[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21253-21266]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


  JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1062, I call up 
the

[[Page 21254]]

conference report on the bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1062, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the conference report currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start out by saying this is a tough job for a lot 
of our members of the committee and the subcommittees that make up the 
Armed Services Committee. It involves a lot of travel to the 
warfighting theaters. Almost every member on our committee has gone 
multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. It involves a lot of time away 
from families and a lot of tough work in committees. It involves a lot 
of analyses to try to figure out how to manage the logistical problems 
of all of the problems that attend the war fight in two theaters, Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and the war against terror around the world, and at 
the same time look over that horizon and try to exercise some vision as 
to what the next conflict may be and what we have to do to prepare for 
the future.
  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I could have no better partner in that 
endeavor than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Skelton is a tremendous, tremendous guy. And he has got kind of a 
corporate memory in terms of military history. He has got a recommended 
reading list for all of us. He analyzes the present situation through 
the prism of history. We all appreciate that. And today we actually 
dressed in uniform. That is amazing. And without design, I might say. 
We simply came in with the same outfits because this is the military 
and you have got to be in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an immense bill, $532-plus billion. We did 
something very unusual in this bill and I think unprecedented, and that 
is that we added to the bill that includes lots of money for force 
protection, for body armor, for up-armored Humvees, for surveillance 
capability to fight the IED war in Afghanistan and Iraq, lots of things 
to support the troops, and, of course, all of the quality-of-life 
issues for the troops.
  This pay raise this year means that over the last 80 years, we will 
have increased pay by a little more than 40 percent for our men and 
women in uniform. The base readiness of our forces and military 
construction and all the things that combine to make America's defense 
apparatus the strongest in the world, we did all of that, but this year 
we did something extra. We asked the Army and the Marine Corps to come 
in and testify to our committee, largely in classified session, as to 
what shortages they had that they needed to be funded so that they 
could take the tanks, the trucks, the fixed-wing aircraft, and the 
helicopters and all the other platforms and pieces of equipment for the 
Marines and the Army and reset them, that is, repair them as they come 
off the battlefield so that they can be ready to go again.
  A massive analysis. And they came forth and they gave us that 
analysis. And when we got finished, we funded, we authorized on top of 
the defense budget $20-plus billion to make up the total reset cost, 
every dime, that was submitted to us by the United States Marine Corps 
and the United States Army. And the appropriations committees, God 
bless them, did the same thing and followed the authorizing committees 
on that. And that is a tribute, I think, to all of our Members, all of 
our colleagues who worked on and voted on that very important piece of 
funding.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. I want to mention that we have 
wonderful members on both sides of the aisle that make up this 
committee.
  And Joel Hefley is leaving after many, many years, a great personal 
friend and a guy who is kind of architect of privatization of housing 
so that American military families, many of whom were living in homes 
that were built 40, 50, 60, and 70 years ago and were under some sort 
of disrepair, now live in new homes that afford a great quality of 
life. And many of the developments now that they have come in and built 
on military bases have community centers. I have been in a number of 
them, where families can come in and enjoy swimming pools and 
recreation and moms can come in and work out and have their toddlers in 
a little room right off the exercise room and keep watch on their kids 
while they are having a little relaxation and a little rest and where 
families can get together for social activities.
  This new military construction that is springing up all over the 
United States at our bases is largely a function of Mr. Hefley's 
foresight and vision, and he is leaving us after those many years. I 
have often said Joel Hefley was the best cowboy in Congress. He used to 
rodeo with the great Casey Tibbs and a number of other rodeo greats. He 
is a wonderful guy whose word was his bond and still is, and we wish 
him the very best.
  And along with him now leaving us and running for Governor in Nevada 
is Mr. Jim Gibbons. Jim Gibbons also brought a great deal of background 
and expertise to our committee. As a fighter pilot who worked the 
Desert Storm I operation and who understands tactical aircraft as well 
or better than any member of the Armed Services Committee or the full 
House, Jim Gibbons brought a special insight to our committee. He also 
brought a great love for the National Guard and has been a great and 
powerful advocate for them. I know he is going to continue to do that 
in his new role. But Jim Gibbons, like Joel Hefley, is one of those 
quality guys that you just enjoy working with and you know when he 
comes to the job every day, he cares about the service, he cares about 
the people that wear the uniform.
  There is a real joy in working on this committee, Mr. Speaker, and 
those gentlemen are people that every one in this House likes to work 
with and understands the value added that they bring every time they 
walk into this Chamber or into the committee room. So our many, many 
thanks to them.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to my great colleague, 
who had a great taste in coats today because we came with exactly the 
same outfits here. Mr. Skelton, the fine gentleman from Missouri, has 
done a wonderful job working on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank my 
friend from California for being such a gentleman and for his courtesy 
not just this year but through the years. We appreciate it very, very 
much and also his very thoughtful words a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, we 
thank Duncan Hunter very much.
  Leaving us is Lane Evans, a gentleman who was a marine and served 
here and is on the top row of our committee, ranking member for so long 
for the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and we say a fond farewell to him 
and thank him for his excellent service to the Nation.
  Joel Hefley, who, as the chairman has spoken so well of, has been 
such a good friend to all through the years. Jim Gibbons, who is going 
into other political pursuits, we certainly wish him well. Dr. Schwarz, 
Cynthia McKinney also will not be coming

[[Page 21255]]

back. We wish them Godspeed in the days ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the National Defense Authorization 
Act. It is, as you may know, named in honor of Senator John Warner, who 
is for the last time, under the rules of the Senate, chairing the Armed 
Services Committee. We thank him for his accomplishments with the Armed 
Services Committee as chairman. He is responsible in large measure for 
many of the compromises that were allowed under this bill.
  This is a good bill. It is good for America. It is good for the 
troops. It deserves our support. This wartime bill authorizes a total 
of $462.9 billion and, as was mentioned by the chairman a few moments 
ago, $70 billion authorization for a bridge fund supplemental, of which 
$20 billion is for the reset of the equipment lost or damaged in 
operations overseas.
  As many have heard me speak, I am terribly concerned about the 
readiness of our ground forces, our Army, our Marines; and this bill 
provides the critically needed downpayment to begin to set things 
right.
  Under the testimony of General Schoomaker, it is not only for the 
Army, some $17 billion needed this year, but 12 billion reset dollars 
for over the next several years apiece. And we know the Army and Marine 
Corps equipment is wearing out, and we do know that some units are 
coming back to little or no equipment whatsoever. That has a serious 
readiness challenge, particularly in the Army and the Marines. Our 
ground forces must be, in the days and years ahead, prepared to deal 
with sustained deployment not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but who 
knows what the future will hold.
  I have been blessed, Mr. Speaker, to represent the Fourth District of 
Missouri. This is my 30th year here in Congress. And during that 30 
years, there have been 12 engagements in which American forces have 
been either deployed or used, some minor, some major. And if the future 
is anything like the past, we will have times when our forces will need 
to be prepared to be called on, to be used, if nothing else, to deter 
aggression or adventurism in the years ahead by other countries. And it 
is a serious matter to make sure that the reset comes to pass and that 
the readiness is corrected.
  Of course, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demand our 
immediate attention, but we cannot afford to lose sight of other 
security challenges that loom across the road.
  We are getting seven new ships for the Navy and recommend some $400 
million for advanced procurement of a second VA-class submarine. We 
have a multiyear procurement contract for the F-22, and other aircraft 
is on the books for us to authorize and build.
  I am most pleased about what the bill does for our magnificent men 
and women in the Armed Forces and their families. The end strength for 
the Army and Marines has increased by 30,000 and 5,000, for the Army 
and Marines respectively. In addition, this year we are able to enact 
an initiative first proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene 
Taylor. This conference report expands the TRICARE Reserve Select to 
members of the Selected Reserves and terminates the current three-tier 
eligibility program. I am also particularly glad to note that there is 
a 1-year moratorium on increases on TRICARE and pharmacy fees. I had 
offered a similar amendment in committee, and I am pleased that that 
was included in the final product.
  I am proud to say that we are able to provide our servicemembers with 
a well-deserved 2.2 percent pay raise and a targeted pay raise for 
those mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and warrant 
officers who truly are the backbone of our military.
  These are just a few examples of why this is a critical bill at this 
critical time.
  Mr. Speaker, much has been said about Iraq. Much has been said about 
the fight against terrorism, which has the genesis in Afghanistan. But 
the bright spot in all of this is the young man and young woman who 
wear the American uniform. There is no way for us to say as eloquently 
as we should thank you for your service. And a special note of 
gratitude for the families of the young men and young women in uniform, 
to be called on for a year, one, two, three, and in some cases I know 
some SEALs that have been deployed four times for 7 months at a time. 
And there is no way really to say thank you well enough to the families 
that endure this: the spouses; the children; and in some cases, yes, 
the grandchildren, for which the chairman and I share a mutual 
interest.
  So let this bill be a tribute to their service, a thank you for their 
service, and a warm note of appreciation to the spouses and children of 
those magnificent warriors wearing the American uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes 
to the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, the 
gentleman who is departing after 18 years of great service on this 
committee.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5122, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
  And I would like to thank the chairman of this committee and the 
ranking member of the committee both. You have earned your pay all the 
way through, but particularly in the last few weeks as we have 
struggled to get this conference report through and actually bring this 
bill to the floor; and I appreciate the yeomen effort that both of you 
have put in.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I don't know if I should, but I guess I will.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Hefley, I appreciate that. Let me just say the fact 
that we were able to bring this bill to the floor and do as much work 
as we did on it, as big as it is and as comprehensive as it is and with 
so many people dependent on it and at the same time do the bill that 
will allow us to prosecute terrorists, do all that, that was largely a 
product of this tremendous staff, this wonderful bipartisan staff that 
we have on the Armed Services Committee.

                              {time}  1645

  They have done a fabulous job, and that is why we are able to juggle 
these two important challenges at the same time. They are great, great 
people, and what professionals, and also people who can work very 
effectively when they have been up for 24 hours. That has always 
astounded me, frankly, but they have done a great job, and I think they 
deserve a lot of thanks from this committee.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Hefley, I am sure the chairman will yield you some 
more time.
  Let me start off by associating myself, as I know all of us do, with 
the comments of the esteemed chairman.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I know you would agree with me that it is 
appropriate to recognize that, after so many years of loyal and 
dedicated service to the House Armed Services Committee, this is 
Subcommittee Chairman Hefley's final authorization bill.
  He has been a lion in defense of the men and women in uniform. He has 
a been a guiding light to more junior 14-year Members such as myself. I 
just wanted to let the record show how much we are going to miss him 
and how much we all appreciate the great service he has provided to 
this committee, to the people of this country, and, most importantly, 
to the men and women in uniform of the United States of America. Thank 
you, Joel.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. McHugh. I appreciate that very much and 
the kind words Mr. Skelton said earlier.
  You know, there is a lot that I am going to miss about Congress; and 
more than anything else is my service on this committee. Because you 
felt every day you were working on this committee that you were doing 
something worthwhile, something that was

[[Page 21256]]

important for America. I am so privileged to have done this with the 
wonderful people that are on the committee and also on the staff. We do 
have an absolutely outstanding staff that we are very proud of.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I really want to say a special personal thanks to you 
for the tremendous work you have done on our committee and in working 
with me in particular for helping Whiteman Air Force Base, Ft. Leonard 
Wood, Missouri, be what it is. I would be remiss if I did not just say 
a special note of gratitude to you, Joel Hefley.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Skelton, thank you so much. You have been such a good 
friend over the years.
  And I also would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Ortiz, Solomon 
Ortiz. He and I have been teammates leading the Readiness Committee but 
before that leading the Military Construction Committee.
  I would guess that we have agreed on 95 percent or more of everything 
we have dealt with during this period of time. In fact, I can't think 
of anything, Solomon, that we have not agreed on, but there might have 
been something. But, obviously, if we did not agree, we disagreed in a 
professional, pleasant, friendly way and moved on to try to do what is 
best for our troops and for the defense of this country. Solomon, I 
cannot tell you how much I appreciate you.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, despite 5 years of demanding combat 
operations, our Nation's military remains the most effective, most 
powerful, most ready force in the world. However, it comes as no 
surprise that the wear and tear of the years of wartime activities have 
resulted in increased funding requirements for training, operations, 
equipment and maintenance.
  Recognizing this, the Readiness Subcommittee has conducted rigorous 
oversight on military readiness through hearings, classified briefings, 
and visits with military personnel in the field. Our oversight efforts 
led the committee to include in this conference report both funding and 
policy actions intended to further enhance the readiness of our 
military forces.
  The most striking example is the inclusion of nearly $24 billion 
within the supplemental budget accounts for the repair, modernization, 
and replacement of equipment damaged or destroyed in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. This money will satisfy all past and current reset 
requirements of the Army and Marine Corps.
  I suspect, Mr. Hunter, you have probably already mentioned this, but 
this is the high point of our bill. This is so important.
  The conference report also includes important policy initiatives that 
will improve readiness and allow Congress to better monitor readiness-
related developments within the services, such as:
  A requirement that the Secretary of Defense fully fund equipment 
reset for all of the services, equipment for Army mobility, modality, 
and Army prepositioned stocks;
  A requirement for the Department of Defense to create a uniform 
strategy policy for the prepositioning of materiel and equipment; and
  A mandate for continued capital investment into our depot maintenance 
facilities.
  In addition to such efforts, this conference report also authorizes 
more than $13 billion for military construction projects, more than $4 
billion for family housing, and $5.6 billion for implementation of the 
2005 base closure rounds. These funds are critical for both quality of 
life and military readiness.
  I would like to add here that I hope we will not use these base 
closure moneys to do other things, because it is important if we are 
going to do base closure procedures that we do it and we get these 
properties back into some useful use.
  In conclusion, this conference report provides the necessary funding 
and policy changes to improve our Nation's military readiness. I urge 
my colleagues to support the conference report for this very important 
bill.
  You know, in 20 years that I have been here, Mr. Skelton, I am not 
proud of everything we have done. I am proud of some things we have 
done, but I am not proud of everything we have done. But I can tell you 
I am very proud of this bill. It is a good bill, as you said and as Mr. 
Hunter said. We need to support it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and to praise the chairman and the 
ranking member for their efforts in bringing this bill to fruition this 
fall, rather than Christmas Eve, as was our experience last year.
  There may be some questions as to whether or not it is worth it, to 
have two committees process a bill of this magnitude, an authorization 
process and an appropriations process. But in addition to having a 
second scrub of a $462 billion bill, that double, two-part process also 
leads to some positive provisions from each mark. Let me just highlight 
a couple to show you some of the valuable features in this bill.
  A couple of years ago, we became concerned about the level of 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. We increased the amount of 
coverage from $250,000 to $400,000.
  I offered an amendment to pay for the full premium for those troops 
that go into a combat zone and hazardous duty zones. That did not pass, 
but we did pass a provision that $150,000 of the increased coverage 
would be paid for. This bill takes it a step further, as it should.
  What we are saying in this bill is that the full $400,000 in life 
insurance coverage in the combat zone will be paid for in full when you 
enter the combat zone. This is the least we can do for those who put 
their lives on the line for our country. The least we can do is to make 
sure that their family and loved ones should be taken care of in this 
manner if the worst should happen to them.
  Second, nonproliferation is a major concern, big defense risk. In 
this particular bill, we plussed-up the President's budget for the 
megaports bill by $15 million, and we added $20 million to the Global 
Threat Initiative. This additional funding will allow for the 
installation of additional radiation detectors at the world's major 
border crossings and ports and help secure and dispose of nuclear 
material in some of the most vulnerable research reactors around the 
globe.
  Finally, one of the things we did not do was to endorse the 
authorization for space-based missile defense weapons. I have always 
had great concerns about the efficacy. This bill says to ballistic 
defense: Before you undertake this program, make sure it works, what 
its scope is, what its strategic implications are.
  And, finally, we right and timely put in this bill $23.7 billion to 
reset the capital assets of the Marine Corps and the Army. And this is 
an illustration of a cost that is going to be staring us in the face 
for years to come as we try also to fund transformation and 
modernization.
  We will have to pay this expense just to keep standing still, another 
reason we needed a bill of this magnitude, $462 billion, to defend the 
country. I commend the leadership of this committee for bringing this 
bill to fruition.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, predatory lending practices have become a 
major concern in areas surrounding military installations. This is of 
particular concern in the Second District of Virginia, with a very high 
number of payday lenders. Interest rates on these loans have been 
recorded as high as 780 percent.
  Many young servicemembers attempt to climb out of debt by adding 
additional debt on top of debt, which quickly becomes unmanageable. 
Lenders add to this by encouraging extensions of the loan through 
refinancing.
  This type of predatory lending leads to multiple issues, chief among 
them the loss of a security clearance. A military member lost in 
uncontrollable

[[Page 21257]]

debt could be a security risk, and clearances are often revoked. This 
represents a national security issue.
  Additionally, this represents a morale issue. Individuals have a 
tendency to concentrate less on their jobs when they are mired in 
uncontrollable debt. When servicemembers are concentrating less on 
their mission and more on their debt, it affects readiness.
  To safeguard servicemembers, the conference report prohibits 
creditors from rolling over loan balances, charging annual percentage 
rates that are higher than 36 percent, including fees, and it prohibits 
the borrower from prepaying the loan or charging the borrower a fee for 
prepayment.
  This is a fairness issue. It has been a grave concern to our military 
commanders. I would like to commend our chairman, our ranking member 
and our committee for their concern for this issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. DRAKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  You know, we went into this thing. I thank her for all of the great 
work that she did and lots of other Members who really worked this 
hard. I know Mr. Davis brought some important elements to this package.
  We wanted to have a package that would make the sergeant majors who 
saw their kids going out and paying massive loan fees trying to pay off 
their loan, they could not pay it off, having the loan rolled over, and 
then seeing higher and higher fees stacked on top of that. In fact, I 
think it was Mr. Davis' provision that barred the roll-overs.
  We want to see those sergeant majors see a bill come out of our 
committee and out of conference that, as I said, would make them throw 
their hats in the air and shout: Hooray, Congress has done what it took 
for our kids.
  And we kept them apprised, as we moved this conference report along, 
as the gentlewoman knows in working on the team, to protect our people. 
And when we showed them the product, they threw their hats in the air, 
and they yelled hooray, and they felt like it was a good product.
  You know, the other thing we have got to do is we have got to get 
these credit unions that are in the base, the guys in the institutions 
we allow to be inside the perimeter of that base, to reach out and 
establish short-term loans for our servicemembers so servicemembers go 
there instead of feeling they have got to go a to a loan shark to get 
that loan.
  I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and her great work on 
this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on Readiness.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I want to 
thank Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton for their skills and leadership 
in addressing the military issues before us today.
  I want to thank Chairman Hefley for your friendship, for your 
leadership and for so many years you and I have worked together. I will 
always remember the good that you have done for this country and for 
those young men and women who are in harm's way. I know that you are 
too young to retire, but I wish you the best in whatever you do, and we 
are going to miss you around here.
  This bill provides, in some measure, for the needs of our troops and 
their families. One of the most important parts of this bill is the 
attention given to the immediate readiness needs of our men and women 
in uniform.
  The bill takes some action to address the shortfalls in operations, 
training and maintenance funding that the Department of Defense failed 
to address in their budget submission.
  Now we have taken care of our most immediate readiness need, although 
we have long-term needs we have not yet begun to address, but I can 
tell you this is a very, very good beginning.
  When we come back to this in the next Congress, again after we 
recess, we need to particularly address the lack of equipment for the 
National Guard and for the Reserves. The National Guard and Reserves 
have been as busy as the active duty military in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and they need to be considered equal in status with the other partners 
in our fighting efforts.
  The equipment shortfalls for the National Guard mean we will be 
unable to respond as we need to do in the next natural disaster, or God 
forbid, another war.
  I thank Chairman Hunter, Chairman Hefley for their outstanding work, 
but I want to thank my ranking member, Ike Skelton, the top Democrat on 
the committee whose outstanding leadership has gone a long way to 
address the many shortfalls in our defense budget, while balancing the 
need for our military to remain the world's premier fighting force.
  So I ask my friends, my colleagues to support this bill. It includes 
$130 billion in O&M funding to operate the military, $17 billion 
funding for the military construction, and an additional $20 billion 
added to the bridge funding to help offset some of the immediate needs 
of the Army and the Marine Corps.
  This is a good bill. I want to thank the staff as well for doing a 
great job.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Upstate New York (Mr. McHugh), who works absolutely 
tirelessly as chairman of our Personnel Subcommittee.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill and it is a great bill given the 
times we live in, the challenges that our men and women in uniform and 
their families face in, frankly, the economic environment in which we 
find ourselves.
  I know my ranking member Vic Snyder with whom I worked so closely, he 
and I both feel a great deal of pride year after year that when a 
majority of Members of this House will speak kindly about this bill, 
which they will, they will refer to many of the provisions in the 
personnel mark.
  We owe thanks to the chairman, Duncan Hunter, and to the ranking 
member for allowing us to have the opportunity to try to do better by 
the most important part of a great military, the most important part of 
the greatest military the world has ever seen, that of the United 
States of America; and I know, Mr. Speaker, many that have gone before 
and others that will follow have talked about the terrific things in 
this bill, the 2.2 percent pay increase that diminishes that gap 
between military and pay that had existed down to 4 percent from a high 
of about 14 percent.
  We increase end strength, adding tens of thousands of soldiers into 
the Army and the Marine Corps to lessen the pace of deployments and the 
operations tempo.
  Most importantly, in my judgment, at a time of war, when our men and 
women in uniform are sacrificing, when we have made commitments to our 
veterans, we rejected to the tune of $486 million, that the conferees 
had to find the increases proposed by the Department of Defense to the 
military health care system in both the TRICARE program, as well as the 
pharmacy program. None of those increases will occur.
  I also want to add my words of thanks, indeed, to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) and to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Davis) for their work in ending the scourge of predatory payday lenders 
who get rich on the backs of the men and women in uniform and their 
families.
  This is a terrific mark from top to bottom; but we are particularly 
proud of the personnel marks, and I would hope all of our colleagues 
would vote in support of this legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is also the ranking 
member of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this conference report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
  I want to thank our chairman, Chairman Hunter, and our ranking 
member,

[[Page 21258]]

Ike Skelton, the staff on both sides. So many people have put in so 
much effort and a lot of work on this bill that supports our men and 
women in uniform.
  While I might have preferred a more inclusive process, taken as a 
whole, the product is worthy of everyone's support in this House. It 
provides our troops with tools and support that they need to defend our 
Nation at a time of war.
  I am particularly pleased that the final legislation does not include 
language that linked funding for the Army's Future Combat System with 
the critical need to replace and repair equipment that has been lost or 
damaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  As the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am also 
pleased to report that the final bill before us today contains 
bipartisan compromises on the issues within our jurisdiction. The 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee has oversight of numerous complex and 
contentious programs, including ballistic missile defense, space 
systems and nuclear weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize and thank our subcommittee chairman, 
my good friend from Alabama, Chairman Everett, for his leadership and 
the tremendous amount of effort that he put into forging a bipartisan 
effort to agree on these very complex and controversial issues at 
times.
  In the short time that I have, I want to highlight elements of the 
conference report on ballistic missile defense systems.
  The conferees adopted a Senate provision establishing U.S. policy on 
ballistic missile defense that clearly reflects our views. It says that 
we should accord greater priority within the program to effective near-
term missile defense capabilities, including the ground-based midcourse 
defense system, the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, the Patriot 
PAC-3 system, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, and the 
sensors necessary to support such systems.
  The conferees also adopted the House provision preventing use of 
funds for testing or deployment of a space-based missile defense 
interceptor.
  Mr. Speaker, while time does not permit me to describe in detail the 
rest of our subcommittee's accomplishments, I again want to thank 
Chairman Everett and our Senate colleagues for their cooperation in 
achieving this bipartisan, successful measure; and I want to recommend 
to all our colleagues that they vote ``yes'' on this very important 
legislation to support our troops and their families.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), a great member of our committee and a 
distinguished Vietnam War veteran.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, I thank the Chair, 
and I rise in support of the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007, which is a bill that brings good news to our men and women in 
uniform and especially good news for the U.S. submarine force and to 
the American shipbuilding industry.
  The conference report before us contains $400 million in spending 
authorization to begin the construction of two fast attack submarines 
in the year 2009 and also expresses a sense of the Congress that the 
attack submarine force should not drop below 48, the stated requirement 
of the U.S. Navy to meet its critical missions.
  Because of submarine shortfalls, the Navy is on track to meet only 54 
percent of the submarine mission days requested by the U.S. combatant 
commanders. We need to do better than 54 percent. This legislation puts 
us in the right direction of doing better, and we will do better.
  My colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee understand this 
reality, and I would especially like to thank subcommittee chairman, 
Roscoe Bartlett from Maryland, and the ranking member, Gene Taylor from 
Mississippi. These two gentlemen probably have more knowledge about 
American and global shipbuilding than anyone else in the Congress. I 
would also like to thank my colleague from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), 
who for the last 4 years has worked with me in a bipartisan fashion on 
these issues and is the co-chair with me on the Congressional Submarine 
Caucus.
  Finally, I want to thank Ranking Member Ike Skelton who works in such 
a fine bipartisan fashion and our chairman, Duncan Hunter, who comes 
from the city of San Diego with a great shipbuilding tradition and who 
has also visited my part of Connecticut. We have a shipbuilding 
tradition as well right in Connecticut, the submarine capital of the 
world. That is what we call it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMMONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I just want to thank the champion of Groton for his hard work and all 
the work that he and Mr. Langevin, and as you said, Mr. Taylor and Mr. 
Bartlett, have done. I want to thank all of them for their great work 
and also to the gentleman for his hard work on payday lender and trying 
to make sure that our troops have a good situation now and will not be 
the victims of loan sharks and what to do on that.
  You have brought a real insight to undersea warfare that has been 
important to us and especially in a Taiwan scenario or another type of 
scenario in the future which could be very, very critical to American 
sea power.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In concluding, he 
referred to his $89 a month and the loan sharks. When I was in as a 
private, I made $68 a month. The loan sharks were out there. So the 
legislation to get them off the backs of our soldiers is welcome news.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the hardworking 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Projection 
and Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Before I begin, I just wanted to recognize and commend the great 
service of my friend and colleague, Congressman Hefley, and I have so 
enjoyed serving with you in a number of capacities, particularly in our 
work in the Armed Services Committee. We had an opportunity to work on 
several important issues, and I thank you for being such a gentleman 
and giving such great service to this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5122 and thank Chairman Hunter 
and Ranking Member Skelton for their hard work.
  The bill helps our servicemembers and their families, as well as 
military retirees. It includes a 2.2 percent pay increase for military 
personnel and much-needed increases to end-strength numbers. It places 
a 1-year moratorium on cost increase for the TRICARE pharmacy benefit 
and expands TRICARE eligibility for Reservists, two very important 
issues to my constituents.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 5122 recommends $400 million to 
expedite the construction schedule for the Virginia-class submarine so 
that we can start building two per year as early as 2009. I commend the 
great work of my friend Congressman Simmons and his leadership on this 
issue. He is a great partner in this effort. The Navy's current 
shipbuilding plan would have our submarine fleet drop to dangerously 
low levels, and this bill understands we cannot allow that to happen.
  I thank the committee for its leadership in its efforts, all of the 
staff and all of my colleagues on the committee for their efforts to 
accomplish these important goals, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the measure.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who is chairman of our Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much. We are going to miss 
Mr. Hefley. We still have some unfinished business between us that I am 
going to hold him to.
  I want to recognize also the gentleman from California, my long-time 
friend, the chairman of the committee. I do not think in the 14 years I 
have been here that I have had the privilege

[[Page 21259]]

to serve with anyone who has the patience that he has had. He has a 
great skill in leading this committee, and he mentioned earlier in his 
opening remarks about the fact that this committee works so hard, and 
it does. The members take very seriously what they are doing.
  I had the great privilege, along with Mr. McHugh, of being the first 
Members of Congress into Baghdad after we invaded, and I just 
appreciate his outstanding leadership and his dedication to the 
fighting men and women of our country.

                              {time}  1715

  And also the gentleman from Missouri, who has the same type 
dedication, and who knows that he is welcome back to Dauphin, Alabama, 
any time he wants to. It has only been about 40 years since he has been 
there.
  I do support the conference committee, the National Defense 
Authorization Act, H.R. 5122. It supports the administration's 
objectives, while significantly improving the budget request.
  Moreover, our national security investment must continue to develop 
transformation capabilities of future systems, and this conference 
report does that.
  Finally, let me also say that my subcommittee, the one that I head, 
Strategic Forces, simply would not have been able to work like it did 
in a very bipartisan manner if it had not been for my good friend, Mr. 
Reyes of California. Much of what we have been able to do has been on a 
bipartisan basis, as he had mentioned earlier, on very complex, 
contentious issues, perhaps some of the most contentious issues in the 
committee. We were able to reach a consensus that would serve the best 
interests of the Nation and of our fighting troops, and I again thank 
him for his efforts as well as the other committee members who 
oftentimes had different views. But we all came together.
  We also have an outstanding staff who has to study these very complex 
issues to see if we can't come to an accord that is in the best 
interest of the Nation.
  So, again, I recommend supporting the final version of this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member 
on the Personnel Subcommittee.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and I rise in support 
of this bill. I think this bill has a lot of good things in it for our 
troops, and I appreciate all the work Members on both sides of the 
aisle have done.
  I want to mention two or three things that I think we need to work on 
and maybe we can work on in the future.
  First of all, Mr. McHugh and I participated in a joint hearing 
yesterday with Mr. Boozman, from one of the Veterans Committee's 
subcommittees, and Ms. Herseth, the ranking member; and we had a really 
good hearing on the GI bill.
  The GI bill has challenges. We have problems now in that the GI bill 
program for folks in the Active component is a different program than 
for those in the Reserve component, the folks in the Army Reserves and 
the National Guard. What has happened as the years have gone by it has 
become a really terribly unfair program for our folks in the Reserve 
component, and for the folks in the Active component, the cost of going 
to school gets higher and higher.
  So we had a good hearing yesterday. I hope that this joint hearing 
between the Veterans Committee and the Armed Services Committee will 
continue but with the ultimate result being we make a change in some of 
the issues in the GI bill.
  One provision I wished had been accepted, Senator Lincoln had 
inserted on the Senate side, dealt with what I think is just 
unconscionable, and that is the way we treat members of the Reserve who 
are activated in the GI bill. The way the system currently works is if 
they get activated, let's say activated to go to Iraq, 14, 15 months, 
and then get out. So here they have been in a war zone for a year, 
their enlistment ends, and once the enlistment ends, they get zero 
educational benefit. Zero educational benefit.
  Now the administration says that helps retention. But the retention 
numbers are good. That, to me, is terribly unfair, and we need to do a 
better job on that.
  Another provision I wish that we would either do in the defense bill 
or as a stand-alone provision is what Senator Truman did during World 
War II. We need something comparable to the Truman Commission to deal 
with the waste of billions and billions of dollars and the 
dissatisfaction of American taxpayers with how the dollars have been 
spent on reconstruction projects in Iraq.
  A third point I would make, and I made it before, is I really hope, 
we have tried it now 10 years without the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, and in my view that has been to the great detriment of 
the American people, the American taxpayer, and our men and women in 
uniform. So I hope we will bring back the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations to the House Armed Services Committee.
  I recommend everyone support this bill, and thank you to Chairman 
Hunter and Mr. Skelton for the work they have done on this bill.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is chairman of the Projection Forces 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman 
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their exemplary leadership in 
bringing this conference report.
  I also want to thank my subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Taylor, for 
his tireless efforts and dedication in the preparation of this 
important legislation. I am grateful for our strong and cooperative 
relationship.
  In addition, I would like to recognize my fellow colleagues on the 
subcommittee for their diligence and commitment to a job well done.
  The intense work involved in preparing this conference report before 
us has been accomplished with the assistance of our professional and 
hard-working staff, and I commend their efforts and the quality of the 
final product. Staff, thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report. It 
strikes an appropriate balance between modernizing and maintaining our 
existing weapon systems, while investing in replacement capabilities 
for our future force.
  In this bill, we move forward with the development of our future 
fleet by funding the lead replacement amphibious assault ship and the 
dual lead DDG-1000 destroyers, while also providing advance procurement 
funds for the next generation aircraft carrier. The bill also continues 
to build-out our fleet of Virginia class attack submarines, San Antonio 
class amphibious ships and Littoral Combat Ships. This conference 
report also contains funds for continuing the refueling and complex 
overhaul of the USS Carl Vinson and provides funds for the 
modernization of the Arleigh Burke destroyer and the Air Force's fleet 
of strategic airlift and bomber aircraft.
  We have taken action to provide our future force with the 
capabilities they need to meet future threats. We have also taken steps 
to ensure that the current capabilities are not retired prematurely. 
This conference report mandates the Department of Defense maintain a 
minimum strategic airlift force structure of 299 aircraft and allows 
limited retirements of KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft and B-2 
bombers.
  One point of concern deals with the submarine force for the future. 
It is destined to go back to 40 submarines. It is the strong sense of 
this subcommittee that it ought to go no lower than 48 submarines.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our sailors, our 
airmen, our soldiers and marines by voting ``yes'' for the fiscal year 
2006 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry as to the time 
remaining for each side, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 10\1/2\ 
minutes

[[Page 21260]]

remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have 
the right to revise and extend their remarks this evening.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is the ranking member of the 
Projection Subcommittee, a true friend of those who wear the uniform of 
our country.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Skelton, the 
ranking member, and Chairman Hunter for the great work they have done.
  I also want to thank Lieutenant Commander Kevin Aanestad, who the 
Navy was nice enough to let work in my office for a year. Just a while 
back Kevin was flying combat missions in Iraq. He has been assigned to 
this office, as was last year Captain Randy Edwards, and let us not 
forget that that is what this bill is all about. It is for the Kevins, 
the Randys and the people serving in Iraq now, the people who have been 
there, and the people who are going there.
  I want to thank Chairman Bartlett for the great work he has done on 
the dual-lead strategy for the DDX. I think the DDGs have served our 
Nation very well, but it is time to move on to another platform, and it 
is great we are finally getting started on that.
  I want to thank Chairman McHugh for including TRICARE for guardsmen 
and reservists in this bill. It was kind of a contentious vote last 
year. I wish we could have prevailed last year, but the good news is it 
is going to happen this year. Our guardsmen and reservists are called 
upon increasingly to serve our Nation.
  At the time I made my pitch on the floor, 40 percent of the all 
people serving in Iraq were guardsmen or reservists. Since I made that 
pitch, we actually lost, I regret to say, a young National Guardsman by 
the name of Josh Russell. He died the night of Hurricane Katrina on a 
search and rescue mission only 30 miles from his home.
  They deserve the same benefits as the Active Duty force. If we are 
going to use them the same as the Active Duty force, then it is a great 
thing that this bill is going to give them the same health care 
benefits.
  The only disappointment I would like to express, Mr. Speaker, is, 
number one, I want to thank Chairman Hunter and thank Ranking Member 
Skelton for including language in the bill that would have provided an 
IED jammer on every vehicle in Iraq. If you look, as I do, at the 
casualty reports in the paper, you will see on a daily basis that young 
men and women are dying in Iraq as a result of an improvised explosive 
device exploding near their vehicle. Over half of all the casualties in 
Iraq are the result of IEDs, improvised explosive devices.
  We can jam that signal most of the time. And it is not a parochial 
thing. These devices are made nowhere near south Mississippi. But what 
they will do is save the lives of south Mississippians and Marylanders 
and people from California and people from Missouri. So I deeply regret 
that the Senate would not agree with us on this provision.
  They did, however, include a provision that every vehicle has some 
sort of coverage. But, again, in the chaos of combat, I think our 
Nation would be better served if every single vehicle had this 
provision; and I want to put my colleagues on notice that it is 
something we need to work on again next year.
  So, again, I want to thank Chairman Bartlett for his great 
cooperation. Joel Hefley, you are one of the classiest acts that has 
ever served in the United States Congress. Thank you for your service. 
Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, thank you very much for your 
help on this bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, as well 
as Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, for their work on this 
Conference Report. They have done an outstanding job making this a 
truly bipartisan effort. As always, Chairman Bartlett and the 
Projection Forces staff have done a tremendous job crafting our 
Subcommittee's section of the bill. He has gone out of his way to 
ensure that this is a bipartisan effort, with provisions that make 
fiscally responsible decisions. I thank the Chairman for his leadership 
and for his consideration, even on issues on which our views differ. I 
strongly support the provisions in the Projection Forces portion of 
this bill.
  I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the 
compromise reached on the ``dual lead ship'' strategy for DDG I000 this 
year. Last year we in Congress required the Navy and the shipbuilding 
industry to use both surface combatant shipyards to build the DD(X), 
the Navy complied, and this bill follows through on that and allows us 
to be consistent in our direction to the department. The bill allows 
work to begin on a total of 7 new ships, with advanced procurement for 
an eighth--a good start towards reversing the decade long decline of 
our surface fleet.
  The theme of fiscally conservative decision-making while maintaining 
the robust force structure our military requires is maintained 
throughout the Projection Forces section of this bill. From maintaining 
our strategic airlift capability with the addition of 10 more G-17s 
(for a total of 22), to allowing the retirement of only those KC-135s 
and B-52s that are the most expensive to maintain. It applies cost caps 
on future aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, and requires that 
future proposals for all surface ships include options for alternative 
propulsion sources such as nuclear power to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. I am extremely pleased to support the Projection Forces 
section of this bill.
  I would like to express my appreciation as well for finally including 
the expansion of TRICARE coverage to members of the National Guard and 
Reserve. I want to commend all of my colleagues. In particular, I want 
to commend and remember a former colleague, the late Sonny Montgomery. 
I think Sonny would be very pleased that we are providing our Nation's 
Guardsmen and Reservists with TRICARE benefits. It is long overdue and 
I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Chairman McHugh, and 
all the other people who helped make this happen. Providing this health 
coverage recognizes the sacrifices our Guard and Reserve troops are 
making every day. Insurgents in Iraq don't differentiate between 
reserve soldiers and active duty soldiers.
  Lastly, I would like to express my disappointment in a compromise 
that weakened my provision to require IED jammers on all of our wheeled 
military vehicles at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan. This threat is 
responsible for over half of the casualties in the war. I realize 
jammers are not a 100 percent solution, but they are proven and known 
to be effective. This is not the last conflict in which our military 
personnel will face this threat, every potential enemy in the world is 
watching and learning from our current conflict. Our British and 
Australian allies require and provide a jammer on every vehicle; we 
should be ashamed that we don't do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Skelton, I thank you and your staff 
again for the work you've done on this bill, and for your thoughtful 
insight and leadership in creating an overall extremely balanced 
measure that I am proud to support.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, good things happen and we Members, of 
course, often take the credit, but truthfully the staff does so much 
work. We would be at a loss without them, so a special thanks to all of 
our staff.
  And it is special to note that Betty Gray of the Armed Services staff 
is now completing 30 years of service on our Armed Services staff. So a 
special thanks to her for her dedication.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Long Island, New York (Mr. Israel), who belongs to the Tactical 
Air and Projection Subcommittee and who has taken a great interest in 
professional military education.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us can celebrate this conference report and the 
support that it provides to our troops. It is a good product, and we 
have had some hard-fought differences on various issues.
  For me, we have been grappling with the proper balance between 
religious expression and tolerance in the military. I am very pleased 
that this conference report struck language that in my view would have 
made it easier to engage in certain practices by overturning existing 
DOD standards on tolerance of all faiths. And I thank my

[[Page 21261]]

ranking member, Mr. Skelton, and I thank Senators Warner and Levin of 
the other body, the Department of Defense, and many, many different 
religious organizations, from the National Conference on Ministry to 
the Armed Forces, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to the 
American Jewish Committee and so many others. They understand this is 
not just an issue of tolerance, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of good 
order and discipline and unit cohesion.
  We maintain the overall language requiring respect of all religious 
faiths, but this language does reopen a loophole, a loophole that 
allowed commanders and chaplains at the Air Force Academy to chastise 
cadets for not attending certain religious services, a loophole that 
allowed one chaplain to tell cadets of all faiths that some of them 
would burn in the eternal flames of hell for not following his faith. 
So we still have some work to do, and we still have some good-faith 
discussions ahead of us.
  And I want to take this opportunity to say something to my friends on 
the other side of the aisle and on the other side of this issue, people 
who I respect and admire a great deal. I want to continue working with 
them. I have been troubled by the occasional rhetorical excess that has 
suggested, because I am opposed to proselytizing of any specific 
religion on any military base, I am somehow trying to stop people from 
invoking the name of Jesus in their prayers.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. People should be able to 
pray how they want, when they want, where they want, and to whom they 
want. They just can't compel others to join them.
  For those of you who truly believe that the chaplain who told cadets 
willing to die in the defense of freedom that after they died they 
would burn in the eternal flames of hell, well, you and I have some 
profound differences on that issue. So profound that I don't think the 
issue should be decided in 3 weeks of discussion in a House-Senate 
conference. It ought to be put before the American people in hearings.
  And I want to close, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that, as we move 
forward in trying to resolve this issue, we all rededicate ourselves to 
the spirit of openness, sensitivity, tolerance, and respect. And don't 
take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, because behind me, carved into this 
wood dais on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 
is the word ``tolerance,'' right in the center. That word must remain 
with us. My speech will come and go. This word will always stay. That 
is what makes our military great. That is what makes our country worth 
fighting for.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues here to know that my comments have 
nothing to do with a lack of appreciation for your efforts on this 
bill, but rather relate to some institutional and historic concerns 
that I have.
  The U.S. can spend tens of billions of dollars less and do a far 
better job of protecting our Nation. The defense-industrial complex 
follows a misguided strategy of buying weapons that provide Americans 
with no increased safety; buying ever more expensive fighter jets, 
massive naval ships, and a missile defense system that provides no 
additional protection for our Nation. There are no fighter jets or 
naval ships that can challenge our Air Force or our Navy.
  Furthermore, the claimed ballistic missile threat is grossly 
overexaggerated. Terrorists do not possess ballistic missiles and the 
few nation states that do have no desire to face the understood 
retaliation of our ballistic missiles.
  This defense-industrial complex wrongly believes that the $270 
million F-22 fighter is an important new weapon system. However, the 
current F-15 remains unchallenged and inexpensive upgrades can keep our 
Air Force supreme. The F-22 cannot bomb away the beliefs of a small 
number of radical fighters.
  The advocates of advanced weapons systems fail to understand these 
new systems do not match up an effective defense capability with the 
terrorist threats. Only a new approach to foreign policy can 
effectively mitigate the terrorist threat.
  We need to provide for the traditional sense of security by first 
ensuring economic security, health security, and job security for all. 
The roots of terrorism begin not in hatred, but in desperation. All 
people, no matter their ethnicity, seek the basic necessities such as 
food, clothes, shelter, good health, and the ability to earn a decent 
living. If you can level this playing field, there is no desperation 
that may potentially evolve into radical hatred.
  I will support a defense budget that matches real threats to our 
security with appropriate defensive measures. In the long term, the 
federal budget needs a fresh look at our foreign policy, that promotes 
an economic stability worldwide, thereby eliminating the true roots of 
terrorism, desperation.


                                  IRAQ

  The ever-rising cost of our military is not sustainable. This year 
Congress has handed over to the Pentagon over $400 billion, including 
$70 billion in ``bridge funding'' to support ongoing operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. But don't be fooled by this massive number. The 
Administration will be back before the end of the fiscal year seeking 
more funding for continuing operation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Of the numerous reasons to vote against this bill, the continued 
funding for the war in Iraq is especially absurd. If the U.S. were to 
withdrawn as soon as possible out of Iraq, we'd save $1.5 billion each 
week in Iraq, $6 billion a month and $72 billion annually. For every $1 
spent on war costs, we are taking $1 away from U.S. entitlement 
programs.
  It is increasingly clear that this Administration's occupation and 
reconstruction of Iraq has failed.
  After three and half years, Iraq is less safe, not more; Al Qaeda, 
which prior to the U.S. invasion had no influence, has now grown in 
influence and number of recruits. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this 
Administration's policies has turned Iraq into a breeding and training 
grounds for terrorists, and created the greatest recruiting tool ever 
for al Qaeda. Even the National Intelligence Estimate suggests the 
invasion of Iraq has evolved into our largest terrorist threat.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the greatest tragedy of this war is the 2,669 
American soldiers that have been irrevocably lost, and tens of 
thousands more injured. Between 100,000 and 200,000 innocent Iraqis 
have died as a result of the U.S. invasion. Everyday, 120 more Iraqis 
die at the hands of execution-style death squads, kidnappings, murders, 
IEDs, and sectarian violence.
  The war in Iraq has been a grave and tragic mistake. It has cost us 
in blood and treasure. It has damaged our once unchallenged reputation 
in the world. It has squandered the good will rained upon this nation 
after 9/11 and has been a distraction from our efforts to root out 
terrorism worldwide and bring to justice for those responsible for 9/
11.
  The President's promise that we would not leave Iraq until after his 
Presidency will only compound past failures and make our nation less 
safe.
  Our continued occupation of Iraq is not only counterproductive, but 
fuels the civil war.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time we end this grave misadventure in 
Iraq and bring our troops home with the honor and dignity they deserve.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member, I thank the chairman, and I wish best wishes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado for his service.
  Everyone, though, knows that Texas has given the full measure in the 
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as have our soldiers across the Nation. 
But to our soldiers in Texas, I pay great tribute.
  I rise to simply applaud this conference on its emphasis on military 
quality of life, military health care that has been improved, and 
certainly military pay and bonuses.
  I also want to acknowledge a very important project that speaks to 
the partnership between institutions of higher learning, like 
Historically Black Colleges, and a Center For Human Materials Resources 
that will occur at Texas Southern University

[[Page 21262]]

that addresses testing of uniforms and equipment. What a new and 
exciting opportunity for new partners.
  Lastly, I would hope that in the future we will be able to address 
the question I have raised, which is the ability of individuals who are 
receiving their loved ones who have fallen in battle at Dover Air Force 
Base to be able to have a public display if they so desire. It is an 
executive order that there are no cameras there for families who desire 
that. I hope we will be able to address that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to a support this legislation.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by recognizing the true 
bipartisan nature of this bill. The bipartisan nature of this bill is 
due in no small part to our great chairman and my friend, Duncan 
Hunter, and the person that he often refers to as his partner, 
Congressman Ike Skelton, and their respective staffs. Ike, thank you 
very much for your great cooperation, and for working through the 
summer as conferees with our colleagues in the Senate to fine tune this 
measure to provide the maximum benefit to our troops in every possible 
area, from pay to health care to equipment to armor and to advanced 
weapons systems for now and those contemplated far into the future.
  We funded 11 of the top unfunded requirements for the U.S. Special 
Operations Command, adding almost $200 million to the command's 
acquisition budget. We also funded technology initiatives within each 
of the services and in DARPA, ensuring the continued future supremacy 
of U.S. weapons systems and equipment. Cutting-edge medical research 
was also addressed.
  Seeing a continued greater need for modernization airlift, one the 
Air Force clearly needed but could not afford, we authorized 12 C-17 
aircraft requested by DOD and added 10 more, for a total of 22 C-17 
aircraft. I see this as a good start and hope we can continue to fund 
the C-17 line in future years. The best Army and Marine Corps in the 
world, which is that which we have, must be able to get to the fight to 
be effective.
  We haven't forgotten our oversight responsibilities, providing for a 
number of initiatives in the acquisition, information technology and 
chemical demilitarization areas.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a time of great stress for our Nation for we are 
in a war which has been referred to in many different terms, but most 
soberingly, the long war. This is a bill that every American can be 
proud of. Republicans and Democrats have come together to build a 
measure that helps soldiers and their families across the board.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator, Cicero, once said that the 
greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and I am filled with gratitude at 
this moment, Mr. Speaker, for our chairman Duncan Hunter, for the 
members of this committee, the ranking members, subcommittee chairmen, 
every member, as well as our hardworking and dedicated staff.
  I think it is also a moment like this when we are getting ready to 
pass a defense bill which fulfills the first duty of Members of 
Congress and of our government to protect the citizens of our country.
  A special note of gratitude and appreciation should go to those who 
wear the uniform of our country, to those who have worn the uniform of 
our country, to those who have sacrificed, and especially to those 
tremendously supportive families of those who serve in our various 
services.
  With that, a great moment of reflection and gratitude, Mr. Speaker, I 
say thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a friend who came to 
Congress at the same time I did and who does such an enormously 
important job on our committee.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation and congratulate our distinguished chairman and 
ranking member for their outstanding work.
  We take great pride on this committee in doing our defense work in a 
bipartisan manner. In our subcommittee we had no disagreements. Our 
markup lasted for 5 minutes, which is typical for us. Neil Abercrombie 
and I came to terms on every issue. Whether it was the F-22, tactical 
aviation, Army modernization, you name it, we were able to find a 
common ground. I think the reason we can do that is because of the tone 
set by our leadership on both sides of the aisle.
  It is especially sad, though, for me, Mr. Speaker, because my good 
friend is leaving. Joel is the president of our class. We came together 
with the Speaker, and Joel will no longer be sitting alongside of us.
  Mr. Hefley has been an outstanding Member, along with the other 
Members who are not returning. I just want to pay my respects to my 
good friend and let him know that America is better because of his 
service to the country.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Weldon, thank you very much. I thank all of you for the kind 
words that you said about my service on this committee. But it is 
really my great pleasure and honor to have been able to serve with all 
of you, both staff and Members.
  Curt has been as tireless as anybody. As I introduced people going 
through this exercise here, each one I wanted to say so much more 
about, because I have been there with them through the late nights and 
long hearings and so forth as we struggle. Sometimes we disagree about 
details between ourselves. Even on the Democrat side or the Republican 
side, there is some disagreement sometimes, but our hearts are all 
together and our focus is all together, and that is the defense of this 
Nation, and our hearts are with the troops.
  I want to particularly thank our chairman, Duncan Hunter. Golly, I 
couldn't have served with a better chairman than Duncan Hunter. Duncan 
came to my district when he didn't know me, when I was running, Curt, 
as you were in the summer of 1987, and he came and helped me in my 
election effort. Little did I know that these 20 years later, we would 
be serving together in this very important job.
  Mr. Hunter, you are a great chairman, and I appreciate it so much.
  Mr. Skelton, of course, you and I have been friends for a long time. 
I kid you that I have named everything in your part of Missouri after 
you. I probably haven't gotten everything done, but whatever we have 
gotten done, you deserve it. I appreciate your work too.
  Isn't it something to see how bipartisan this effort is when we get 
to this stage? It is nice to see that here. You don't see that very 
much. It is because we all have the same goals and the same purpose. 
Sometimes we have different roads to get there, but the same purpose.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage strong support for this bill.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act. It includes many provisions that 
are vital to giving our military the tools it needs to defend the 
nation, although it also leaves much work undone that will have to be 
addressed in the future.
  The bill addresses one issue in particular that merits attention. 
Despite the Pentagon's repeated denials of a military readiness crisis, 
this bill authorizes an additional $23 billion in funding as a 
downpayment on the damage to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from 
repeated and sustained deployments to Iraq, and the Bush 
Administration's decision to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
through a parade of emergency supplemental appropriations. The wars 
themselves are wearing down our equipment at a tremendous rate. Further 
damage is done by supplemental appropriations because the military 
services are denied the funding they need in a timely and predictable 
fashion. These two factors are doing serious and longterm damage to the 
nation's military readiness, and the Congress must address them.

[[Page 21263]]

  During Armed Services Committee deliberations on this bill in March 
2006, I offered an amendment to add $42 billion for this reason. Sadly, 
that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. I offered the 
amendment because we had a growing readiness problem and because I 
thought putting as much of the funding for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan as possible into the base budget was the most honest and 
effective way to proceed. My approach ended up in the final version of 
this bill. The $23 billion in this year's bill is a good start, but 
this funding will have to be sustained in many subsequent bills to 
address the readiness crisis we continue to face.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes many important legislative 
provisions that directly improve the lives of the people of my district 
and my state. First, it takes the first step toward dealing with the 
chemical munitions dumped off the coast of Hawaii in the 1940s. These 
weapons could still pose a serious health and environmental risk, and 
Section 314 of this bill requires a comprehensive research effort by 
the military to identify, analyze, and assess the potential threat 
these sites may pose.
  Section 2843 of this bill addresses a major land transfer issue in 
Hawaii regarding the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station. Affordable 
housing for the people of Hawaii and a new public transit system are 
critical local issues. This language requires the Navy to turn over an 
important parcel of land that will allow both new housing and transit 
development. Balancing the needs of the military and the local 
population in Hawaii is a challenge, but in this case, I think an 
arrangement was reached that helps both sides accomplish their goals. I 
want to thank Chairman Hunter and Chairman Hefley for working with me 
on this language.
  Lastly, Section 343 of the bill requires an analysis by the Army of 
its future live-fire training infrastructure needs in Hawaii. The 
Army's presence in Hawaii is undergoing tremendous change. A new 
Stryker Brigade is due to be activated this coming year, and thousands 
more troops will be coming to Hawaii as part of the larger changes in 
the military's Pacific region basing posture. Supporting these growing 
needs while accommodating the cultural, environmental and quality of 
life concerns of the people of Hawaii is essential. This report will 
help Congress understand where the Army wants to go in Hawaii with its 
training infrastructure, and how to get there. In particular, it will 
address the sensitive issue of the Army's long-term future in the Makua 
Valley, an area of Hawaii owned by the people of Hawaii and on 
temporary loan to the military. Eventually, this land must be returned, 
so the report requires the Army to look beyond its current use of the 
Makua Valley toward the eventual return of this historic and 
environmentally sensitive treasure to the people of Hawaii.
  There are critical quality of life issues that were not resolved. 
Specifically, it does not do enough to help military families who need 
the Survivor Benefit Program and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 
offset repealed. For me, this is a basic issue of fairness that must be 
addressed at some point in the future. The bill does not do enough to 
protect TRICARE health insurance patients from skyrocketing 
prescription drug prices. The Department of Defense asked for 
legislative authority to negotiate lower prices with major drug 
companies. The majority was unwilling to let this provision into the 
final bill. Finally, the bill before us only provides a 2.2 percent pay 
raise for the military in 2007. This is meager thanks for our men and 
women in uniform in a time of war; for those who are experiencing 
sustained and repeated deployments and absences from their families.
  As well, this raise is simply too small to help our military families 
keep up with rising cost of living expenses at many bases around the 
nation, and especially in Hawaii. We have asked a lot from these men 
and women. We owe them more in return.
  I want to now turn to the portion of the bill that falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, on which 
I am proud to serve as the ranking minority member. This year, the 
subcommittee had a daunting task: to reconcile a budget submission that 
was simply unrealistic in some respects when compared to the needs of 
the military both today and in the future.
  Our military is clearly being pulled in many directions at once. 
Today our forces are fighting unconventional wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the demands of which, in terms of equipment, are very 
different from possible future conventional conflicts. The U.S. 
military has to be able to fight and win both types of wars, but there 
is clearly not enough funding for doing everything the services want to 
do.
  This bill authorizes critical short-term needs such as modernization 
of Army equipment in combat today and increased production of aircraft 
like the C-17 that are absolutely vital to current military operations. 
The bill also looks to the future in continuing successful aviation and 
ground systems. Finally, it takes funding from a few programs that are 
off-track or not working and moves that funding to more pressing needs, 
ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.
  It also demands additional analysis and testing of systems in 
development that the subcommittee has concerns about. These provisions 
may discomfort some people at the Pentagon, but it is Congress' duty to 
oversee these programs and ensure that the troops get what they need.
  Overall, this year I think the subcommittee did an excellent job. I 
especially want to commend Chairman Weldon on his leadership of the 
Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. His willingness to work in 
an open and nonpartisan manner greatly facilitates the subcommittee's 
work and produces a better product for our troops and the civilians who 
serve the nation at the Department of Defense.
  Finally, another member of this committee deserves special 
recognition. I worked for many years with Joel Hefley on the Armed 
Services Committee. He is a both a valued colleague and a close friend. 
Among his many accomplishments during his distinguished career on this 
committee, he helped shepherd through one of the most important changes 
in military housing construction in decades. His vision for leveraging 
private investment dollars into a massive new program to rebuild and 
rehabilitate military family housing is now a reality. In my state 
alone almost ten thousand military homes will be upgraded in the next 
few years. This housing is a vital part of keeping an all-volunteer 
military ready, and Joel Hefley was a leader in this revolutionary 
program. I was and am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to 
partner with him in accomplishing passage and implementation of this 
key legislation enhancing the quality of life of our fighting men and 
women.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
agreement on H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007. I am pleased that we have completed this Act before 
the onset of the new fiscal year because it contains provisions vital 
to the operation of our Department of Defense and to the men and women 
of our armed forces who are fighting the war against terrorism around 
the world today.
  Several provisions within this Act are particularly important to my 
district and the people of Guam. Among these provisions is Section 
1014, which closes a legal loophole that had previously been utilized 
by the Department of the Navy to permit repair of U.S. Navy vessels in 
foreign shipyards at the expense of U.S. shipyards, including the 
shipyard on Guam. By making clear that Guam, and in particular Guam's 
Apra Harbor, is a U.S. location, Section 1014 of this Act make clears 
to the Navy that its reliance on legal minutia to enable foreign repair 
of ships that are homeported on Guam or that make a port call on Guam 
is both unacceptable and now illegal. Congress expects the Navy to 
adhere both to the written word of 10 U.S.C. Section 7310, as amended 
by this Act, and to Congress's clear intent that Navy vessels will be 
repaired in U.S. shipyards except when those vessels are homeported 
overseas, when voyage repairs are necessary or where operational 
demands dictate. The Navy should not and cannot use excessively liberal 
definitions of voyage repairs or an overseas homeport to enable foreign 
repair.
  Further, many vessels operating in the Pacific frequently make port 
calls on Guam. Section 1014 of this Act, when read in concert with 
related instructions from the Commander, Military Sealift Command and 
in particular the instruction identified as COMSCINST 4700.14A, also 
makes clear that vessels that make such port calls on Guam should no 
longer be considered eligible for repair in foreign shipyards such as 
the shipyard in Singapore. Paragraph 6(b)(5) of COMSCINST 4700.15A 
states, ``If an overseas homeported ship returns to the United States 
at any time during its overseas assignment, the policy governing U.S. 
homeported ships will apply, and the homeport status will be 
reevaluated.'' Ships that visit Guam regularly should not be included 
on the Assistant Secretary of the Navy's annual memorandum designating 
ships as homeported overseas and therefore made eligible for overseas 
repair. Ships that visit Guam must be returned to Guam, Hawaii or 
another U.S. location for repair, thereby being worked on by U.S. 
industry and our domestic skilled ship repair workforce.
  Adherence to this refined and reemphasized policy is important to the 
vitality of the U.S. ship repair industrial base which is critical to 
our national security. Further, strict adherence

[[Page 21264]]

to this policy will ensure that U.S. Navy vessels are repaired in safe 
harbors by U.S. citizens, thereby protecting our fleet and Navy 
personnel from risks such as attack, subterfuge, espionage or otherwise 
hostile actions. Section 1014 is a reaffirmation of Congressional 
intent on ``repair American'' policies applicable to the U.S. Navy. 
Section 1014 is an expression of this Congress's strong intent to 
safeguard the vital U.S. ship repair workforce and industry, one that 
faces significant workload reductions in coming years but one that must 
be maintained, even at greater cost, in order to maintain a ship repair 
industrial base capable of meeting any potential war time demand in the 
future. Congress will apply foresight if the Navy will not through the 
exercise of our oversight responsibilities.
  It should be noted that the Section 1014 of the H.R. 5122 as passed 
by the House has been significantly streamlined. As a result of 
negotiations with the Senate and with the U.S. Navy, it was determined 
that Section 1014 did not need to be as robustly written as initially 
passed by the House. It should, however, also be noted that the Armed 
Services Committees will evaluate Navy compliance in light of the 
current revision to U.S. law and Congress's concern with the Navy's 
growing practice of sending U.S. Navy vessels to foreign shipyards for 
repair.
  In addition to the revisions made to 10 U.S.C. 7310 is a provision 
agreed to by the conference committee, Section 1015, which provides for 
a comprehensive report on the operation of the Guam Shipyard and the 
Navy's intent for future utilization of the facility. It would be 
shortsighted of Congress to require greater utilization of such a 
facility without providing for appropriate study of the facility's 
current capabilities and of future needs for the facility in light of 
expected increased military utilization of the bases on Guam. I note 
that Guam will soon be home to 8,000 U.S. Marines who will be 
relocating from Okinawa and who will have points of embarkation in Apra 
Harbor. Guam will also soon become home to a third fast-attack nuclear-
powered submarine and is expected to host an almost continuous presence 
of SSGN submarines. Further, military development plans call for the 
homeporting of three Littoral Combat Ships in Apra Harbor as well as 
significantly increased utilization of Apra Harbor by Navy aircraft 
carrIers.
  The Navy must evaluate what capability it desires from the Guam 
Shipyard and begin preparations for an increase in the shipyard's 
utilization so that the shipyard can handle the anticipated additional 
repair requirements. The invaluable forward and strategic location of 
the Guam Shipyard cannot and should not be taken for granted and 
preparations must begin for growing its capability and capacity because 
it is clear that the yard will play an increased role in Navy ship 
repair in the Pacific as well as provide a vital capability to the U.S. 
Navy in the U.S.'s most strategic location in the Pacific. Training and 
growing a skilled U.S. ship repair workforce is not easy work. The Navy 
should begin enabling steady growth at the Guam Shipyard now so that 
the yard is prepared for future missions.
  I would like to extend my thanks to Chairman Joel Hefley and Ranking 
Member Solomon Ortiz of the Readiness Subcommittee and to Chairman 
Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton of the full committee for 
their steadfast subpart in adresses these ship repair and workforce 
issues. I would like to particularly thank the efforts of their 
respective staffs, especially the efforts of House Armed Services 
Committee Professional Staff Members Joe Fengler and Paul Arcangeli. 
Mr. Fengler has recently left the committee staff but I would like to 
acknowledge his professionalism, expertise and work ethic in 
representing his Chairman and in facilitating robust oversight by the 
House Armed Services Committee and its Members. I know that Mr. Fengler 
will have a bright future and I thank him for his dedication and 
service to Chairman Hunter, to the committee and to our country.
  This Act also includes a provision, Section 2810, to repeal Section 
2864 of Title 10 in the United States Code which prohibits H2-B skilled 
foreign laborers, or nonimmigrant aliens, from working on military 
construction (MILCON) projects on Guam. Many community and industry 
stakeholders recognized that the restriction on labor contracts for 
military construction projects on Guam does not apply to other military 
construction projects elsewhere. Stakeholders felt that the Guam 
specific restrictions could negatively impact the ability to execute 
the planned military growth on Guam in the required timeframe. Because 
completing the movement of Marines from Okinawa to Guam in a timely 
manner is a major component of an international agreement, it was 
considered important to enable the Department of Defense to complete 
military construction projects associated with this move without undue 
obstacles and in accordance with the timeframe set out by the 
governments of Japan and the United States. At my urging, all parties 
agreed that the priority for hiring labor for military construction 
projects on Guam will continue to go to the local workforce. Many 
observed, however, that the amount of work expected on Guam will likely 
exceed local capacity and require additional labor, as have other large 
construction booms in Guam's past. Nonetheless, a principal part of my 
focus in representing the people of Guam remains preparing and training 
the local Guam workforce so that Guam's workers can receive maximum 
benefit from the military buildup. This provision ultimately enables 
Guam to prepare to meet the demands of future construction while also 
enabling the United States Government to meet its international 
obligations and thereby maintain its credibility and reputation with 
important allies.
  I am pleased that this Act also authorizes a major increase in 
military construction funding for Guam. The military construction 
funding for Guam is a continued reflection of the Department of 
Defense's renewed interest in utilizing Guam's first-class and 
strategically located bases. Guam provides a capability to our Nation 
to project stability into the Pacific and, if ever necessary, to 
project force to protect our Nation, our allies and our values. I note 
that the Senate had previously marked against two military construction 
projects scheduled for Guam. I commend the Senate Armed Services 
Committee leadership for working with me and with my House colleagues 
to retain one of these two projects. Authorizing the first phase of 
construction at Andersen Air Force Base's Northwest Field is a critical 
step to completing the already begun relocation of the Air Force's Red 
Horse School from Osan, Korea to Guam. This relocation is an important 
part of the Air Force's realignment of forces in the Pacific and its 
increased utilization of Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. While I am 
disappointed the Senate did not recede to the House authorization for 
the new commercial gate at Andersen Air Force Base, I join the Senate 
in expressing my strong intent to evaluate military construction 
projects scheduled for Guam to ensure that they fit within the overall 
plans for growth on the island and are consistent with the needs not 
just of the military but of the civilian community on Guam. While I 
believe the commercial gate already fit well within the plans for 
overall development on Guam, the concerns expressed by the Senate are 
shared in general and I look forward to working with my House and 
Senate colleagues to provide robust oversight of military development 
on Guam to ensure it is properly executed in the interests of all 
parties.
  The $193.446 million in military construction funding for projects on 
Guam authorized this year represents continued growth in military 
activity on the island and provides assistance to Guam in preparing 
incrementally for the periods of military construction on the island 
which will soon be far more robust.
  It is unfortunate that the conferees did not include in the 
conference agreement Section 632 of the House passed authorization 
bill. This provision would have authorized servicemembers assigned to 
and from non-foreign overseas locations to ship a second personally 
owned vehicle at government expense to the new assigned duty station 
consistent with the authorization for assignments within the 
continental United States. This change in law is still needed. This is 
an important quality of life issue for servicemen and women and their 
families who receive orders to serve on bases located outside the 48 
contiguous States. Supported by The Military Coalition and by the 
Congressional delegations from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam, it 
is my hope that the committee will once again consider this provision 
next year and that its passage will ultimately be won. Our men and 
women in uniform deserve the enactment of this provision.
  Finally, I am pleased that conferees retained language in this Act 
requiring the Department of Defense to study reestablishing a Military 
Entrance Processing Center on Guam. This study authorization is 
contained in Section 582 of the Act. The great number of patriotic men 
and women who enlist in our Armed Services from Guam and from the 
region deserve and need an entrance processing center on Guam. I 
encourage the Department of Defense to expeditiously undertake and 
complete this study. I trust it will find that the value of 
establishing a center on Guam is high and that such establishment will 
yield important results for recruitment goals. I look forward to the 
establishment of such a center and stand prepared to assist the 
Department in any way necessary to facilitate such an endeavor.
  The decision by conferees to include numerous provisions important to 
our Nation's veterans is also to be commended. In particular,

[[Page 21265]]

I fully support the provision which places a one-year moratorium on any 
increases in retail pharmaceutical prices under the TRICARE system. I 
join my colleagues in reiterating the principle that we must fulfill 
our promises to the veterans who have served our Nation. Increasing 
pharmaceutical fees under the TRICARE system is simply unacceptable. I 
also fully support the many other provisions in this Act related to 
protecting our veterans, our active duty personnel and our reserve 
personnel. I note particular support for the provision to curb 
predatory lending activity around military bases and the provisions to 
improve health care services for servicemembers suffering from post 
traumatic stress disorder or other combat related injuries. Our Nation 
remains committed to caring for those who fight and have fought to 
protect our way of life and our values.
  This Act also contains language directing the Department of Defense 
to study cases of reported off shore disposal of munitions by the 
Department of Defense. I encourage the Department to study any cases of 
potential off shore disposal in the waters off of Guam. Should the 
Department determine that any dumping of munitions took place in the 
waters off of Guam, I urge the Department to take action to remedy any 
potential harm of such dumping. I further urge the Department to be not 
just comprehensive but transparent in its conduct of these studies and 
its findings. It is vital that the communities connected to any past 
disposal actions be kept fully informed as to Department findings and 
actions.
  I also support provisions in this Act that direct the Secretary of 
Defense to prepare a plan that would enable the Department of Defense 
Education Activity (DODEA) to assist local educational agencies that 
are affected by force structure changes in their communities. I plan to 
continue to work closely with the Department of Defense regarding the 
impacts that the movement of 8,000 Marines to Guam will have on Guam's 
local education system. The 8,000 Marines are expected to be 
accompanied by 9,000 dependents and perhaps several thousand civilian 
employees. While the dependents of the Marines are expected to attend 
DODEA schools, it is not unreasonable to believe that some Marine 
children as well as the children of civilian employees will enter the 
Guam Public School System. We must begin planning now to prepare Guam 
for any such impact.
  I am a strong supporter of our Nation's National Guard and especially 
of the National Guard and Reserve servicemembers who reside on Guam. I 
remain a strong supporter of H.R. 5200, the National Guard Empowerment 
Act. I believe that the time has come to change the way we think about 
our Guard and Reserve because in this war on terror we have changed the 
way we use them. No longer can the Guard and Reserve come second in 
funding, equipping or anything else.
  So while I am pleased that H.R. 5122 substantially increases 
authorized funding for Guard and Reserve equipment, I believe this bill 
should have also included the provisions of H.R. 5200 to ensure that 
the Guard would receive a Chief with a fourth star that sits on the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and could advocate for and protect Guard 
interests. I also believe it is time to give the Guard independent 
budget authority from the parent services because history has told us 
that the parent services care for themselves first and the reserve 
component second. In an era when the Guard is completing the same 
mission as its active duty counterparts, it should have the same 
leadership and authorities as its active duty counterparts. I will 
continue to advocate for reform and increased empowerment of the Guard 
and Reserve. I look forward to the study of H.R. 5200 by the Commission 
on the National Guard and Reserves and trust that the Commission will 
recommend adoption of many of the provisions contained within the 
legislation. I also note that conferees removed authority included in 
the House passed authorization bill that would have enabled the 
President to mobilize Guard members without the consent of a state or 
territorial governor in the event of a natural disaster. Granting such 
an authority would remove a fundamental and constitutional control 
granted to state governors regarding their state militias. I am pleased 
that the provision has been stricken from the bill.
  Finally, I am encouraged that the conferees retained in the final 
bill language proposed by the Senate that requires the President to 
appoint a senior presidential coordinator of U.S. policy on North Korea 
and to submit to Congress a semi-annual report on the nuclear and 
missile programs of North Korea (Section 1211). While I remain a strong 
supporter of the Six-Party Talks, North Korea's testing of a Taepodong 
II missile earlier this year indicates that current policy toward North 
Korea is not proving a sufficiently effective deterrent against the 
unstable regime currently in Pyongyang. More must be done to secure our 
country and to assure allies in the Pacific of their safety from a 
North Korean regime that appears determined to develop additional 
nuclear weapons and to develop the means to deliver them. I also 
support the $10.4 billion in funding authorized in this Act for missile 
defense including the increase of $100 million for the ship based Aegis 
ballistic missile defense system, a system vital to protecting islands 
in the Pacific, including Guam, from any North Korean threat.
  Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a few of the many provisions 
within this Act. I commend my colleagues for their work in finalizing 
the defense authorization bill. The legislation provides for measures 
ranging from a well deserved pay raise for our uniformed servicemembers 
to construction funding for ships vital to our Navy's future. I am in 
support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5122.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report.
  As a relatively new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
appreciate having had the opportunity to work with my colleagues, 
especially Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, on a number of 
provisions of particular importance to Colorado.
  I want to express my particular thanks to Joel Hefley, the dean of 
our Colorado delegation, who I am proud to call my colleague and 
friend. He and I have joined forces on a wide variety of matters, 
including steps to respond to the danger to our state's communities 
from wildfires, and I have benefited greatly from the opportunity to 
work with him both before and especially after I became a member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  The Senate bill included language to name a housing facility at Fort 
Carson in honor of Representative Hefley, who is retiring at the end of 
the year. I thought it was appropriate, and while the conference report 
does not include that provision, I am glad to note that it does include 
a section (Section 2002) that accurately states that since his election 
in 1986, Representative Hefley ``has served in the House of 
Representatives with distinction, class, integrity, and honor.''
  The same section goes on to note that Representative Hefley's efforts 
on our committee have benefited the military value of installations in 
Colorado and the quality of life of the men and women stationed there. 
It also reminds us that he was a leader in efforts to retain and expand 
Fort Carson and was a leader in efforts to eliminate inadequate housing 
on military installations, beginning with a pilot program at that 
Colorado base, an effort which has ``brought meaningful improvements to 
living conditions for thousands of members of the Armed Forces and 
their spouses and children at installations throughout the United 
States.
  And it concludes by saying that ``Congress recognizes and commends 
Representative Joel Hefley for his 20 years of service to benefit the 
people of Colorado, members of the Armed Forces and their families, 
veterans, and the United States''--a well-earned commendation in which 
I completely concur.
  Looking ahead, I anticipate receipt of two reports on matters of 
particular importance to Colorado.
  Part of the report of our House Armed Forces Committee accompanying 
this authorization bill reflected our recognition of the importance of 
the High Altitude Aviation Training Site (HAATS) based at the Eagle, 
Colorado Regional Airport and its need for enough aircraft to fulfill 
its mission.
  HAATS is the primary site for training military aviators on 
operations in hostile, high altitude, and power-limited environments 
under all seasonal weather conditions, such as Afghanistan. Responding 
to language I had included in the Defense Authorization bill last year, 
the Army National Guard pledged to provide two Blackhawks to HAATS. 
However, I'm told HAATS needs five Blackhawks in order to sustain 
training requirements.
  To lay the foundation for possible future action to meet that need, 
our committee's report included a request for the Secretary of the Army 
to provide a report on high altitude aviation training to the 
congressional defense committees by December 15, 2006. The report is to 
include: (1) The current location and type of high altitude training, 
to include the percentage of pilots who receive such training on an 
annual basis at each location and the types of aircraft used in such 
training; (2) the number and type of helicopters required to provide 
the high altitude aviation training needed to sustain the war 
strategies contained in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, assuming 
that priority for such training is given to commanders, instructor 
pilots, aviation safety officers, and deploying units; and (3) a 
thorough evaluation of the accident rates for deployed

[[Page 21266]]

Army helicopter pilots who received high altitude training and deployed 
helicopter pilots who did not receive such training, including the 
number of accidents related to power management, using high and low 
estimates and the number of accidents involving combat and non-combat 
environments. I expect that this report will make clear the importance 
of HAATS' critical mission and the need for its having more aircraft.
  And this conference report includes a section (section 2827) 
requiring a report by November 30th of this year analyzing of any 
potential expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, which is 
associated with Fort Carson. As a member of the Armed Service Committee 
and the Colorado delegation, I will be very interested in the 
information presented in this report.
  The conference report provides funds for important projects in 
Colorado, including $10 million for work at Buckley Air Force Base, 
$4.9 million for construction at Peterson Air Force Base, $21 million 
for work at Schreiver Air Force Base, and $26.1 million to be used at 
Fort Carson.
  And, at the national level, it includes many provisions that will 
improve our overall military readiness and provide for our troops and 
retirees.
  Among other things, it authorizes a 2.2 percent pay raise, effective 
January 1, 2007, and includes a provision, developed through the 
leadership of our colleague Representative John Spratt, to provide 
targeted pay raises for mid-grade and senior NCOs and warrant officers, 
effective April 1, 2007. It also expands TRICARE Reserve Select to 
members of the Selected Reserves, and terminates the current three-tier 
eligibility program while putting a one-year moratorium on any 
increases in retail pharmaceutical prices under the TRICARE system.
  The conference report also establishes additional financial 
protections for service members, prohibiting creditors from charging 
service members and their dependents annual interest rates for loans 
higher than the legal limit for state residents, or no more than 36 
percent in any case.
  And, of course, it authorizes a $70 billion supplemental for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $23.7 billion to replace 
and reset equipment lost or damaged in operations.
  I opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and my concerns 
about this poorly managed and badly planned war have been realized. I 
believe it was a strategic mistake to make nationbuilding in Iraq the 
centerpiece of our war against Islamic terrorism--a belief that has 
been strengthened by the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate 
entitled ``Trends in Global Terrorism: Implication for the United 
States,'' portions of which were recently declassified. But now that 
our troops are there and Iraq is struggling to avoid a slide into civil 
war, we cannot withdraw them immediately, and we must continue to 
provide the funds necessary to maintain and re-equip them.
  I urge approval of the conference report.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the 
Conference Report for The National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 
5122.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is Congress' only opportunity 
each year to seriously debate the defense polices of our Nation. Yet, 
when the House debated this legislation in earlier this year, the 
Republican Majority prevented any debate about the most important 
national defense issue we face: the war in Iraq. More than 2,700 
American service members have lost their lives fighting in Iraq. 
American taxpayers have paid more than $400 billion to fund the effort. 
Yet, despite authorizing an additional $70 billion for the war, we have 
had no debate on this floor about our policy or needed strategy 
changes. This is an unconscionable failure of the House.
  The House previously made a mockery of Congress' responsibilities to 
guide policy by shamefully politicizing Representative John Murtha's 
thoughtful proposal for a phased redeployment of American troops in 
Iraq. Regardless of one's opinion on the best course of action in the 
war, the failure of Congress to entertain debate or exercise real 
oversight is a dereliction of our duty.
  Just this week, news reports revealed that a National Intelligence 
Estimate (NIE) written in April comes to the conclusion that the war in 
Iraq is making America less safe. I have been telling my constituents 
for months that this war is endangering the lives of our service 
members, fueling the terrorist insurgency, and failing to make us 
safer. The NIE confirms this.
  On another important subject, Congress is also long overdue for a 
serious examination of our nuclear weapons policy. Fifteen years after 
the collapse of the Soviet Union, we behave as if the Cold War never 
ended, maintaining a stockpile of thousands of nuclear weapons, many on 
hair-trigger missiles--far more than we need to assure our continued 
military dominance. It is time we honor the commitment we made when we 
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and begin to phase out our 
nuclear stockpile. This bill fails to make any changes to our nuclear 
posture and it is my hope that the committee will work with me to get 
the United States to honor our NPT pledge.
  I am also disappointed that this bill authorizes $9.4 billion for the 
missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Since 
its inception during the Reagan administration, MDA has spent nearly 
$100 billion for missile defense programs that have repeatedly failed 
flight tests. This money would have been more wisely spent on other 
national security priorities, such as jamming devices for improvised 
explosive devices (IEDs), up-armoring Humvees, and radiological 
detection at our ports and borders. One of the craziest ideas I have 
ever heard is that we should deploy this missile defense system as a 
way to test it. Simple strategic analysis tells us that a provocative 
yet permeable defense is destabilizing and weakens the security of all 
Americans.
  This authorization bill fails to address and make needed changes to 
U.S. policy in any one of these three areas, which is why I oppose this 
bill.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this $533 billion 
Defense authorization bill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today does have a very important 
provision in it: language preventing the establishment of permanent 
military bases in Iraq.
  This is an important first step in taking the targets off the backs 
of our troops in Iraq by showing the world that we have no designs to 
stay in Iraq permanently.
  However, this provision will only apply to funds for FY07. We need to 
make the policy of the United States not to have permanent military 
bases in Iraq.
  Futhermore, it's unfortunate that this bill is the vehicle for this 
critical policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Nation is best defended by funding 
priorities that make our Nation and world safer.
  This bill, I'm sorry to say, does not do that.
  Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities when Congress 
authorizes nearly $70 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
without any direction, or exit strategy?
  Mr. Speaker, what does it say about our priorities when this bill 
authorizes a $10.4 billion for a missile defense program that has 
consistently failed, will never protect us from terrorists?
  What it is says, Mr. Speaker is the priorities of the Bush 
administration are grossly misplaced. When it comes to making our 
Nation safe, they are spending almost $2 billion a week on a war in 
Iraq, but can't spare a dime for the security of the Port of Oakland, 
our Nation's fourth largest container port.
  That's why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and 
offer Americans a real bill that protects America and truly reflects 
our nation's security priorities.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________