Armed Services panel chief retreats on proposal to limit women in combat

After hours of negotiations, House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., decided Wednesday to strip language in the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill to require Congress to green-light changes to the role of women in combat.

Weaker language, agreed to at 11 p.m. Tuesday, came after discussions with opponents of the committee-passed provision, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M.

The latest language, inserted in a manager's amendment, would require the Pentagon to give Congress a notice of 60 legislative days before opening any of the 191 military positions now closed to women.

Current law, in place since 1994, requires a notice of 30 legislative days.

The amendment also includes more detailed notification requirements and requires the military to submit a report to Congress on assignment policies. Rumsfeld told Hunter he supports the new language. The original language, opposed by the Pentagon, would have required the Defense Department to secure congressional approval before opening more combat roles to women.

The last-minute change defused what was expected to be a rancorous floor debate Wednesday on the defense authorization bill. The Rules Committee allotted only 10 minutes for debate on Hunter's manager's amendment -- and did not allow floor consideration of a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Armed Services ranking member Ike Skelton, D-Mo., that would have deleted the committee-passed language. Wilson, a co-sponsor of the Skelton amendment, said she was pleased with the changes in the manager's amendment.

"I wanted to get the policy changed. It's not about who gets time to talk on the floor," she said. "I could take yes for an answer and the chairman said yes."

Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh, R-N.Y., who ushered stronger original language through his panel earlier this month, said he agrees with the compromise, which he said would "ensure there is a well-constructed notification process for Congress."

The original language would have shut women out of positions in many forward-support company positions, a move McHugh said would have been "inappropriate."

Personnel Subcommittee ranking member Vic Snyder, D-Ark., said the new language is "moving in the right direction," but he stressed that it never should have been incorporated in the bill. He also criticized the last-minute nature of all three versions of the language. "This process has been terrible for sending a message," he said. "I wish someone would have said a month ago they had questions on women's combat roles."