensure that all 
American businesses and individuals competing for public work projects 
are given a fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  2315


         Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Army'' may be used for the Paint Shield for Protecting People 
     from Microbial Threats.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an earmark 
ostensibly for a ``Paint Shield for Protecting People Against Microbial 
Threats'' for $2 million. Apparently this $2 million will be going to 
the Sherwin-Williams paint company in Cleveland, Ohio.
  I actually have a couple of questions either for the sponsor of the 
earmark or for the chairman of the committee.
  I guess my first question would be, and I am happy to yield to 
whomever would like to answer it, is this something that military 
leadership has asked for?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. If I may inquire further, Mr. Chairman, 
you said you are sure the military, so you are not aware if, in fact, 
the military has asked for this kind of technology? I guess the answer 
to that is no.
  The next question I would have is what investigations have been done 
to determine that this technology could actually even be effective.

[[Page H10002]]

  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Then I am sure if the gentleman goes over 
every single one, he can answer the questions, what investigations, 
what research has been done to determine that this technology is 
effective and is worth $2 million of taxpayers' funds?
  If you investigate every earmark, I have a couple of other questions. 
Sherwin-Williams is not the only maker of paint in the country. How did 
we know, and what was determined that Sherwin-Williams was the best or 
the right supplier, if you assume that the military asked for it and 
the technology was effective?
  Mr. MURTHA. I don't represent Sherwin-Williams. I don't know what 
paint company you represent, but we know they are a very qualified 
contractor.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank you. Again, my question was, I am 
sure, they are obviously a well-known qualified paint company. By the 
way, I don't represent any paint companies, to my knowledge, none 
whatsoever.
  So my question is, how do we know they are the best for this 
particular product?
  I guess I would follow it up with how do we know, if we even knew 
that, how do we know that $2 million is the right amount. Was there 
some investigation, some research done to determine that $2 million was 
the right amount?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Let me ask, though, but then why is it, 
if they are competitively bid, that this one is going to Sherwin-
Williams paint company?
  Mr. MURTHA. There is no guarantee.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Well, I think Sherwin-Williams thinks 
there is, by the way.
  Then the final question I would have for the gentleman would be if 
this $2 million goes to Sherwin-Williams to develop this product, and 
they, in fact, develop it, will the taxpayers own that product? Is that 
then a product, a license, something that the taxpayers own?
  Mr. MURTHA. Absolutely.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. So the taxpayers will not have to pay for 
the use of that product in the future.
  Mr. MURTHA. They do it all the time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. What evidence of that is there, if I may 
ask? What do the taxpayers get for this $2 million as evidence of their 
ownership of this product or technology?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL from California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


         Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Navy'' may be used for the Swimmer Detection Sonar Network.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, this particular earmark is 
for a swimmer detection sonar network for $1.5 million. The company 
developing this technology is in New Hampshire.
  Interestingly, there are about three other companies that do a 
similar technology or do something intended to do the same thing, which 
is detect people swimming in the water up towards a ship, at least 
three others that we have determined, and one of which is currently 
being used by the Coast Guard that doesn't use sonar but already is in 
place and in effect.
  Mr. Chairman, I could ask the same series of questions of the 
chairman of the committee on this earmark that I did on the last. I 
won't do that, because the point of this, frankly, is not that this 
particular earmark is particularly egregious, nor, frankly, that the 
previous one that I brought up was particularly egregious.
  I believe that there are literally hundreds of earmarks like these 
offered by many members in this Defense Appropriations Committee.
  The reason I am bringing these forward is because of a personal 
experience I had when a defense contractor came to me in my first few 
months in office and came forward with an earmark, and I asked these 
questions.
  I said, does the military want this, or, have you developed something 
you want me to give you $2 million of the taxpayers' money for 
something the military doesn't want?
  Then I said how do I know that your technology will work? How do I 
know that this $2 million is effective in curing or dealing with the 
situation that you claim you want it to be? Then I said how do I know 
you are the right supplier? It's great that you are in my district, 
that's wonderful, I think that's fine you have those jobs, but how do I 
know the best supplier is not in Pennsylvania? How do I know the best 
supplier is not in Connecticut? How do I know you're the right company 
to do this?
  Then I said, even if I did, how do I know that $3 million is the 
right price? How do I know that it doesn't cost you $50,000 to develop 
this thing, and you are making $2,950,000 off the American taxpayer. 
Then if you do, is the American taxpayer going to get this product for 
free, because if we pay for it, we should.
  That is the point of what I am doing here. When you look at all of 
these earmarks, those five questions, in my view, should be asked on 
every single earmark that goes to a private company that is in this 
defense bill or, frankly, any other bill.
  If the answer to all five of these questions is not yes, I don't care 
if it's a company in my district, or the chairman's district or 
anybody's district, we should not be using taxpayers' funds for it.
  I will tell you that I told that defense supplier and every defense 
supplier in my district that I met with, no. Because they could not 
give me a yes answer to all five of those questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.

[[Page H10003]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. May I inquire how much time I have 
remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand, but there are 
a number, there are at least three, and I am not on the committee, and 
I didn't do exhaustive research, there are three others of these 
currently in use and currently in development. The Coast Guard, at 
least, apparently, believes that their system is better than this 
system.
  So my question is, for this sort of earmark, are we going to fund, if 
there were a company, and all 435 of our districts that was interested 
in developing this thing, should we give them all $1.5 million and see 
who wins?
  I just don't think that this earmark, or, as I have said, hundreds of 
others out of the 1,300 that are in this bill, really meet the scrutiny 
when we are using taxpayer money and giving it to private companies to 
develop this stuff without the proper scrutiny in terms of this 
technology, did the military ask for it, is it effective, is it the 
right supplier, is it the right price and what do the taxpayers own 
when they are done paying for it.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8110. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for Marine Desalination Systems, Inc., in St. 
     Petersburg, Florida.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. That last discussion was remarkable, 
just remarkable.
  I would gladly yield time to anybody who agrees with the chairman of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee that, one, that these earmarks are 
competitively bid. Anybody in agreement here; or, two, that the U.S. 
taxpayer, after paying for these earmarks, has rights to the technology 
that developed these earmarks.
  Any takers there? I didn't think so.
  I think that is simply wrong. That is simply wrong.
  An earmark, by very definition, is a sole source contract. It is 
circumventing the competitive bidding process.
  Maybe you don't like what the bureaucrats over in the Defense 
Department do, but to say that this is a competitively bid contract is 
simply wrong. To say that the U.S. taxpayer has rights to the 
technology developed with the companies that are getting these 
earmarks, is simply wrong as well.
  If anybody can contradict, please take time. But let's not defend 
these earmarks on that basis when that's simply wrong.
  Any way, let's get to this one.
  This earmark, I am sorry, this amendment would eliminate $1 million 
for the Marine Desalination Systems, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Florida, 
for atmospheric water harvesting and reduce the cost of the bill by a 
corresponding amount.
  The earmark described in the certification letter submitted to the 
committee by the sponsor informs us that this earmark would be used to 
fund lightweight, low power expeditionary water production.
  According to the Web site of the entity, Marine Desalination Systems 
is a corporation that develops new technologies to create inexpensive, 
potable water, to bring to market.
  Again, I have the same issue that the last gentleman to offer 
amendments did, the gentleman from California. Why are we singling out 
this one company for this project or this earmark?
  I would ask similar questions to the ones he asked, but these, I 
think, are more in the defense speak that goes with the language in 
this bill.
  Was this project palmed, which means, is it a program of memorandum? 
I would ask the sponsor that.
  Is it on any unfunded requirement list? Number 3, does any operator 
in the field say that we need this particular program or technology 
from this particular company? I would love to hear the answer to any of 
those questions from the sponsor of the earmark.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman caught my attention when he said 
St. Petersburg, Florida, if that's where that company is located. I 
assume that it is because when I submitted the request in full 
transparency, I said it was from St. Petersburg, Florida.
  This is a program that is important to the military. This is a 
defense-related issue.

                              {time}  2330

  What this program is, is providing water for our troops in the field 
where there is no water. We have reverse osmosis. To do that, you have 
got to have some kind of liquid. We have desalinization. To do that 
you, have got to have saltwater. But how about getting water where 
there is none present? How about getting water out of the atmosphere? 
Because there is water in the atmosphere. And this company has proved 
they can do it. And this company's product is being tested at Aberdeen 
Proving Grounds by the United States Army.
  Now, I suggest to the gentleman, do we really want to deny our troops 
the opportunity to have a system that provides water from the air? And 
it works. It is working in Aberdeen. Do you really want to deny troops 
the opportunity to have a portable unit that will provide water for 
troops that are deployed in outrageous places where there is no water? 
If that is what you want to do, then you should vote for this 
amendment. I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. If the gentleman would yield, I also oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just finish. Nobody is trying to deny anybody any 
water, certainly not somebody from Arizona. But the question remains, 
was this a program of memorandum? Is it on any unfunded requirement 
list? Does any operator in the field say that we need this particular 
program or technology from this particular company?
  I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Let me give you the type of question you are 
asking. Last year, I was chairman of this subcommittee. Last year, we 
had a request through the administration for a supplemental of $70 
billion. We asked the administration, what would you like to include in 
that $70 billion? What did you need? We didn't get an answer.
  We didn't get an answer, so after repeated requests we had to go to 
the services who were fighting the war and say to them, what do you 
need? And we identified those items and we put them in that $70 billion 
supplemental, which most of us voted for. So I was responsible for and 
got credit for a $70 billion earmark. Everything is not black and white 
in this world.
  And so I say to the gentleman, I appreciate his tenacity, but I would 
like to have an opportunity to debate with you the many good things 
that have been done to defend our Nation and support our troops that 
have been done created by the Congress, not requested by any 
administration.
  One of the very best earmarks that I can give you an example of off 
the top of my head is the Predator, the Predator that the Iraqi 
terrorists really hate because it hunts them down and it kills them. 
The Predator was a congressional earmark. The administration, the 
Defense Department didn't ask for it, didn't give us any support. We 
said we need this capability, and we

[[Page H10004]]

got the capability. And it is one of the best things we have going for 
us in the war against terror.
  So I hope that begins to give the gentleman a little bit of a 
response about our responsibility in providing things that our military 
needs and our national defense needs. And I thank my friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. The question here is, why aren't we 
competitively bidding these projects? We have had hearing after hearing 
after hearing in this Congress, more so than we had in the last 
Congress. To our great shame, I think as Republicans we didn't have 
enough oversight hearings. And we bring up Halliburton constantly, with 
no bid contracts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8110. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for Concurrent Technologies Corporation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike all funding in 
the bill for Concurrent Technologies Corporation.
  As you may recall, I offered an amendment last month during 
consideration of the Energy and Water appropriations bill to cut 
funding for something called the Center for Instrumental Critical 
Infrastructure in Pennsylvania. We did not know whether the center 
existed. I had a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee in that 
time. But we learned that the money is actually going to Concurrent 
Technologies Corporation based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Concurrent 
Technologies has been a leading earmark recipient in multiple 
appropriations bills over the years.
  In the Energy and Water bill, Concurrent received $1 million in 
earmarked funds. In this bill, Concurrent is due to receive $11 million 
in the form of four earmarks.
  Concurrent Technologies was the focus of an October 2, 2006, story in 
the New York Times titled, ``Trading Boats for Pork Across the House 
Aisle.'' According to the article, Concurrent Technologies Corporation 
was created by an earmark in 1988. Back then, the corporation was 
called the Center for Excellence in Metalworking.
  The New York Times stated that the military and other Federal 
agencies have paid Concurrent nearly $1 billion in grants and contracts 
since 1999. That is $1 billion in taxpayer funds to an entity created 
with an earmark. That does not include the $12 million Concurrent is 
receiving in earmarks this year alone.
  Concurrent Technologies Corporation is an earmark incubator. It was 
created by an earmark to get more earmarks. Without earmarks, this 
corporation, I think it is safe to say, would not exist.
  The president of the corporation, Mr. DeVos, was quoted in the local 
paper saying that the sponsor has ``impressed upon the area's defense 
industries leaders the need to wean themselves from this aid.''
  Mr. DeVos and the sponsor of the earmark have a funny way of weaning 
Concurrent off of Federal earmarks. The sponsor has secured $11 million 
more for Concurrent in this bill alone. In addition, The Washington 
Post reported that Mr. DeVos and his company have spent $820,000 in 
fees to a lobby firm seeking more Federal aid.
  I would ask the sponsor of this earmark to confirm what has been 
reported. With regard to the defense industry's needing to wean 
themselves off this aid, when is that weaning going to occur? Can we 
assure Members of this body that there will be no more earmarks to 
Concurrent Technologies? Can Concurrent Technologies survive without 
Federal Member-sponsored earmarks?
  I look forward to receiving answers to these questions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. FLAKE. The gentleman correctly stated that Concurrent has been 
given some Federal contracts. Then, why in the world did they need this 
earmark? If they are getting Federal contracts through some kind of 
bidding process, then why do they need continued earmarks? Which, as I 
mentioned, are by their very definition sole-source contracts, no-bid 
contracts, where we are specifying an individual firm, a business in 
this case, that hires a lobbyist, $820,000 paid to a lobbyist to get 
more Federal funds.
  Where does it end? Is this any kind of process or system that we can 
be proud of, with these earmark incubators that survive just by getting 
more earmarks? I mean, how can we do that? If every district in this 
country had those kinds of earmark incubators, every account in the 
U.S. Federal Government would be earmarked, I would venture to say.
  So I would say we simply have to stop this somewhere. I urge support 
for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used for the Doyle Center for 
     Manufacturing Technology.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 
     EVALUATION--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'' is hereby reduced by $1,500,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $1.5 million in 
funding in the bill for the Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology. 
The Doyle Center, which is a monument to its sponsor, is an earmark 
incubator, much like Concurrent Technologies, a center created out of 
earmarks for the sole objective for obtaining more Federal contracts or 
earmarks.
  The center is a sister organization to a number of earmarks 
incubators like Concurrent Technologies, which is an entity, as 
mentioned before, receiving $11 million in earmark funds in the bill.
  How do we know that there is a symbiotic relationship between 
Concurrent Technologies and the Doyle Center? For one thing, the 
chairman of the board of the Doyle Center is the senior vice president 
and chief financial officer of Concurrent Technologies. We also know 
that the Doyle Center and Concurrent Technologies work closely together 
on projects funded through earmarks. It is no surprise that they share 
the same leadership.
  According to a recent article in The Hill, the creation of the Doyle 
Center is adding another layer to three nonprofit organizations devoted 
to a similar mission of helping spur economic development in the area, 
the Pennsylvania Technology Council, Pittsburgh

[[Page H10005]]

Technology Council, and the Catalyst Connection. The article in The 
Hill stated that all four groups share the same address and many of the 
same officers.
  In addition, the Doyle Center handed over a large portion of its 
earmark money in 2004 to the Catalyst Connection for research. These 
funds came from a portion of a larger $1.36 million earmark that make 
up the center's entire budget for that year.
  Just think of that. We are giving an earmark to a center that is 
funded completely with taxpayer dollars with the goal of receiving more 
taxpayer dollars.
  A certification letter for the project says that $1.5 million in 
earmark money will go toward the Doyle Center. But with all these 
groups sharing the same address, the same money, the same officers, do 
we really know where the money is going?
  So my answer to the sponsor to the earmark is as follows: Is the 
money going to the Doyle Center, the Pittsburgh Technology Council, the 
Catalyst Content, Connect, or the Concurrent Technologies?
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FLAKE. Do you want a response?
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I don't remember mentioning the 
RSC, but I appreciate the illumination. But let me just ask the Member, 
he has talked about the process by which these grants are given.
  Let me just note, he mentioned earlier that every one of these was 
scrubbed by the Appropriations Committee. We had a manager's amendment 
that actually removed some and then put the money back somewhere else. 
One in particular that I had planned to actually challenge here was 
called the Advanced Robotic Vehicle Command and Control. I had an 
earlier version apparently of what came, and it was removed in a 
manager's amendment in committee. But then the money was taken, that 
same money, and given to the same Member for another earmark sponsored 
by that Member entitled Big Foot Airborne Receiver.

                              {time}  2345

  So the money went from that one just to another earmark sponsored by 
that same Member to plus that one up.
  What kind of process does the committee go through? Is it that every 
Member is allotted a certain amount, or is it what they think the 
Defense Department needs?
  I would be glad to yield to the Member.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, there is a story in the paper yesterday that 
mentioned how much of the funding is in this bill, and the gentleman 
mentioned that sometimes it is not completely accurate because the 
Defense Department will ask for things that are then listed as an 
earmark to the Member. I understand that it is not a perfect count. But 
still senior members of the Appropriations Committee were given up to 
$150 million in earmarks when other rank-and-file Members got maybe a 
million or 2.
  Are there more needs in certain districts? Is it spread out? How does 
that process go? What confidence should we have as Members voting to 
fund these earmarks that it is on some kind of basis that bears any 
relationship to what the Defense Department needs rather than political 
calculation?
  I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  All right. I guess I will accept that as an answer. But let me just 
say, with regard to the Doyle Center, I would have hoped that the 
sponsor of the earmark would come and talk about it. But here is 
another example, as I mentioned, of an earmark incubator where an 
earmark creates an organization, in this case, named after one of our 
own, and the same one who it is named after gets more earmarks year 
after year for the same center to get more earmarks and more Federal 
contracts.
  We simply can't sustain that. The notion that that is what the 
Defense Department needs simply doesn't hold water. With that, I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used for the Lewis Center 
     for Education Research.
       (b) Corresponding Transfer in Funds.--The amounts otherwise 
     provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made 
     available for ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide'', 
     and increasing the amount made available for ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-wide'', by $3,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a little different from 
the others. The others would strike funding from the bill. This would 
simply redirect funding to the same account from which it was drawn.
  This amendment would redirect $3 million from the Lewis Center for 
Educational Research to the Family Advocacy Programs in the Operations 
and Maintenance account.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems that we are debating the Labor-HHS bill rather 
than the Defense appropriations bill.

[[Page H10006]]

Why is there a $3 million earmark in the bill for an organization with 
a stated goal of providing ``an opportunity for students to experience 
real science; to learn that science is an ongoing process, not just 
memorizing facts?'' I am referring, of course, to this earmark for the 
Lewis Center for Educational Research.
  This is becoming somewhat of an annual earmark. In fact, according to 
the Citizens Against Government Waste database, this educational center 
has received earmarks in past Defense appropriation bills ranging from 
$2.5 million to $3.5 million in every fiscal year since 2003. According 
to the certification letter submitted by the sponsor, ``the funding 
would be used to develop on-line educational curriculum.'' The Lewis 
Center for Educational research is an ``educational facility designed 
to improve educational effectiveness and scientific literacy among 
American schoolchildren.'' According to its Web site, since opening in 
1990, the Lewis Center has provided hands-on instructional programs for 
elementary, middle, and high school students throughout local 
communities and across the Nation.
  I would ask the same questions here. Why are we providing an earmark 
that is to a school that is sponsored by groups like Target, Wal-Mart, 
Verizon, Boeing, State Farm Insurance, Southern California Edison, 
Lucent Technologies, and others?
  This is to a school; this is a defense bill. I simply would ask why 
is it here in the defense bill? How does it serve our national defense? 
What essential Federal purpose does it serve? Should it receive any 
earmark funding at all? And certainly not, I would say, in a defense 
bill.
  And then the notion that this is actually taken out of an account for 
Family Advocacy Programs in the Operations and Maintenance account. I 
would think that, given the needs that the families of our troops have, 
that that money would be better left in that account for that purpose 
than to go to what I think is a charter school for other purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is most interesting that we 
would have this discussion this evening. It is not my intention to 
spend a lot of time on this, but, nonetheless, last year we had a 
discussion about another project entirely near the Marine base, and I 
asked the gentleman if he had ever been to the Marine barracks in 
Washington, D.C., and he had not.
  In this case to even suggest that there isn't an interest in 
education within the families that make up our services across the 
country and the world causes me almost to smile if it wasn't so painful 
to think that he didn't understand how important this could be to 
military families.
  This program involves a model center, developing methods for 
attracting and training, developing teachers and otherwise, to 
encourage young people to be involved in math and science. It has now 
affected literally tens of thousands of students all across the 
country. It has had a tremendous impact upon military families who are 
interested in these programs. It has attracted NASA, playing a major 
role in the fundamental center of the success of this educational 
effort. Retired employees from companies like JPL volunteer time to 
help in this effort because it is having an effect upon science 
education all across America, including literally, literally, hundreds, 
if not thousands, of student in Arizona alone.
  Last year we had this discussion. I don't want to take a lot of time, 
only to say that after the discussion, 50 of my colleagues decided to 
vote against this program and well over 300 of my friends, our 
colleagues, thought it was a worthwhile effort. It is indeed one of the 
models for attracting kids of military families dramatically to math 
and science across the country, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
gentleman's recommendation.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to yield to my chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Chairman Murtha has just raised an issue that 
reminded me in talking about earmarks and good programs. One of the 
best programs this Congress ever created in the health field was the 
National Bone Marrow Donor Program, which has saved thousands of lives, 
a proven system. It was created by this subcommittee with an earmark 
many years ago, and it saved thousands of lives.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Young 
is exactly correct.
  I don't stand to take credit for all kinds of extra earmarks. But as 
long as we are talking about it, the gentleman has heard the Predator 
mentioned a number of times. I think the gentleman knows that the 
bureaucrats don't necessarily have all the answers, whether those 
bureaucrats happen to be in the Education Department or they happen to 
be in the military.
  Back when we were looking at the Predator, the idea of an unmanned 
aerial vehicle, it was pretty clear that the Air Force was much more 
interested in programs where planes were flown by men than in new 
ideas. The Predator came along, an unmanned aerial vehicle concept, and 
I had to take credit, my goodness, credit that year when this became 
implemented for some $40 million of an earmark to advance the RDT&E, 
the research and development. If that $40 million had not been 
appropriated, Predator would not have been available in Bosnia.
  Now, since then Predator has gone forward and done many a thing, and 
I suppose I should be taking credit for hundreds and hundreds of 
millions of dollars of earmarks. But in the meantime, the military does 
not have all the answers to all the ideas, and, indeed, neither does 
the Department of Education.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate what we are talking 
about here. This is a charter school that, although it has been spoken 
of as serving military families, it has no more of a mission to serve 
military families, I would suggest, than the school that my kids go to. 
There are military families there. But I would not presume to give an 
earmark to that school simply because military families might attend 
that school. There is nothing in the literature that we have been able 
to find anywhere in this school that has any specific purpose to serve 
military families.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Upon examination of this program, the last 
time we discussed this a year ago and took the Members' time in a very 
late

[[Page H10007]]

evening, approximately 50 of your colleagues joined in your concern 
about this program.
  It is a fabulous program, using the money very well, and I urge a 
``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, again, I would say that 
this is a charter school receiving money in the defense bill that has 
no more military application than any school that any of your kids or 
grandkids go to, and yet we are doing it. Does that have a military 
application? I would suggest not. And the notion that we can talk about 
this earmark that turned into something good or that one, but for every 
one of those, I would suggest that there is a company out there that 
would love to bid on one of these contracts that isn't given the 
opportunity, a company that might have technology that might turn into 
something good, but they can't compete because an earmark is given as a 
sole-source contract to another company. There are hundreds of them in 
this bill.
  Again, an earmark is not a competitively bid project. It is a sole-
source contract.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  0000


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 8110. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center, Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``Intelligence Community Management 
     Account'' is hereby reduced by $39,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $39 million 
in Federal taxpayer dollars for the National Drug Intelligence Center, 
a project that U.S. News and World Report called ``a boondoggle.'' This 
amendment would also reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate 
amount.
  There are a number of reasons to support this amendment; primary 
among these is the fact that we should not spend our scarce 
intelligence dollars on wasteful and duplicative programs like the 
National Drug Intelligence Center.
  This earmark has been part of a growing list of intelligence, or so-
called ``black earmarks.'' I think a lot of us have long been skeptical 
of the practice of earmarking Intelligence accounts, and several of us 
have repeatedly called for the abolition of this practice. We really 
didn't start earmarking the Intelligence bill until, I think, around 
the late - nineties. And it has not gone well for us, as we know with 
the case of Mr. Cunningham, now serving time.
  It is important to note that the practice of earmarking only began 
really in this case in the Intelligence bill in the 1990s.
  Let me repeat, we shouldn't be earmarking the Intelligence bill this 
way. This was authorized in the Intelligence bill. There was an 
amendment offered at the time to strike it.
  Many of us have been troubled, as I mentioned, with this kind of 
earmarking. Many of us have asked to see the unclassified version of 
the report that was commissioned by the Intelligence Committee about 
Mr. Cunningham and his ability to get Intelligence earmarks. I have not 
been able to get that report, an unclassified report. I, as a Member of 
Congress, have been denied that report, and so have all of you. That is 
simply not right.
  The Los Angeles Times reported a couple of weeks ago, as did the 
Associated Press, that they had received a copy of that report, but 
Members of Congress have not. Yet, we still continue with the practice 
of earmarking Intelligence bills.
  When we did the authorization bill, we didn't receive the list of 
earmarks in that bill until it was past time to offer amendments to the 
Rules Committee to strike those earmarks. So we haven't had that 
opportunity.
  Let me say that we cannot continue to go down this road, particularly 
with earmarks that have been called ``duplicative and wasteful.'' The 
administration has tried for years to get rid of this National Drug 
Center. In fact, they offered $16 million in one of these bills to shut 
that center down; yet, still, it keeps coming back and back and back.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MURTHA. 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.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would just ask the gentleman, while he's still standing, 
I would yield to the gentleman to simply ask, has the Bush 
administration requested that this be shut down?
  Mr. MURTHA. Let me tell you, the Bush administration made a few 
mistakes in the past.
  Mr. FLAKE. Does the gentleman presume to know more about this 
specific subject and know of a reason why this should remain in effect 
when the administration is saying that it should be shut down because 
it is duplicative and wasteful?
  Mr. MURTHA. The administration says a lot of things that I disagree 
with.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have nothing to add to that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Presidio Trust.
  An amendment by Mr. Franks of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Walberg of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Doyle Center.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Lewis Center.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding National Drug 
Intelligence Center.

[[Page H10008]]

  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Sessions.

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 259, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 838]

                               AYES--148

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  0027

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN, Mr. MCNERNEY and Mr. 
STUPAK changed their vote from ``aye to ``no.''
  Mr. BAKER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Presidio Trust on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are encouraged to 
remain on the floor for this series of 2-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94, 
noes 311, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 839]

                                AYES--94

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Linder
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--311

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge

[[Page H10009]]


     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Capuano
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Murphy, Patrick
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains.

                              {time}  0030

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Franks) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are encouraged to 
remain on the floor for this series of votes. Time limits will be 
strictly enforced.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 249, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 840]

                               AYES--161

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains.

                              {time}  0035

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H10010]]

                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are encouraged to 
remain on the floor for this series of 2-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 284, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 841]

                               AYES--126

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--284

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains.

                              {time}  0039

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


         Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are encouraged to 
remain on the floor for this series of 2-minute votes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 91, 
noes 317, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 842]

                                AYES--91

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--317

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo

[[Page H10011]]


     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Ruppersberger
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Waters
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains.

                              {time}  0042

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Doyle Center on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 98, 
noes 312, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 843]

                                AYES--98

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--312

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains.

                              {time}  0045

  Mr. ALTMIRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H10012]]

                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Lewis Center on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 57, 
noes 353, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 844]

                                AYES--57

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     McCarthy (CA)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--353

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains on this vote.

                              {time}  0050

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding National Drug Intelligence Center on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109, 
noes 301, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 845]

                               AYES--109

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--301

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)

[[Page H10013]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Becerra
     Bordallo
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). One minute remains on this vote.

                              {time}  0054

  Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2008''.

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Tierney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ross, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3222) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, pursuant to the previous 
order of the House by unanimous consent, he reported the bill back to 
the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read the third time and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 13, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 846]

                               YEAS--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--13

     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Payne
     Velazquez
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Clarke
     Clay
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann

[[Page H10014]]


     Delahunt
     Goode
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Paul
     Saxton
     Skelton
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  0111

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________