[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10292-10310]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1213 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5658.

                              {time}  1910


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Jackson of Illinois in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House begins consideration of H.R. 5658, 
which

[[Page 10293]]

is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  This bill is a collective effort in the bipartisan tradition of the 
House Armed Services Committee which approved the bill in markup by a 
vote of 61-0. It is an excellent bill.
  I want to thank the members of our Armed Services Committee, 
particularly the subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members, and 
actually every member of the committee.
  Let me take this opportunity to also, Mr. Chairman, recognize the 
ranking member and former chairman, Duncan Hunter, for once again being 
a great partner on this bill, and he is certainly to be commended and 
thanked for it. I am proud that Duncan and I have worked so well 
together through the years and always with the common goal of enhancing 
American national security.
  It is only fitting, Mr. Chairman, that as Duncan Hunter plans to 
retire at the end of this Congress, our committee colleagues 
unanimously voted to name this bill in his honor, recognizing Duncan 
Hunter's many years of service on the Armed Services Committee, and 
also recognizing his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform. 
And we thank him publicly for that.
  Mr. Chairman, let me discuss some significant provisions of the bill. 
It reflects our committee's view that restoring military readiness must 
be our number one priority. This is serious business. If, after more 
than 6 years of war, our effort is to restore military readiness, then 
it must be sustained in order to meet not just current military 
challenges, which are monumental, but prepare for the unexpected 
conflicts we may face in the future.
  We don't know what is around the corner. I might point out, in the 
last 31 years American military forces have been engaged in no less 
than 12 military conflicts, four of which have been major in size.
  The bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness 
initiatives requested by the services. It includes $932 million to deal 
with equipment shortages as well as for equipment maintenance. The bill 
also provides for some $800 million for National Guard and Reserve 
equipment, and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working 
order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military 
barracks.

                              {time}  1915

  To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill 
increases the size of our military; 7,000 additional Army troops, 5,000 
additional marines, and prevents further military to civilian 
conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 
Navy sailors and 450 additional Air Force personnel.
  The bill also maintains our efforts to support and honor the men and 
women who serve our Nation in uniform and their families, providing a 
much needed 3.9 percent pay raise increase, and again, prohibiting 
increases in health care fees, among a range of other initiatives.
  I might point out, the administration recommended only a 3.4 percent 
pay raise, and we raised that, as we should have.
  The authorization bill also keeps our focus on Afghanistan, which is 
the primary front in the war on terror. The bill requires the 
administration to submit separate budget requests to clearly lay out 
the requirements for the war in Afghanistan, and on the other hand, the 
war in Iraq. It requires a system be set up to measure the success of 
the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and requires more robust 
congressional reporting on the training of the Afghan Security Force.
  Finally, the bill requires the Department of Defense to address the 
issue of command and control for forces in Afghanistan operating under 
Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as the NATO International Security 
Assistance Force.
  The bill authorizes a $70 billion bridge for the fights in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. But we remain convinced that it's well past time for the 
Iraqis to step up and contribute more substantially to their very own 
security, as well as their prosperity. With the Iraqis' overwhelming 
budget and capital account surpluses, the bill requires Iraqis to 
invest more in their own reconstruction, as well as their own security 
efforts.
  The bill also includes steps toward contracting reform after the 
substantial improvements in the law which we enacted in our previous 
bill last year.
  This bill underlines our commitment to preventing the proliferation 
of weapons of mass destruction. It adds $31 million for the Cooperative 
Threat Reduction programs of the Department of Defense, and some $215 
million from the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. 
That's important.
  Finally, I want to say a word about the need for reforms in the way 
our government coordinates and executes its national security policy. 
Many here in Congress as well as the executive branch are working to 
improve our interagency system. It's a massive effort that cannot be 
accomplished in any one single year.
  I remember well the now famous Goldwater-Nichols Act. It was an 
effort over 4 years in the Congress of the United States which, of 
course, made jointness part of the military culture, and this may well 
be along the same line, although hopefully it will not take 4 years to 
accomplish. But it cannot be done in one single year.
  At the appropriate time during the bill's consideration, I will offer 
an amendment along with Chairman Howard Berman of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey to 
establish a standing advisory board to work with the Secretaries of 
State and Defense on interagency matters and report to Congress their 
recommendations.
  Before I reserve the balance of my time, let me pay tribute to those 
Members who plan to leave Congress at the end of this session and for 
whom this will be their final defense authorization bill. In addition 
to the retirement of our friend and ranking member, Duncan Hunter, I 
want to express my appreciation to two other senior Members who plan to 
retire, Congressman Jim Saxton and Congressman Terry Everett. Both 
these gentlemen have made a very important contribution to our 
committee through the years and, consequently, have been wonderful 
partners, as well as outstanding Americans.
  In addition, two of the most capable and committed members of our 
committee, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, plan to leave in order to seek 
other offices. The House and our committee are all the better for their 
service, and we wish all of these members who are not going to return 
to our committee next year all the best. They will be missed.
  This is a critical time in our Nation. This defense bill is a very 
important one. I urge Members of this House to support this defense 
authorization bill. It does so much in the area of readiness, to 
support our men and women in uniform and their families, and to protect 
the American people.
  With that, and additional thanks to my friend, Duncan Hunter, on his 
final bill, we appreciate your work, your efforts, your friendship, Mr. 
Hunter.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. To my great friend, I don't deserve this honor that he 
has recommended here of naming the bill. I'm just an ordinary American, 
but I get to serve with lots of extraordinary Americans, and the 
gentleman from Missouri is one of those extraordinary Americans. He 
talked about the jointness that he's trying to bring over from his 
great work on the Goldwater-Nichols bill, of bringing our services 
together to act jointly, and extend that to the other agencies which 
are so crucial in this operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to bring 
them in also in a way that they act as a member of the team led, most 
of the time, by the Department of Defense, but nonetheless, one that 
requires cohesion and jointness and a culture of working together as a 
team.
  I want to commend the gentleman for the fact that he has been the 
corporate historian, if you will, for the

[[Page 10294]]

House of Representatives and for the Armed Services Committee, who 
often brings us back in debate or in hearings to events that transpired 
in conflicts 100 years ago sometimes, or World War II or Korea or 
Vietnam, and reminds us that we shouldn't have to learn the lesson a 
second time. So I want to give my great thanks to this great American, 
Ike Skelton, and to all of the members of the great Armed Services 
Committee and the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees who 
put together such a great bill. A couple of them are sitting here next 
to me. I know Jim Saxton is leaving. He was the first chairman of the 
Special Operations Subcommittee, the Terrorism Subcommittee, and 
traveled the world and the country and every base where we had SOCOM 
people stationed, talking to the teams, talking, whether they were 
Green Berets or Rangers or SEALs or other operators, trying to 
understand what they needed from Congress in order to be effective. He 
worked to get them that equipment, and now, as the ranking member of 
Air, Land, he continues that mission.
  And, of course, Terry Everett, that guy who doesn't make long 
speeches but spends a lot of time in classified sessions working and 
understanding on the issues surrounding space, and how those issues 
relate to national security. Probably nobody else in the country knows 
as much as he does on those issues.
  And, of course, we've got a couple of members, as the chairman said, 
moving on to other offices, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, and we wish 
them the very best.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent defense bill, and I concur with 
the gentleman from Missouri that we should have a unanimous vote in the 
House of Representatives, just as we had under his leadership in the 
Armed Services Committee.
  It does a couple of things that are important for us. It works toward 
the warfighting theaters, which are very important, Iraq, Afghanistan 
and other places in the world where the global war on terror is taking 
place. But, at the same time, and in those, in that category, we put in 
extra money for MRAPs for these armored vehicles, for protection for 
our troops, for jammers, for all the things, for new surveillance 
capability, new anti-mortar capability, all the things that would go to 
force protection, and also make our troops more effective in those 
theaters.
  But beyond that, we pay a lot of attention and put a great deal of 
focus on modernizing the military and looking over the horizon to 
challenges that may go far beyond the current theaters.
  We continue to fund the F-22, which the reports now coming back from 
the operators are to the effect that the F-22 is doing extremely well, 
a high performance fighter aircraft with lots of capability, lots of 
legs, lots of firepower, but especially lots of sensor capability, 
which we're finding to be extremely valuable.
  The V-22, which is this platform that the Marines wanted for years 
because it goes roughly twice as fast as the CH-46s that it's 
replacing, are working extremely well in theater. The Marines are 
getting from point A to point B in half the time. They're able to carry 
out their mission more efficiently and effectively. They like that 
particular platform. And across the board, we are replacing and 
modernizing our military equipment.
  Now there are some things that we need to do in this bill, and I 
would hope we could do on the floor. We did cut some $300 million out 
of missile defense. Mr. Chairman, we live in an era of missiles. This 
is an era in which we will see, in the coming years, the Iranians 
continuing to improve on the Shahab missile classes, which already can 
reach parts of Europe, at some point will be able to reach all of 
Europe, and will be followed by missile classes that, at some point, 
will be able to reach the United States.
  We also have seen North Korea throw a pod of missiles into the North 
China Sea, and the Sea of Japan; some of which have capability, if they 
put more sections on those missiles, ultimately, to reach American 
allies and the United States itself. So we're entering the middle of 
what I would call the era of missiles. And having defense against 
missiles is a key part of the American defense system.
  We've had these wonderful successes where we've shot down missiles 
that are traveling, where the interceptor and the missile it shoots 
down 148 miles above the surface of the Earth are traveling roughly 
three times the speed of a 30-06 bullet, and we've had collisions in 
mid flight. We saw a great demonstration when we took down the rogue 
satellite that had to be destroyed to avoid possible collateral damage. 
We took that down with a sea-based missile system that worked very 
well.
  We clearly are moving along in the right direction in trying to put 
up defenses as the offensive systems become more sophisticated. But I 
think we need to continue to move down that path.
  We did cut money out of the European-based missile systems and other 
systems, and I would hope that we could restore some of the missile 
defense money in this particular bill. I know Mr. Franks will be 
offering that.
  Similarly, the FCS program, I think, is an area we need to restore 
dollars. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of en bloc amendments and 
amendments that will be offered by members that I think will, in fact, 
make this bill even a little bit better than it is.
  I want to finish by thanking the chairman for putting together a 
great bill in the Armed Services Committee, for moving it down the road 
very quickly, and getting it to the House floor.
  This is the bill that provides our troops with the tools that they 
need to get the job done. And that's why it's important, that's why 
this committee acts in such a bipartisan fashion, and we follow the 
bipartisan model of the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) who also is 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 
5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  I want to commend Chairman Skelton for his leadership on bringing 
such a strong bipartisan bill to the floor.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have worked with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the bill 
achieves three broad objectives. It sustains and modernizes the 
stockpile stewardship program, which insures the safety, security and 
reliability of our nuclear deterrent. It invests in the development and 
deployment of ballistic missile defense systems that address near term 
threats to the United States, our deployed troops and our allies. And 
it supports significant military space programs in critical phases of 
development, including the space-based infrared system.

                              {time}  1930

  With regard to the nuclear complex, it provides additional funding to 
address certification issues raised by the 2007 JASON review of the RRW 
proposal. It fully executes the National Ignition Campaign, and it 
explores next-generation stockpile stewardship tools. The bill fully 
funds the request for the defense environmental cleanup and urges DOE 
to increase the resources dedicated to cleanup in future budgets.
  We also fully fund the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and we stress that the MOX 
project is a nonproliferation and a national security priority.
  For the Missile Defense Agency, the bill authorizes $8.6 billion, a 
cut of $719 million below the administration's request. The bill 
reflects our committee's strong bipartisan support for addressing the 
short, medium, and intermediate missile threats that face our 
warfighters. It includes several important funding increases. It adds 
$75 million for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, $75 million for 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, $25 million for missile defense 
target development, and $10 million for the joint U.S.-Israel short-
range missile defense program.

[[Page 10295]]

  The bill authorizes $341 million for the proposed European missile 
defense site, an increase of more than $100 million over current-year 
funding but a reduction of $371 million below the administration's 
request.
  The committee has extended conditions contained in the fiscal year 
2008 National Defense Authorization Act to help ensure that the pace of 
any deployment of U.S. missile defense systems in Europe is 
synchronized with our diplomatic efforts and that the proposed system 
has been fully tested.
  The bill strongly supports our cooperative programs with Israel 
authorizing $54.1 million for the joint U.S.-Israel short-range missile 
defense program, an increase of $10 million over the President's 
request.
  It also authorizes $74.3 million for continued development of the 
Arrow Weapons System.
  In military space programs, the bill pushes DOD to focus on near-term 
warfighter needs, space situational awareness, and space protection. 
The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for the 
Department's bandwidth needs in the near and longer term.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to honor my ranking member, 
Mr. Everett of Alabama, who is retiring this year. Mr. Everett was 
previously the chairman of this subcommittee. There is no finer 
gentleman in the House. He is a man of significant effort, he is a 
perfect Southern gentleman, and it was my pleasure to work with him 
over the last few years and this year to have him as my ranking member. 
I wish him and his wife Barbara and their family all the best in their 
retirement years.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill supports our critical national security 
priorities, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support its adoption 
today.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady in 
putting this bill together and recognize the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Saxton) who, every time I talked to him over the last 4 or 5 
years, he was meeting with a different group of special operators 
trying to figure out what they needed and where they needed to go and 
tireless in pouring himself into an airplane to get to yet another base 
and meet with more troops.
  He's done a wonderful job as the ranking member of the Air and Land 
Subcommittee. We're going to miss the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I would like to yield him 5 minutes.
  Mr. SAXTON. I want to thank Mr. Hunter for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said here tonight about 
bipartisanship and working together, and it's absolutely been a 
fantastic experience for the last 2 years we've worked under the 
leadership of our good friend, Ike Skelton. I might say that one of the 
reasons that this bipartisanship works so well is very simply because 
we're all friends. We're friends in the committee, we're friends in the 
hallway, we're friends in our offices, and we are friends here on the 
floor, and we're friends when we're not in session.
  And so we appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight on the floor 
in that spirit.
  I might also thank my good friend from California (Mr. Hunter) for 
the kind remarks that he offered with regard to my service. But I want 
to say something, too, about Mr. Hunter, because for the last several 
years before Ike Skelton, Mr. Hunter was our chairman, and now he's our 
ranking member. Following in the footsteps of Floyd Spence and Bob 
Stump, Duncan Hunter picked up the job of being chairman and continued 
to set the tone for the bipartisanship that is a hallmark of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Perhaps as only Ronald Reagan could have said it years ago when I 
first came to Congress, he said, You know, a lot of things are 
important around here, but there is nothing that's more important, 
maybe there are some things that are as important, but nothing is more 
important than our national security.
  And the bipartisanship with which the Armed Services Committee, under 
the leadership of both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Hunter and their 
predecessors, has approached this issue is very, very important. I 
would like to thank the gentleman for the great job that he's done, as 
well as my friend, Ike Skelton.
  Force protection is a very important element of this bill. We know 
that force protection has changed a great deal because of the threat 
that we face in Iraq and Afghanistan of an conventional nature.
  In this bill we upgraded the funding available for the Mine-Resistant 
Ambush-Protected Vehicle, the MRAP. We have $947 million to upgrade the 
armor on Humvees, and $2.2 million for the Abrams tank upgrades, the 
Bradley fighting vehicle, as well as the Stryker. And so we once again 
put our soldiers first and are providing the protection for them that 
they need.
  One of my pet projects in the years that I have been on the committee 
has been the moving forward of the C-17, and here again, we've got 
funding or we've got authorization here for 15 additional C-17s, and 
hopefully we will continue to move forward with that.
  There is one area that I have a concern about in this bill, but it's 
a whole lot better than it could have been when it started. Our great 
friend, Neil Abercrombie, compromised with us on the Future Combat 
System.
  While it's important to provide force protection for today's Army, 
it's also important to get ready for tomorrow's Army. And while the Air 
Force, as well as the Marine Corps, as Mr. Hunter pointed out, adopted 
a revolutionary system known as the V-22, which is a fixed-wing 
aircraft. It can take off vertically and can fly twice as fast as a 
helicopter. That was revolutionary. In the Air Force, we have 
revolutionary systems, the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, which are 
revolutionary because they can do things that we never dreamed that we 
could do before.
  The Army has been an evolutionary developer, and the FCS, the Future 
Combat System, is the first, in my time here, revolutionary system 
adopted by the Army. We cut the funding for the Future Combat System by 
$233 million. I think that's a mistake. This is a big year for the FCS, 
and in my view, we should have funded it altogether. $3.6 billion is a 
lot of money. That's the total authorization for the FCS this year. A 5 
or 10 percent cut may not seem much, but this is the make-it-or-break-
it year. This is the year we study the progress we've made with FCS and 
decide whether to go forward with it or not. A bad year to make a cut 
in my estimation.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here 
tonight under these circumstances. This is a good bill. I am certainly 
going to support it, and as Mr. Hunter suggested, this should be a 
unanimous vote, and I urge the House to make it so.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady, 
our friend and colleague, Mrs. Davis.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, as the chairwoman of the 
Military Personnel Subcommittee, I'm pleased to support H.R. 5658, the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  As my colleagues and the other subcommittee Chairs have noted and 
will note, I think, as they speak, this bill is a bipartisan effort. I 
want to recognize the committee chair, of course, Mr. Ike Skelton, and 
the ranking member, Mr. Duncan Hunter, for their exemplary leadership.
  I would also like to recognize my ranking member on the subcommittee, 
Mr. McHugh, for his support. I also want to thank our dedicated staffs 
on both sides of the aisle for extraordinary work.
  Each year has been extremely challenging to meet all of the wishes 
that we seek for those who are serving in harm's way. And this year was 
certainly no exception. However, the defense bill before us continues 
to enhance and improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and 
their families who are bearing the brunt of 6 years of war.
  Let me highlight some of the important initiatives that we address. 
The committee supported the President's

[[Page 10296]]

proposal to increase end strength for the Army and Marine Corps and 
restores the military to civilian conversions within the medical 
community that were prohibited in last year's bill.
  The bill includes a 3.9 percent pay raise which is one-half of 1 
percent above both the President's budget request and private sector 
raises as measured by the Employment Cost Index, the ECI. This is the 
10th consecutive year of pay raises above ECI, and this raise will 
further reduce the gap between military and private sector raises from 
3.4 percent to 2.9 percent from a high of 13.5 percent during fiscal 
year 1999.
  The bill establishes a tuition-assistance program for eligible 
military spouses to develop careers that are portable as they move with 
their servicemember from base to base.
  The bill also authorizes a career intermission pilot program that 
would allow those who are seeking a military career time-off from 
active duty for a period of several years in order to pursue other life 
achievements.
  The reserve components have moved from a strategic force to an 
integral and vital part of the operational force, particularly in the 
Army. The bill would increase full-time manning for the Army National 
Guard to 30,450 and the Army Reserve to 17,070.
  The bill prohibits TRICARE health and pharmacy fee increases proposed 
in the President's budget. I'm pleased that we were successful in 
finding the offsets necessary to prohibit the fee increases to protect 
our military beneficiaries.
  However, the committee remains concerned that the department 
continues to put forward proposals that place the focus solely on our 
military retirees and fails to address other cost drivers within the 
system. So we must work together to find a fair and equitable solution 
that protects our beneficiaries and ensures the financial viability of 
the military health care system for the future. The bill begins efforts 
to improve the health care readiness of our force and their families by 
establishing preventive health care programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before the Members today is a good bill, and 
Members can be proud of what we are doing for the troops and their 
families.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland who is the ranking member on the Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to support the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009. As ranking member of the Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, I applaud the efforts of Chairman 
Taylor and his staff who have done an excellent job of meeting the 
needs of our sailors, aviators and marines.
  I also want to thank my staff who did a great job. They helped 
prepare this statement and so they modestly did not include themselves. 
Thank you, staff, very much.
  The bill accelerates the planned refueling complex overhaul of the 
USS Theodore Roosevelt. It fully funds the next generation carrier, the 
fiscal year 2009 Virginia class submarine and provides procurement for 
a second Virginia class submarine in both fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 
The bill also authorizes two T-AKEs and two Littoral combat ships.
  There are several areas where the committee disagreed with the 
President's budget requests. For example, the bill would not allow the 
Navy to terminate the LPD-17 production line. The bill would slow the 
pace of the DDG 1000 destroyer program while providing the Navy with 
the flexibility to reevaluate its options for service combatants and 
reduce risk for the next generation cruiser.
  On the aviation side, the bill continues to support the alternative 
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It also provides additional 
funding to address emergent P-3 aircraft repair issues.

                              {time}  1945

  With regard to Marine Corps programs, the chairman and I share 
concerns and the same goals about the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle 
and its survivability. The Marine Corps has responded to our concerns 
by making design changes that will improve its survivability by 50 
percent over the baseline. But I believe that more can be done. I have 
asked the chairman if we can continue to examine this bill's proposed 
$40 million cut to the EFV program to ensure we achieve this important 
goal.
  The bill extends the committee's prior work to expand nuclear 
propulsion for shipbuilding. Last year, we required the Navy to include 
integrated nuclear propulsion for the next generation cruiser. This 
year, the bill would require that future amphibious assault vessels 
also include nuclear power.
  The Navy's 2007 study on alternative energy for ship propulsion 
indicated that the break-even price for nuclear propulsion for 
amphibious ships was a market price of $178 per barrel of oil. We're 
creeping up to that number. Oil hit a new record of $133 a barrel 
today.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that several of our 
colleagues, all three of them sitting in the Chamber in front of me, 
are retiring at the end of this Congress. My very good friend, Duncan 
Hunter; good friend, Jim Saxton; and my classmate, Terry Everett, thank 
you all very much for what you have done for your country, for our 
servicemen and -women. You have my deepest respect and gratitude.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, my 
friend, the gentleman from Washington, who is also the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Conventional Threats and Capabilities, 
Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to start by thanking Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
Hunter for the work they have done, not just on this bill but during 
the 12 years that I've been in Congress and even before then.
  Their leadership on this committee I think should be an inspiration 
to all of us in the way they approach these very important issues. To 
begin with, they set a tone of bipartisanship. We worked together in an 
open process that I think gives us the high quality product that we 
wind up with. And that's not to say that we don't disagree, 
occasionally along party lines, but we do so in a very open, very 
honest way, in a way that I think addresses the issues and the way that 
Congress should perform. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member Hunter for his time as ranking member and time as chairman as 
well for doing that.
  I think this year's bill is a particularly good product and 
representative of that fine work. We have heard many different pieces 
of it already. I just want to highlight two in the general bill.
  First of all, the $2 billion in additional money that we put in to 
deal with readiness, a major challenge right now for our Armed Forces, 
particularly the Army and the Marines. Our forces are really under a 
great deal of strain because of their deployments in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Maintaining readiness has been a major challenge and 
concern, and this bill puts that concern up front and funds it in a way 
that will help us begin to deal with the problem.
  Also, equally as importantly, it prioritizes our troops by giving 
them a 3.9 percent pay raise, to recognize the hard work and sacrifice 
that they perform for us and support them in every way that we possibly 
can.
  With that, I want to highlight some of what we've done on our 
subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, 
and Capabilities. We have four main areas that we focus on.
  The first of those is the Special Operations Command over which we 
have jurisdiction, and I want to pause at this moment in the general 
remarks and thank Representative Saxton who, though he is not the 
ranking member on this committee now, serves on the

[[Page 10297]]

committee and was the first Chair. As Representative Hunter has pointed 
out, the special operations forces were a particular concern of 
Representative Saxton. He has a done a great deal in our efforts to 
expand that force, meet their needs and expand their capabilities, and 
more than that, he has been a great Member, not just of this 
subcommittee but of this committee for his career in Congress. He will 
be missed, and I very much appreciated working with him.
  What we have done primarily for special operations forces in the bill 
this year is fund as many of their unfunded requirements as we possibly 
can. They have been at an incredibly rapid tempo in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and elsewhere. Continuing to fund their needs is the top 
priority of our subcommittee.
  The other area that we focus on is irregular warfare, and there are a 
number of different pieces to this. But I think it's a critical part of 
our defense bill because it is emerging as one of the most continuous 
pieces of the fight, counterinsurgency efforts, counterterrorism 
efforts, things that were not prior to 9/11 part of our lexicon to the 
degree that they are now.
  We take steps to make that a higher priority by raising it to the 
Assistant Secretary level at the DOD and also by helping to fund human 
terrain teams. Our subcommittee received excellent testimony about what 
these human terrain teams are doing to go in and understand the culture 
in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We actually employ anthropologists and others 
who are experts in culture so that our forces can know who they're 
dealing with when they go in. This is a critical element of what we're 
working on.
  We also, thirdly, focus on harnessing technological innovation. We 
fund it, to begin with, $1.69 billion worth of R&D for science and 
technology, and we also focus on harnessing new technologies as quickly 
as possible by developing a clearinghouse for that. The procurement 
process in the DOD can be a lengthy process at times. We want to get 
these technologies out in the field as quickly as possible when they 
are most useful.
  We're also asking the Department to focus on the recruitment of IT 
professionals, the people with the brains to help us with cyber 
security and elsewhere. As you might guess, the DOD does not pay as 
much as these people might be able to earn in the private sector. So we 
have to aggressively go out there and recruit folks to make sure that 
we have the top IT professionals within the DOD. Our bill focuses on 
that as well.
  Lastly, we focus on improving DOD's homeland defense capabilities, a 
role of our subcommittee, by funding the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency and the chemical/biological defense programs and by increasing 
their funds and making sure that they have what is necessary to protect 
us here in the homeland, within the DOD, working in cooperation with 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Again, I want to thank Representative Saxton for his work and also 
Representative Thornberry, who is the ranking member on this 
subcommittee. He has been great to work with, very smart, very 
talented, works in a bipartisan way. All of the issues that I have just 
listed have been made possible in large part because of his input. I 
appreciate working with him as well.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman and Ranking Member Hunter for the 
way they run this committee. It makes me proud to be in Congress every 
year I have the opportunity to serve with them.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just 
spoke for his great work on this bill, and I yield for 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama, who is the ranking member on the Strategic 
Subcommittee, formerly the chairman, and again a guy who has spent 
thousands of hours in closed-door sessions, with no press releases 
attached and no cameras present. He's a guy that's pretty easy to elbow 
out of the way at a press conference because he usually isn't there. 
But he has served countless hours in the service of this country, 
understanding some pretty complex things about space and national 
security, and he is the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Terry Everett, and 
the country needs more people like this gentleman.
  Mr. EVERETT. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank my good 
friend, Mr. Hunter, for yielding to me and thank him for his leadership 
and his friendship.
  I was honored that when this subcommittee was originally formed, Mr. 
Hunter asked me to be the first chairman of this subcommittee. It was a 
great pleasure and it's been a real love for me.
  I would also say that Mr. Hunter has served this Nation and his 
constituents in California with great distinction. He's served this 
Nation with great distinction.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  I would also like to congratulate Strategic Forces Subcommittee 
Chairman Tauscher. This subcommittee handles some very technical, 
complex and sometimes controversial issues. Missile defense, space, and 
nuclear weapons are difficult issues to work through. But together, 
with the understanding and leadership of Chairman Tauscher, we have 
developed legislation where we agree on far more than we disagree.
  This year's bill contains many sound measures that provide key 
capabilities to the warfighter and strengthen our strategic forces.
  I am particularly pleased with the support this bill provides to 
national security space. The bill addresses many important issues 
including: continued awareness of the growing threat to space and 
emphasis on mitigating vulnerabilities; the need to war-game and 
exercise the loss of space capabilities; full funding for key 
acquisition programs such as advanced extremely high frequency, WGS, 
SBIRS and GPS-3, that reflect a measured approach to space acquisition; 
and protection of the T-SAT budget request, while the Department 
reevaluates architecture options after their decision to reduce this 
program by $4 billion.
  The mark makes positive strides in the area of atomic energy defense 
activities by: adding funding to research enhanced surety for existing 
weapons systems; and directing the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to 
report on steps they are taking to enhance inventory controls for 
nuclear weapons.
  I am disappointed the Reliable Replacement Warhead study wasn't 
directly funded. Our nuclear deterrent is aging, while the rest of the 
world's nuclear powers are modernizing theirs. The commander of U.S. 
Strategic Command testified that we are accepting significant future 
risks with our legacy Cold War stockpile.
  The American public may not realize this, but the current 
administration has implemented the largest nuclear stockpile reductions 
since the end of the Cold War and has an extensive non-proliferation 
program to reflect the evolving proliferation threat.
  A reliable, modernized nuclear stockpile that includes RRW holds the 
promise of allowing us to further lower our nuclear weapons numbers, 
while continuing to provide a strong deterrent for the United States 
and our allies.
  Our missile defense deliberations proved the most challenging. While 
we agreed on many provisions, such as full support for Patriot PAC-3, 
Aegis and THAAD, there are a few provisions that the minority could not 
concur with.
  I am deeply concerned about the 50 percent cut to European missile 
defense contained in the bill. I believe this sends the wrong signal to 
our allies and emboldens Iran.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman another minute.
  Mr. EVERETT. While Congress puts the brakes on this effort to protect 
the American people, our forward-deployed forces, and our allies, Iran 
has stepped on the accelerator. Iran continues to: expand its arsenal 
of short- and longer-range ballistic missiles, install advanced 
centrifuges to enrich uranium, and evade questions on past nuclear 
weapons research.

[[Page 10298]]

  Our NATO allies recognize this threat and, in April 2008, provided 
unanimous endorsement of the European missile defense proposal. In a 
few weeks, the Czech Republic plans to sign agreements with the U.S. to 
host the missile tracking radar.
  This is a critical time for the U.S. to continue its leadership. In 
addition to NATO, we have key allies such as Israel and Japan who are 
relying on U.S. commitments to missile defense. I am, therefore, 
disappointed that the committee would not accept my amendment to 
restore funding to this effort, particularly after significant progress 
is being made to meet the conditions outlined in last year's 
legislation.
  As the Secretary General of NATO said at a speech on May 5, ``In 
tomorrow's uncertain world, we cannot wait for threats to mature before 
deciding how to counter them.''
  I also remain concerned about China's actions in space. According to 
the Pentagon's annual China military report, its undeclared and 
unexplained January 2007 anti-satellite test is only one part of a 
larger Chinese counterspace program to prevent the use of space. Thus, 
I was strongly disappointed and troubled that my amendment to direct an 
independent study to examine the feasibility of space-based defense 
concepts was not supported in our committee markup. Such a system might 
also provide another layer of defense against ballistic missile 
threats.
  In the final analysis, there is far more in this bill that we agree 
on than disagree on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has again expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. EVERETT. I would, however, caution Members from further reducing 
funding for missile defense. These programs have already been cut by 
over $700 million. Any further reductions to these important programs 
would have very detrimental effects to our national defense.
  I think the programs in our subcommittee's jurisdiction are some of 
the most exciting things our Nation does. It is important that we not 
lose sight of the vital role our space, missile defense, and nuclear 
deterrent capabilities play in our national security.
  I would like to thank the other members of the subcommittee and the 
staff for their hard work in making this bill a quality product. I 
intend to support it, and I ask the Members to support it.
  Again, I would like to congratulate Chairman Tauscher for the work 
that she's done on making this a very good mark, and also I'd like to 
congratulate my good friend Ike Skelton for his leadership.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is also the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, and quite 
possibly the best committee chairman we've had on the House Armed 
Services Committee in my 20 years, Chairman Ike Skelton.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5658, the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2009. The bill before the House today represents 
the strong bipartisan effort of the House Armed Services Committee 
under the leadership of our very capable chairman, Ike Skelton.
  For Navy and Marine Corps programs, this bill recommends several 
initiatives not in the administration's budget request that we believe 
will enhance the ability of the sea services to protect our Nation. 
These initiatives include:
  Full funding for the eight ships in the President's request, with 
authorization to build an additional four.
  The funds for $1.8 billion to fully fund a 10th LPD class amphibious 
assault ship, a vessel that is the number one priority of the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
  We would pause the DDG 1000 program to allow the Chief of Naval 
Operations the flexibility to restore the production of the DDG-51 
class destroyers, or continue the 1000 program.
  Advanced procurement funding for long lead components to accelerate 
the production of Virginia class submarines to two per year beginning 
in fiscal year 2010 instead of fiscal year 2011.
  Authorization for the final two vessels in the Lewis and Clark T-AKE 
dry cargo ammunition ship class.
  $14.6 billion for the procurement of 206 aircraft, including eight 
Joint Strike Fighters, 45 F/A-18 series aircraft, 30 Marine Corps MV-
22s, 49 MH-60 series helicopters, 44 T-6 JPATS training aircraft, and 
two KC 130J cargo aircraft.
  We would include $247 million for the continued funding of the Joint 
Strike Fighter competitive engine program; $448 million for emergent 
aircraft wing repairs to the P-3C fleet of reconnaissance aircraft.
  We also include important legislative proposals that would direct the 
Secretary of the Navy to design and construct the next class of 
amphibious warships with an integrated nuclear power system.
  Mr. Chairman, today the price of oil went to approximately $130 a 
barrel. Less than half of the oil that our Nation uses is produced 
within the United States of America. It makes no sense at all, you have 
aircraft carriers that could go 30 years without refueling, if those 
ships that support our aircraft carriers have to refuel every 3 to 5 
days.
  We would authorize the commencement of the complex refueling overhaul 
of the USS Roosevelt. We would authorize economic inflation adjustments 
to the statutory cost cap of the Littoral combat ship based on the 
realities of cost escalations in the materials to build those ships.
  We would require accountability of obligations in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund. I want to thank one of our new Members, Admiral 
Sestak, for helping to make that happen.
  For the committee's oversight of the activities of the Maritime 
Administration of the Department of Transportation, we authorize the 
request for funding the Maritime Security Program, the Vessel Disposal 
Program, and the operations and maintenance included in the Merchant 
Marine Academy.
  We would authorize $30 million for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan 
Program, commonly referred to as title XI loans. We would authorize the 
Secretary of Transportation to increase student initiative payments at 
the various State maritime academies.
  And we would prohibit the transfer of government-owned vessels for 
the purpose of scrapping or dismantling in foreign shipyards.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank my good friend and ranking 
member, the gentleman from Maryland, the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett. I 
have been honored to have him as my working business partner. He has 
been a great partner in helping to rebuild our Nation's fleet.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in support of this bill.
  I now recognize the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I appreciate the opportunity to discuss an important subject, the 
fine men and women of Bath Iron Works, one of two shipyards in my 
district.
  These skilled men and women are a national asset and the reason for 
our proud slogan that ``Bath built is best built.'' It is on their 
behalf I would like to ask the gentleman about the committee mark for 
the DDG 1000 program.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I appreciate the gentleman's questions. I would remind 
the gentleman, and all Members of this body, that from the earlier days 
of our Republic we have had at least six major naval shipyards. In the 
early days, there was concern that maybe the British or the French may 
come back and reoccupy our country. In the case of the Washington Navy 
Yard, they did. It made sense then, it made sense now.
  I am committed to the industrial base of those yards that build our 
surface combatants, both in Maine and on the gulf coast. The DDG-51 has 
been a phenomenal platform.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ellison). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.

[[Page 10299]]


  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR. The 51 has been a proven platform; we've had over 50 of 
those ships constructed. It has turned out to be a bargain for the 
taxpayer.
  I do have concerns about the DDG 1000 program and some possible cost 
overruns associated with it. That is why for the stability of the fleet 
and for the purposes of trying to get the fleet up to 313 ships, we are 
going to give the Chief of Naval Operations the option of either 
pursuing the third DDG 1000, or DDG-51s, keeping in mind that the Navy 
can buy two DDG-51s for the price of every 1000.
  Mr. ALLEN. It is my understanding that the committee is on record for 
full funding of any vessels in fiscal year 2010 that the Navy decides 
to build using fiscal 2009 advanced procurement funding which is 
provided in this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Again, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman.
  You said this, but it's also my understanding that the committee is 
giving the Navy the option of either shifting back to the DDG-51 
program or continuing with the DDG 1000 program; is that right?
  Mr. TAYLOR. That's correct. And I would also remind the gentleman 
that we are working with the Chief of Naval Operations. He has come to 
us with a proposal. To extend the life of one of our oldest carriers, 
he would have to spend approximately $2 billion to get an additional 6 
months out of that carrier. We are working with the Chief of Naval 
Operations to give him the option of, instead of spending $2 billion to 
get an additional 6 months, of taking that $2 billion and applying that 
money towards an additional surface combatant. And that would certainly 
help the fleet, and I think it would certainly help Bath Shipyard.
  Mr. ALLEN. I appreciate the explanation of the gentleman. And I look 
forward to working with him to ensure that our Navy gets the finest 
warship that our combined shipyards can provide.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank the chairman. And I want to encourage all 
the Members of this body to support the House authorization.
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank the gentleman who chairs the Seapower 
Subcommittee for the great work that he has done and turn to another 
gentleman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has served for 
many years, first as chairman, and then ranking member of this very 
important Personnel Subcommittee which oversees the policies of those 
2.5 million Americans who serve in uniform. The gentleman from New York 
has done a great job, and I would like to yield 4 minutes to Mr. 
McHugh.
  Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman from California for his gracious 
comments.
  Let me start off by returning the favor. This is a monumental bill if 
for no other reason than it bears the name of the gentleman from 
California, Duncan Hunter. It also is a bill that represents the 
departure of two other very senior members of the Defense Committee, 
the great gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton, and my classmate, 
Terry Everett, from the great State of Alabama. All three of these 
gentlemen have served this committee in the grade tradition in which it 
is steeped so deeply, and that is of bipartisanship, and of the focus 
that the important thing, the only thing is to field the finest 
military the world has ever seen. And through their collective service, 
they have, indeed, done that.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished 
chairman, for moving the resolution that ultimately named this bill 
after my dear friend, my great leader, Duncan Hunter, but also, I 
think, forms the basis of what can only be described as a very, very 
good bill.
  To Chairwoman Davis, the gentlelady with whom I have deeply enjoyed 
serving, I want to commend her for bringing to the floor tonight a 
Personnel piece, a mark that is predicated upon bipartisanship, 
predicated upon openness. And I thank her for allowing all of us, 
myself, of course, but equally, if not more importantly, the other 
members of the subcommittee and the full committee on both sides of the 
aisle, the opportunity to have meaningful input to its outcome.
  You heard her talk very eloquently, very adequately, very reasonably 
and correctly about the very, very positive provisions of this 
Personnel mark. Increases end strength, something this subcommittee has 
been working on for a number of years to relieve the pressure on those 
men and women who step forward, who have paid the price of stop loss, 
who have paid the price of extended deployments. This will help them 
immeasurably.
  The active role of the Army Guard and Reserve and their role in this, 
so important, the increases to that.
  The pay increases that continue the efforts that we had begun some 
years ago, where the pay gap between the private and the military 
sectors was 13 percent and has now been taken below 3 percent, that we 
intend, I hope, collectively, to fully continue education and training 
opportunities for military spouses, recognizing they are part of this 
battle as well.
  From impact aid to survivor indemnity allowances to TRICARE fees, and 
on and on and on, this is a bill that every Member of this House 
should, and I deeply hope will, support.
  I said this is a very, very good bill. In all honesty, it could have 
been a great bill. It could have been a great bill except for a number 
of important, but I think insufficient, responses to the challenges we 
had.
  A problem that I faced, when I had the honor of being the chairman of 
the Personnel Subcommittee, was predicated upon the administration's, I 
would maintain, ill-advised proposal to begin the necessary path toward 
reforming the cost of military health care on the backs of the 
recipients. They have proposed it again this year.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I yield 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. McHUGH. It was a serious challenge that was resolved in a way 
that I can honestly say can only be described as a budgetary gimmick. 
Rather than using all the tools available to it, the Democratic 
leadership--not the leadership on this committee, but the Democrat 
leadership of this House--chose, instead, to take from the retirees, 
those who have already served, a hit of 1 percent of one month of their 
retiree pay. They had other options and tools available to them, and I 
honestly believe they took the easy way. I hope we can, from this point 
forward, use the opportunity of conference and discussion with the 
administration and, of course, with the Senate to find a better 
resolution.
  Also, I think the fact that the House Budget Resolution that was 
supposed to be passed today, but I assume will be passed in the very 
near future, offered a hope, offered the opportunity for the Budget 
chairman to make decisions about reallocations to address such things 
as the widows tax, to address other kinds of problems, were not 
utilized. And we lost a very important opportunity that, whatever one 
may think about the Democrat Budget Resolution, provided for the first 
time hope, provided for the first time opportunity, and that has been 
squandered. Still, in the days ahead, I think we can take this very, 
very good bill and elevate it to a great bill.
  For the purposes of tonight, however, for the purposes of those who 
worked hard on it, the gentleman from Missouri, the gentleman from 
California, all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, this 
is a bill that reflects, in very fine form, the bipartisan approach of 
one of the grandest committees, one of the most important committees 
under the Constitution this House has ever created, the Armed Services 
Committee, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I recognize, for purposes of a unanimous 
consent request, the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5658, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.
  The United States military is unmatched. I therefore maintain that 
the defense-industrial complex follows a misguided strategy of buying 
weapons that provide Americans with no increased safety.

[[Page 10300]]

  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. Our foreign policy should 
promote economic stability worldwide, thereby eliminating the roots of 
terrorism, which stem from desperation. This bill does the opposite by 
continuing policies of fear and aggression.
  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.
  The ever-rising cost of our military is not financially sustainable. 
Since 2001 this body has appropriated over $700 billion for all war-
related expenses. This bill will provide an additional $70 billion in 
emergency funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as we 
know, the Administration is asking for hundreds of billions of 
additional funds that this body is expected to consider in the near 
future.
  Now more than ever it is clear that this Administration's occupation 
and reconstruction of Iraq has failed. The war, waged under false 
pretenses, has decimated Iraq. Destruction has permeated most of the 
country. War has taken a very heavy, very real toll. There is 
increasing concern that militias in Iraq are arising to meet the 
humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. I have urged this body to stop 
this illegal war. We must honor our troops by bringing them home. I 
cannot support any measure that continues the illegal occupation of 
Iraq and continues to undercut our nation's credibility.
  The greatest tragedy of this war is the 4,080 American soldiers that 
have been killed. Tens of thousands more have been injured. Estimates 
conclude that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis have died as a result of the 
U.S. invasion.
  Furthermore, the claimed ballistic missile threat is grossly 
exaggerated. Terrorists do not possess ballistic missiles and the few 
nation states that do have such missiles have no desire to face the 
retaliation of our ballistic missiles.
  Accordingly, I thank the Committee for undercutting the President's 
request of $954 million for the European Ground-Based Mid-Course 
Defense (GMD) program. However, this bill still authorizes $582 million 
for the European GMD despite a lack of assurance that the system will 
work or make our national more safe. Funding for the European GMD 
should be removed entirely.
  The Administration claims the system is necessary to defend the U.S. 
from a long-range ballistic missile attack from Iran. However, Iran is 
unlikely to pose such a threat to the United States in the foreseeable 
future due to the immense technical difficulties that Iran would have 
to overcome to create a long-range ballistic missile capable of 
reaching the U.S.
  In fact, it is conceivable that the U.S. will have its own technical 
difficulties to overcome before such a system can be proven viable. The 
Test and Evaluation department of the Pentagon cautions that many more 
tests under realistic conditions would be needed before conceding our 
capability to shoot down an offensive missile.
  The citizens of the Czech Republic and Poland clearly reject the 
proposed agreement. Public opinion polls in the Czech Republic and 
Poland reflect strong opposition to the placement of the radar and 
interceptors in their respective countries and strained their relations 
with Russia. The GMD proposal has by some accounts exacerbated U.S.-
Russia relations. The U.S. has shared information but not meaningfully 
cooperated with Russia in these negotiations. Because the Czech 
Republic and Poland fall within the boundaries of former Russian 
influence, U.S. action with regard to the GMD have been perceived by 
Russia as an intrusion. There can be no doubt that U.S. efforts to 
impose the GMD are perceived as an obstruction to the diplomatic ties 
between our nations.
  A total of $9.3 billion will go to the Department of Energy for 
nuclear weapons activities, $1.455 billion of these funds will wisely 
go to Nonproliferation programs and I thank my colleagues for their 
work to increase these programs by $208 million above the President's 
request. However, this still leaves roughly $7.9 billion that supports 
and maintains nuclear stockpiles.
  The U.S. Administration has established a record of unilateralism and 
that undercuts our nation's credibility in the eyes of other nations. 
In just under eight years the U.S. Administration had backtracked on 
international treaties and conventions. The U.S. has rejected the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to sign the Land Mine Treaty, 
withdrawn from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, unsigned the Kyoto 
Protocol, and blocked a verification protocol for the Biological 
Weapons Convention. It is time for the U.S. to uphold international 
law. It is time for the U.S. to stand for dialogue and diplomacy. It is 
time for the United States to rethink our policies and set upon a new 
strategy of strength through peace.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlelady from 
California, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR. I thank the chairman.
  I was very much in the wrong for failing to mention the great work of 
your committee staff, headed by Ms. Conaton, and in particular Captain 
Will Ebbs of the Seapower Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 
for correcting my mistake. I do want to very much compliment the men 
and women of the House Armed Services Committee staff who have helped 
put this package together.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is also a senior 
member of the Armed Services Committee.

                              {time}  2015

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I wish to thank Chairman Skelton 
for his hard work and leadership in developing this important piece of 
legislation.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say to the gentlemen who are 
retiring this year, I think just on the top row of our committee, we 
are probably losing collectively about 65 years of experience on this 
committee, and it has been my pleasure over the last 12 years to serve 
on this committee with you all, and you will sorely be missed and the 
institutional knowledge that you carry will be missed also. So we have 
a lot of good colleagues who are leaving the Congress this year.
  This legislation provides critical support to our Armed Forces 
through many important initiatives. I'm proud that the legislation, for 
example, provides a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay raise for the 
members of our services. And in addition, H.R. 5658 prohibits the 
implementation of the President's proposals to increase health care co-
pays and cost sharing for beneficiaries of the TRICARE health care and 
pharmacy services.
  This bill also takes a step in providing for the first time ever the 
military preventative health care programs, which will improve the 
lives of our servicemembers, of our retirees, and family members. 
Preventative health care has been proven to improve individuals' long-
term health and to provide substantial cost savings since healthier 
people require less medical service. And I'm very pleased that 
Chairwoman Davis proposed this innovative health care program and that 
it is also paid for.
  This bill also includes several proposals that I sought to have 
included. And as the ranking woman on the Armed Services Committee, I 
am proud that one of these provisions establishes a centralized case-
level database of information about sexual assaults that involve our 
servicemembers. The database will be consistent with all privacy 
guidelines and restrictions while tracking information about the nature 
of assaults and the outcome of any legal proceedings in connection with 
the assault.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very 
important step towards ensuring accountability for sexual assaults 
involving our servicemembers.
  I'm also very proud that per my request this bill requires the 
Department of Defense to conduct a study of its bandwidth needs for the 
near and long term. This study will help us ensure that the department 
has the capability to operate the advanced information technology 
systems that our military relies on.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It really is a great bill. 
And thank

[[Page 10301]]

you to all of our Chair people and ranking members for having made it 
such a great bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my 
colleague and friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The 
bill before us today reflects our concern about the continuing decline 
in the readiness posture of our Armed Forces.
  And I would like to thank the ranking member of my subcommittee, Mr. 
Forbes from Virginia, for his help in bringing together this excellent 
bill. He played a very key role and was very instrumental in putting 
the readiness and military construction bill together. I would like to 
say thank you for a great job.
  Also, Chairman Skelton.
  And my good friend who is going to be retiring soon. Duncan, you and 
I have gone through a lot. Thank you for all the work that you've done, 
and we hope to continue on.
  More than 6 years of continuous combat operations have strained 
readiness. This strain is manifesting itself in more aspects of our 
military forces. The bill authorizes $143 million for operation and 
maintenance. To address the readiness shortfalls in equipment, 
training, and maintenance, we have added $932 million to the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserve operations 
and maintenance accounts.
  In addition, we have added funds for Army training, pre-positioned 
stocks, and aircraft maintenance in our authorization of the fiscal 
year 2009 supplemental.
  In response to the Defense Department's increasing reliance on 
contractor services, this bill requires a comprehensive analysis of 
what constitutes an ``inherently governmental function.'' It requires 
the Office of Management and Budget to develop a single definition that 
may be used consistently by all Federal agencies.
  The bill includes provisions to address civilians deployed in combat 
zones. It gives DOD authority to extend the waiver of limitations on 
premium pay. It also asks for a thorough review of the medical policies 
and treatment procedures for civilians deployed to support military 
operations.
  To address depot workloads following equipment reset, the bill 
requires the Department of Defense to contract for an independent 
assessment of the depot capability that will be needed in the future.
  The bill takes several actions related to energy and environmental 
policy. It authorizes $80 million for energy conservation projects and 
updates installation energy reporting requirements.
  For military construction, base realignment, and closure and family 
housing in fiscal year 2009, the bill authorizes more than $24 billion.
  The bill includes several provisions related to BRAC. In the time 
since the 2005 BRAC Commission reported its recommendations, we have 
seen costs increase almost 50 percent and the savings have declined. If 
a future administration were to request a new round of closures, the 
BRAC process will need to be dramatically different. As such, this 
year's bill repeals the BRAC Commission and the process that arrived at 
the 2005 decisions. At the same time, we remain steadfast to completing 
the 2005 BRAC round on time, by September, 2011, and have fully funded 
the administration's request.
  To address our alarm at finding our troops in run-drown and broken 
barracks, the bill directs that $500 million in the fiscal year 2009 
supplemental be used to arrest the declining state of military 
facilities.
  The bill also does many good things for South Texas, which I 
represent. I am pleased that the replacement of the main production 
facility at Corpus Christi Army Depot was authorized. Corpus Christi 
Army Depot is the cornerstone of aviation readiness for the Department 
of Defense. It is vital that the current outdated facility be replaced 
so that dedicated employees of Corpus Christi Army Depot can continue 
to deliver products to the military in the most efficient and timely 
manner.
  I support H.R. 5658, and I am proud of what this bill does to restore 
strength to our military. This is a very responsible bill. However, I'm 
disappointed that our committee adopted an amendment to provide the 
Department of Defense funding for the southwest border wall. I hope 
that in the future, defense funding will not be used to build walls.
  That said, this is a good bill. The chairman of the full committee 
and the ranking member have done an outstanding job.
  Randy Forbes, thank you for your dedication and your input.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the great 
gentleman from Texas for his hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Thornberry), who has done a great job in working through the very 
difficult issues of the Terrorism Subcommittee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my gratitude and 
my admiration for those senior members of the committee who are leaving 
Congress, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett); the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton); and the gentleman from California, our former 
Chair (Mr. Hunter), for whom this bill is appropriately named. It has 
certainly been an honor for me to work with and to learn from each of 
them over the years as they worked to protect the country's security.
  Mr. Chairman, the portion of this bill produced by the Terrorism and 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which has been 
very ably led by Chairman Smith, I think is worthy of all Members' 
support. It enables the Special Operations command forces to remain on 
the cutting edge of our fight against terrorists with the equipment and 
the resources and the authorities that they need. This portion of the 
bill supports the research activities at DARPA and at the individual 
services, which are the foundation of our future military and therefore 
the foundation of our future security. This portion of the bill makes 
decisions in a host of other areas from information technology to chem-
bio defense and force protection, and I think it makes good decisions.
  I want to say I also appreciate particularly the comments of Chairman 
Skelton regarding the importance of the inter-agency process and the 
efforts of him and Chairman Smith on strategic communications. Both of 
those things are absolutely essential for the fight against terrorists 
as well as for the country's broader security.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill, and as others have said, 
it deserves full support in this House. I don't think you can bring a 
bill to the floor, however, that looks after the country's national 
security and particularly a portion that talks about terrorists without 
acknowledging that this Congress is about to go on recess without doing 
two of the most important things that it could do in the fight against 
terrorists and to protect our country's security.
  It seems this week we have had time to debate a bill to pay 
foreigners to take care of potentially rare dogs and cats. We have had 
time to debate and vote on a bill to commemorate Frank Sinatra. But we 
have not had time this week to debate and vote on a clean supplemental 
that can become law that will fund the troops who are actually on the 
front lines of this fight. We have not had time, we have not been able 
to vote, on the Senate FISA modernization bill, which is absolutely 
essential both for the troops and for protecting us here at home.
  So this is a good bill. This committee has done good work. But I 
think it challenges all of us in this broader fight against terrorists 
to do all of our work and to do all that is our responsibility to 
defend the country, and I hope we do.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), ranking member of 
Oversight.
  Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Congressman Hunter, for yielding. Let me just 
take

[[Page 10302]]

a moment to thank you also for your great leadership on this committee 
through the many years. What a fantastic teacher you've been to some of 
the newer members. I'm so thankful for your leadership, your patience.
  And also the gentleman from Mr. Everett's district, Mr. Saxton, great 
leadership.
  Then I would also like to say, Chairman Skelton, thank you very much. 
You make the people from Missouri proud for the way that you've 
continued the good tone of the committee. I think it was really a 
classy thing to name this bill after Congressman Hunter, and it just 
shows the quality of leadership that you've provided, and so I want to 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, as well.
  As the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dr. Snyder has 
been doing a great job. We've had a chance to look into a number of 
different subjects, particularly progress in the reconstruction efforts 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill contains some of the things that we 
discovered particularly in the importance of Provincial Reconstruction 
Teams and the important work that's been done on that subcommittee.
  I would just like to say that there's a lot of criticism of Congress. 
In fact, I think our popularity rating publicly is maybe not too good. 
But on the other hand, I think what the public would really like to see 
is they'd like to see us stop bickering and just plain solve some 
programs. I think this committee and the subcommittees have been 
largely a good example of that, and that's because of the tone of the 
leadership that we've seen.
  As others have before, I have my opinions about how this bill could 
be improved, and there are several areas that I am concerned with. The 
first are the significant cuts to missile defense and particularly the 
missile defense that needs to be built in Poland and the Czech 
Republic. I believe that that missile defense is critical for the 
defense of our country from Iran and also some Western European nations 
from Iran.

                              {time}  2030

  I think it's the wrong time to be cutting missile defense. We have 
just had a very successful demonstration of this technology, as we shot 
down a rogue satellite that had a lot of hydrazine in the fuel tank, 
and we were able to get rid of that threat very effectively.
  So aside from missile defense, there's one other area that I am 
distressed about, and that is the only comprehensive major Army 
modernization program in the last 30 or 40 years, which we now know as 
Future Combat System. That has also had a number of hundred million 
dollars removed from it. It's something we have discussed in committee. 
I think it's a wrong decision. Next year, we are going to make a go or 
no-go on this overall program, and to be continuing to slash and cut 
away at that budget, I think, is counterproductive.
  This said, my only other complaint is there's just not enough money 
in this budget to fund defense the way I wish we could. But if there 
are constituents who would like to see people who are just rolling up 
their sleeves and solving problems, all they need to do is come to the 
authorizing committee of the Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Air and Land Forces.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to serve as the 
chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services 
Committee. I would like first to thank my own personal archbishop, Doug 
Roach, and all the acolytes on the Air and Land subcommittee, the 
subcommittee staff. They do a terrific job working with Ike Skelton's 
overall staff, led by Erin. I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is 
every day to be working with them in the manner in which they conduct 
themselves; professional, disciplined, focused, something I wish I 
could say about myself more often than I do.
  Again, on the personal comment side, I want to thank my good friend, 
Duncan Hunter. Always, without fail, in all these years, attentive, 
polite, always welcoming commentary and seeking advice. We may say 
farewell to you, Duncan, but we will not be saying goodbye.
  Finally, Mr. Jim Saxton, whom I don't see on the floor today. Jim 
Saxton may have his position taken, but no one is going to replace him 
in this Congress. He has been my friend. He has been my mentor. I have 
served as a ranking member on various committees, not just here, but on 
other committees, as well as having the opportunity to chair. I never 
considered myself a ranking member or a chairman where Jim Saxton was 
concerned. We were colleagues.
  This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our 
current military forces with future required military capabilities. Our 
military personnel is at risk each and every day. The first priority is 
to make sure the men and women in uniform are properly supported by 
ensuring our military programs adequately support current military 
requirements.
  We cannot short-change our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in their 
need for adequate equipment and the needs of our National Guard units 
here at home for what they may require to respond to potential national 
disasters. Promised future capabilities that have already been delayed 
because of overly optimistic and unmet schedules cannot subsume meeting 
today's demonstrated needs.
  The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $90 
billion in Army and Air Force programs. Our objective, Mr. Chairman, is 
clear, to ensure that our military personnel get the best available 
equipment as soon as it has been properly tested, equipment like 
armored vehicles, body armor, improvised explosive device jammers, 
unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, and night vision devices.
  We address key requirements: An increase in Army procurement and 
research of $557 million over the budget request, procurement and 
research where it's needed now, demonstrating the commitment of the 
Armed Services Committee to meeting these many needs. The Army in 
particular is carrying the heaviest burden of all the services in the 
war in which we are now engaged. This bill shifts funding to critical 
Army priorities now; $2.6 billion to fund sustainments costs for the 
tactical vehicle referred to as the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected Vehicle, to better protect our personnel against mines and 
improvised explosive devices; $2.7 billion for counterimprovised 
explosive device programs, $949 million for Humvees, $783 million for 
body armor; $800 million for funding for much-needed National Guard and 
Reserve equipment.
  Yes, we have reallocated funds in this budget where we have to meet 
the needs of the serving Army and Air Force today.
  Fifteen C-17 strategic airlift aircraft added, at a cost of $3.9 
billion dollars. It maintains the C-17 production line and sustains the 
strategic airlift fleet. Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine 
program has been funded for $526 million to provide necessary 
competition of two producers of engines for that program; $246 million 
added for systems to counter rocket and mortar attacks on our forces.
  To fund these priorities, we had to make reallocation choices to fund 
the highest priorities. Some programs will have to make adjustments. No 
program is adversely compromised. On the contrary, increased 
accountability and increased oversight are the result.
  In closing, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, all the 
ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittees, and may I 
say, Mr. Skelton, as I close, that it is a particular pleasure and an 
honor to serve with you. As I stand here today, I am thinking of Suzie 
Skelton. I know how proud she is of you.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the gentleman 
from Hawaii for his excellent work, and I want to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), who is the ranking member of 
the Readiness Subcommittee.

[[Page 10303]]


  Mr. FORBES. It's my pleasure to rise in strong support of this bill 
tonight. I also want to express my feelings about what a rare moment 
this is in Congress when you can have a committee like this where the 
members on both sides of the aisle have such friendships, where they 
are able to work together in a bipartisan solution to defend this 
country, and where they can pass a bill of this magnitude unanimously, 
and that is due in large measure to the leadership of our chairman, 
Chairman Skelton, also to the leadership of our ranking member, Duncan 
Hunter, and to the chairman of our Readiness subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  We've heard a lot of people today talk about the great leadership of 
Duncan Hunter. The truth is that we could stand here all night and we 
wouldn't say enough because there is and has been no greater champion 
for the men and women that we have in uniform and for the national 
defense of this country than Duncan Hunter. Duncan, we appreciate your 
great work.
  This is a good bill. This bill provides more than $550 million in 
funding above the President's request to address much-needed equipment, 
repairs, and maintenance that will particularly help the National Guard 
and the Reserves. When you add that to the additional depot maintenance 
provided in the bill, it's a great step towards restoring readiness.
  Additionally, the bill provide $650 million to increase funding to 
repair aging barracks for the Army and Marine Corps. We also send a 
clear message that this committee and this Congress is going to fully 
fund and implement the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure round by the 
September, 2011 deadline, and we are not going to forget the 
communities that are impacted by BRAC, especially those that will have 
large increases of students because we are going to provide the new 
Federal education funds immediately rather than making them wait for 
the next year.
  While so many of the provisions make this a good bill, there are two 
points where I think we can do better, and I hope we do so in the 
conference with the Senate. In the first case, this bill explicitly 
prohibits public-private competition for 3 years, competitions that 
could have saved the military billions of dollars and avoided costs 
which they could use for additional weapons, additional personnel, 
additional benefits. The government does not have a monopoly on good 
ideas. If a company can prove in a fair and open competition that it 
can do the government's work for less, that company should have the 
opportunity.
  In the second case, there is a very well-intended provision to ensure 
we have world class facilities at the new Naval Medical Center in 
Bethesda, Maryland, and at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Unfortunately, the 
more we have learned about the impact of this provision, the more I am 
concerned that it would result in broken construction contracts and 
delays that would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in redesign 
and construction costs, with no tangible benefit to our servicemen and 
women.
  With those exceptions, I am extremely proud of this bill, and I urge 
all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill, as it will do much to 
restore the readiness of our military.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Mr. SNYDER. Power, Mr. Chairman, is the goal of a good defense bill 
for this country. Every nation wants to be powerful enough to keep 
safe. Not every dispute, however, is resolved by military power, not 
every hope for the future is achieved by military power. Power is more 
than just military power. It's economic, diplomatic, the moral 
authority that a nation has.
  Secretary Robert Gates, our Secretary of Defense, has done, I think, 
two very admirable things as Secretary of Defense. One, he has restored 
the confidence in the decision-making process in the Pentagon. Second, 
he has pointed to the broad aspects of power for this country. We are 
all very familiar with his speech to Kansas State back in November of 
last year, in which he called for dramatic increases, not in the 
Defense Department, but dramatic increases in the State Department, 
dramatic increases in budget, dramatic increases in staff.
  He called for the staff and funding for the USAID, the Agency for 
International Development. Mr. Skelton arranged for Secretary Gates and 
Secretary Rice to testify before our full Armed Services Committee on 
the importance of interagency communication and collaboration, not just 
within the Pentagon, but between the State Department and the Defense 
and USAID and the other agencies in the government because it is 
important to our national defense, to our overall concept of power, not 
just military power.
  Well, this bill contains some provisions that deal with some of these 
issues. First of all, some time ago this body, the House, passed H.R. 
1084, Representative Sam Farr's bill, that came out of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee. It deals with the whole issue of establishing a 
Civilian Reserve Board to deal with the fact that we sometimes need 
civilian employees to go into areas of instability and even of war. But 
we haven't been able to have the kind of personnel we wanted and the 
numbers in the time that we need.
  So we passed this bill, but it's been hung up in the Senate by one 
Senator. So just by unanimous agreement of the Democrats and 
Republicans on the Armed Services Committee and with the consent and 
advocacy of Mr. Berman, that was included as part of this bill, 
unchanged from how it was passed before, and so it will now have a 
second chance to go to the Senate and be passed.
  I am also looking forward to the fact that tomorrow, Mr. Skelton, 
along with Mr. Berman and Ms. Lowey, will be introducing an amendment 
that will establish a standing advisory panel on improving integration 
between the Department of Defense, Department of State, and the United 
States Agency for International Development on matters of national 
security.
  I will always remember one of my constituents, a veterinarian from 
Arkansas, who served in both Afghanistan and then a year in Iraq. She 
sent me an e-mail about halfway through her year in Iraq, in which she 
said, and we were talking about this issue of interagency cooperation, 
she said, I sometimes think and feel that the differences in divisions 
between the agencies of the United States Government are greater than 
the differences between us and the Iraqis. That is saying something in 
terms of inhibiting our ability to have the kind of national defense we 
want. So I applaud Mr. Berman and Mr. Skelton and Ms. Lowey for doing 
this amendment.
  This bill is about military families, it's about our men and women in 
uniform. We do a lot of things in this bill for military families in 
great detail. But it's also time for this country, and I hope it will 
occur in our Presidential debate that will be going on over the next 
several months, but it certainly needs to occur in this Congress and in 
our committee. It's time to step back and look at the big picture. What 
should the grand national security strategy involving all components of 
our power, and all the threats out there, what should the grand 
strategy be for this country to face and achieve over the next 5 years 
and 10 years and 15 and 20 years. Chairman Skelton and I and 
Subcommittee Chairman Akin and I have been talking about these issues 
and hope to start some efforts to look at these big pictures.
  Finally, I want to commend both Chairman Skelton, but the three 
Republican Members that are leaving us. Duncan Hunter, who, when former 
Chairman Floyd Spence was ill, stepped in as the acting chairman with a 
great generous spirit and in a very graceful manner to take over for 
our beloved and ailing Floyd Spence, and then also serve with 
distinction as chairman, and perhaps partly because of his fine 
military service as a young man. Mr. Everett, we will be missing his 
contributions.
  I finally want to say a word about Jim Saxton of New Jersey because I

[[Page 10304]]

was his ranking member when I think it was Speaker Hastert established 
a panel on terrorism.

                              {time}  2045

  Before there was ever a September 11, 2001, Jim Saxton was leading a 
series of classified briefings and hearings on the threat of terrorism 
and the threat of al Qaeda, long before any of us learned to pronounce 
the phrase ``al Qaeda,'' and I commend him for the work that he has 
done. I would just say that I think this is a great bill and applaud 
the work.
  Mr. SKELTON. Let me add, if I may, an additional 30 seconds, Mr. 
Chairman. The gentleman spoke about the need to study strategy. After 
we passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, I chaired a panel on 
professional military education that did a great deal in upgrading the 
Senior and Immediate War Colleges. The Senior War Colleges really are 
the bosom of where strategic thought, both military as well as 
diplomatic, is taught and is learned. Sometimes the lessons that are so 
plain to those in the War Colleges do not seem to be learned by others 
in responsible positions. That is why I think the thought of working on 
strategic thought itself is an excellent one, and I commend the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the last gentleman who spoke, I want to 
thank him for his kind words. But I am reminded that the chairman has 
been the guardian of professional military education and his work has 
been to try to make sure that our officers have a context in which they 
can place the activities in this very real war that many of them are 
engaged in in our history and to see situations that have gone before 
and to gain insights from that history, and I want to applaud the 
chairman for that.
  I want to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman who has been a great 
worker on this committee and a leader, a guy who has moved over from 
the Rules Committee, finally traded up and got back to the Armed 
Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. I want to thank Chairman 
Skelton, Ranking Member Hunter, and my subcommittee chairman, Neil 
Abercrombie, and Ranking Member Jim Saxton, for their tireless efforts 
on behalf of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who continue to 
bravely defend us at both home and abroad.
  While it is not a perfect bill, this legislation covers a wide scope 
of issues that are of vital importance to the armed services, both the 
active and reserve component, and it clearly addresses the most 
pressing needs of our troops in the most trying times that we face in 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee voted 
unanimously and on a bipartisan basis to support another program 
critical to our national security. Section 943 of this bill states that 
the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, WHINSEC, is 
one of the most effective mechanisms that the United States has to 
build relationships with future leaders throughout our hemisphere and 
influence the human rights and democracy trajectory of countries in 
Latin America and the Caribbean and mitigate the growing influence of 
non-hemispheric powers.
  It is especially important to remember that WHINSEC may be the only 
medium we ever have to engage the future military and political leaders 
of Latin American countries, who are, by the way, America's closest 
neighbors and can serve as our closest allies. If we were not to engage 
with these nations, the void would be filled by countries with starkly 
different values than our own regarding democracy, and, yes, human 
rights, and I am talking about countries like Venezuela and China, 
whose influence in the region, as we know, is growing.
  The WHINSEC school in Columbus, Georgia, at Fort Benning, the home of 
the infantry, was formerly part of my congressional district. I am very 
proud to continue to serve on the Board of Visitors of the school.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to further mention how pleased I am of the 
work of the committee this year to authorize funding for 20 F-22 
Raptors in line with the current multiyear contract, and also to 
authorize the advanced procurement funds needed for a follow-on lot in 
2010. The F-22 is the world's most capable fighter, and these funds go 
a long way towards providing stability for our forces and ensuring that 
America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future.
  There is so much to be proud of in this bill, and I again commend 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their efforts to keep 
this bill focused on the needs of the warfighter. I would also like to 
take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to recognize Ranking Member 
Hunter, Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Ranking Member Saxton, and the 
ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Terry Everett of 
Alabama, for all their contributions, both to the Armed Services 
Committee and to the Congress over the years.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GINGREY. All of these Members have been a source of wisdom and 
guidance to me, my colleagues on the committee and to the Nation, and 
they will be sorely missed.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a 
member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hunter 
defense authorization bill, whose primary mission under the leadership 
of Chairman Skelton is to restore military readiness to America's Armed 
Forces. As has been stated earlier this evening, the bill focuses on 
investing in short-term readiness, with increased commitment and 
investment to reset the ground troops of this country as well as the 
National Guard. But as Mr. Hunter indicated in his opening remarks, it 
also looks over the horizon to deal with military readiness issues that 
are not being addressed and have been neglected for far too long.
  One of those is the size of the American Navy. When the Bush 
administration took office in 2002, the size of America's Navy was 315 
ships and submarines. It has declined to 276, and, shockingly, that 
number is going to in fact accelerate, because we are basically living 
off a legacy fleet that was built during the Reagan area.
  Last year, I was proud to be part of an effort that turned around 
this decline. We invested $588 million in advance procurement to the 
Virginia class submarine program, the most successful shipbuilding 
program according to both the Navy and outside experts, and this year 
we continue that effort with Mr. Hunter's leadership on a motion at the 
committee to add to the Seapower Subcommittee's $300 million advance 
procurement. His motion, the Hunter-Courtney amendment, added $422 
million, and we are now moving the Navy's shipbuilding schedule to two 
submarines a year starting in 2010 with this legislation.
  The industrial base is ready for this challenge. We know that from 
again the testimony from both Virginia and Connecticut. My district is 
the home of the Electric Boat, which is, again, one of the most 
successful shipbuilders in the country in terms of the Virginia class 
program. The last submarine, the USS New Hampshire, was delivered with 
1 million fewer man-hours in terms of production compared to the prior 
submarine that they built.
  This investment which this legislation represents will allow this 
country to again be ready for long-term challenges. The world is 
changing, there are new maritime forces that are growing in different 
parts of the world, and I strongly urge support and passage of the 
Hunter defense authorization bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman who just spoke for 
his kind remarks.
  I want to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has come back from 
the Rules Committee, traded up to come

[[Page 10305]]

back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman who has such a 
large set of military facilities in his district and pays so much 
attention to those facilities and to the national issue of security, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Let me say to the gentleman that coming back to the Armed 
Services Committee from Rules is as close to a resurrection experience 
that I expect to have on this side of the veil.
  I am particularly pleased to rise in support of this legislation, 
H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act, and I am 
particularly pleased that it is named for my good friend and our 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Hunter, who served our country in so many 
ways, in uniform, in Congress, and certainly with great distinction and 
great fairness on both sides with both sides of the aisle as former 
chairman of our committee.
  I particularly want to thank our current chairman, Mr. Skelton, who 
presides so professionally with such personal integrity and so 
thoughtfully over this important committee, and our staff, which does 
great work on a bipartisan basis.
  This committee really does work the way that I think most Americans 
wish Congress worked, and I think it sets an outstanding example that I 
wish others would follow.
  There is very much in this bill, Mr. Chairman, that is excellent. I 
am particularly pleased with the increase in family support, the focus 
on additional barracks, the additional money in the research, 
development, testing, evaluation and procurement accounts, the $70 
billion set aside for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and a commitment to address the rest of the needs that our men and 
women in the field have. When we have forces deployed, whether we agree 
with the purpose or not, they should never, ever doubt our commitment 
to seeing that they have everything they need, fully and in a timely 
fashion, and this committee does its best to do that.
  But there are some disappointments in this bill as well, Mr. 
Chairman. I am particularly disappointed, like my friend Mr. Akin, in 
the cut in the Future Combat System funding of $233 billion from the 
request that the President sent forward. We are going to regret that on 
some battlefield in some dangerous place at some point in the future. I 
am particularly disappointed that we did not in a serious fashion deal 
with Mr. Saxton's amendment that was offered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly disappointed that we did not deal in 
a serious fashion in my opinion with Mr. Saxton's amendment, which 
would have set a baseline of 4 percent of our GNP for future military 
funding. That is something we know we need to do. We know in this 
committee on a bipartisan basis that we spend too little. That is a 
mistake we have made on both sides of the aisle. It is a bipartisan 
mistake.
  We cut far too much during the 1990s. History teaches us and our 
chairman often appropriately lectures us that contingencies will come 
that we do not understand and do not anticipate, and we know from the 
bitter lessons of history that if we have not prepared through 
sustained investment in our military, we can never make up lost ground 
with hasty and ill-thought out appropriations in the short-term. I wish 
we had done that. I hope we will do that in the amendment process.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good, and 
this bill is very, very good and is a product of genuine bipartisan 
cooperation. So I am very proud to support it and very proud to urge 
other Members of the Congress to vote for it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this minute to highlight 
one particular provision of this bill that is very important to me.
  Like many Americans last year, I was outraged to learn that the 
Pentagon was denying combat wounded veterans their enlistment bonuses, 
apparently in the belief that they had not fulfilled their obligations 
to the military because they had been wounded in service to this 
country. Well, like most people in this House, I think that if you have 
been injured in service to this country, you have done more than we 
ever could have asked you to do. You have borne every burden and you 
have fulfilled your obligation.
  So I introduced the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act to ensure that 
every combat wounded veteran gets the enlistment bonus that they 
deserve. That legislation has been included in its entirety in this 
legislation that we are passing today. I thank Chairman Skelton for 
including it in the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it 
to remedy this grave injustice.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. Hunter.
  You know, Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot said tonight about 
Duncan Hunter. I guess the only thing I can add is simply to repeat 
that this man served his country in Vietnam as an Army Ranger. He 
served 26 years in this House, part of the time in the majority, served 
as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and has now served a total 
of 28 years in this Congress. His entire life has been about service to 
this country and the cause of human freedom, and I truly believe that 
future generations will have a greater hope to live in freedom because 
this man lived, and I salute him with all of my heart.
  Mr. Chairman, I also support this bill. I only rise to associate some 
of my feelings with those expressed by Terry Everett, the ranking 
member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, when he was concerned that 
the amendments that he offered to raise and restore some of the missile 
defense cuts in the mark had not taken place.
  He was especially concerned about the European site, the money that 
was cut there, that it sends a message to Poland and other places like 
that that are already in a very, very dangerous position politically 
and in such a delicate situation that they may in fact lose the project 
because of the message that we send to them.

                              {time}  2100

  I believe it is very important that we realize that the missile 
defense site in Poland is not just about missile defense, it is about 
devaluing an entire nuclear missile program in the hands of an Iranian 
nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the very first purpose of this government is to defend 
its citizens in peace, and I believe one of the greatest threats to 
human peace in the world is a nuclear Iran.
  In spite of what we have heard in the media, Iran continues to enrich 
uranium which could give them an atomic bomb in less than 3 years. The 
IAEA has reported that in the 9-month period between February and 
November of 2007, the number of centrifuges enriching uranium operating 
at its Natanz enrichment facility tripled from 1,000 to now 
approximately 3,000 centrifuges.
  The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, earlier this 
year said to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he concurred with 
the Israeli intelligence report stating that this many centrifuges 
operating continuously would produce enough fissile material for a 
nuclear weapon in less than 2 years. We now know that Iran is 
increasing its number of operational centrifuges from 3,000 to 9,000. 
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Iran is now beginning to manufacture its own 
centrifuge, the IR2, which improves on the advanced P2 centrifuge that 
was used in Pakistan to build its existing nuclear arsenal. It is 
capable of producing enriched uranium two to three times faster than 
the older models.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

[[Page 10306]]


  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, some of the most dangerous and 
lethal weapons our soldiers are facing in Iraq right now are there 
because Iran gave it to them. Osama bin Laden said: It is our religious 
duty to gain nuclear weapons.
  If Iran is allowed to proliferate nuclear weapons into the hands of 
terrorists, any sense or concept of peace that we have experienced in 
this country so far could be gone in a blinding flash in the center of 
one of our major cities, maybe even in Washington, DC. And yet this 
majority has prevented us from voting on a military contingency plan to 
prevent Iran from gaining this deadly capability.
  Mr. Chairman, very simply, the highway of history is littered with 
the dangers of strategic ambiguity, and I believe our best hope of 
preventing a nuclear Iran is to help them understand that we are 
prepared to do whatever is necessary, including a military contingency, 
if they continue to pursue their nuclear capability.
  I hope that our children are not faced with the consequences of that 
strategic ambiguity. We need to be very, very clear. We need to vote on 
the amendment to improve this bill tomorrow.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 2 
minutes to my friend and colleague from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a 
new member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. 
I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their 
leadership on this legislation. As a new member of the House and of the 
committee, it has been a pleasure participating in the bipartisan and 
respectful process that both of you have created.
  H.R. 5658 addresses our immediate readiness challenges while 
maintaining our commitment to modernization that will keep our country 
safe and deter threats in the future.
  We are all in agreement that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
having a severe impact on our readiness. This legislation puts us on 
track to restore our readiness and our capability to respond to 
emerging threats around the world. It also increases our capabilities 
in Afghanistan by providing performance standards for Provincial 
Reconstruction Teams, training and equipping the Afghan National 
Security Forces, and increasing the Commanders Emergency Response Fund. 
And this bill takes significant strides to improve the quality of life 
for our men and women in uniform and their families. H.R. 5658 includes 
a 3.9 percent pay increase. It rejects on a bipartisan basis the 
proposed increases in TRICARE fees and copays.
  Finally, I appreciate that the committee included a provision that I 
have advocated for that would give flexibility to the Department of 
Defense to increase the loan repayment amount for medical personnel in 
the National Guard and Reserve.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have 
stated, this is a good bill. It addresses the readiness needs of our 
military, keeps us on track for modernization to meet future threats, 
and takes care of our military personnel and their families. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my congratulations and 
words of appreciation to our chairman and ranking member for the 
terrific job they did on this year's defense authorization act.
  The members of our Armed Forces, whether during times of war or 
peace, deserve the wholehearted support and moral and financial 
commitment and support from its citizens and its government. I believe 
this support from this committee of our men and women in uniform is 
undeniable. This bill does support the national defense mission, the 
individual servicemember, and the military family. However, it is not 
complete. We are continually increasing the demands of this voluntary 
force, but our budget does not provide the needed resources for the 
military with a growing responsibility and mission.
  Some of these shortcomings includes cuts to future combat systems, 
cuts to anti-missile defense systems, and the Marines are getting cuts 
in the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. This vehicle would replace the 
aging 38-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle that they currently rely 
on in getting from their ships to the shore and exposes our Navy to 
unnecessary risks, and I am concerned about these cuts.
  But there are a lot of things to be in favor of in this bill. With 
respect to SOCOM, these warfighters, as you know, operate throughout 
the globe conducting missions that most of us will never hear about but 
are absolutely essential and critical to defend against the 
unconventional threats and preventing additional threats and crises 
around the globe.
  We support these warfighters, these magnificent warfighters by fully 
funding their requirements. In addition, we added some $186 million to 
provide for their unfunded requirements that they have on those lists 
for surveillance capabilities and personnel protection gear. We also 
authorized 26 human terrain teams that they have requested, and 
supports our National Guard with some $800 million in additional money 
for equipment.
  With respect to our troops and their family welfare, we are in 
complete agreement that the individual marine, sailor, soldier, and 
airman is our most valuable national security asset. They stand between 
this Nation and those who wish to do us harm and, along with their 
families, sacrifice daily in defense of this Nation and our freedoms. 
This bill reflects our commitment and responsibility to ensure that 
they are taken care of. We are giving them a 3.9 percent pay raise, 
some $650 million to improve barracks, and the elimination of all 
temporary barracks between now and 2015.
  We are going to add to their force, to their numbers so that they can 
spread their responsibilities across a greater number of soldiers and 
marines. We are re-equipping and resetting these forces with additional 
funding provided for unfunded readiness initiatives, for training 
shortfalls within the Army and Marine Corps. In addition we are 
providing gear in the field to be used immediately with MRAPs, 
additional body armor, and up-armored Humvees.
  Mr. Chairman, while we may disagree with how these assets, tools, 
and, most importantly, this personnel are used, there should be no 
disagreement that we should provide this Nation with the personnel, 
assets, and tools to protect this country with overwhelming force to 
counter any and all threats. This bill moves us toward that goal, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), who is also a member 
of our Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I rise today in support of this bill, and I thank 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for bringing it to the floor 
and for their great work. I want to also thank Chairman Ortiz and 
Chairwoman Davis for their work during the subcommittee markup and the 
committee staff for their hard work throughout the process.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill that will have a tremendous 
impact on our servicemembers and their families, and I am proud to 
support it. As a former military spouse, I know how much our troops and 
their families depend on the strong support from Congress.
  In this year's bill, we grow the military, adding 7,000 soldiers, 
5,000 marines, 1,000 sailors, and 450 airmen to take the pressure off 
the current military. We add a 3.9 percent pay increase and increase 
existing bonuses. We provide nearly $25 billion for the defense health 
program without increasing TRICARE fees. We increase benefits for 
Guardsmen and Reservists as well. These actions are the way that we 
show that we do support the troops and their families, and this is the 
way we thank them for their service.
  We designate money to keep F-22 fighters and C-17s rolling off the 
production line. These two programs are

[[Page 10307]]

vital to our Air Force. We add a second Virginia class sub and the 
resources in our shipyard system to maintain them. We include more than 
$12 million for cold weather clothing systems that keep our men and 
women warm in the mountains of Afghanistan. In this year's bill we 
provide our Army aviation assets with advanced self-protection systems 
that keep our soldiers safe in harm's way.
  We also fund programs at home, like the Swimmer Detection Network 
that protects our Los Angeles and Virginia class submarines at 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in my district. We fund military construction 
projects at our shipyards and depots that are vital to our Nation's 
defenses, and we add billions for housing at our bases that ensure our 
servicemembers and their families are safe and comfortable.
  I am proud that we worked together in a truly bipartisan manner to 
produce this bill that cares for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines and their families. I urge the House to pass this bill.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2009, and I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
Hunter for their extraordinary leadership and their bipartisan manner 
in which this bill was crafted, and also would like to recognize 
Ranking Member Hunter's extraordinary legacy of leadership as he leaves 
us as his duty on this committee expires.
  I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the important 
aspects of this bill. Nothing is more vital to our Nation's forward 
presence and security than the aircraft carrier, and it remains 
unacceptable to allow the total number of aircraft carriers to 
diminish.
  Maintaining the statutory requirement of 11 aircraft carriers is 
essential to maintaining our superiority on the high seas, and we must 
continue to develop the industrial base and promote shipbuilding to 
establish a floor, not a ceiling, of 313 ships in our Navy. I urge 
support for this important aspect of this bill.
  I would also like to take a moment to discuss the importance of 
directed energy and electromagnetic weapons systems, a top priority of 
the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority list. Increased 
funding for this research, development, testing, and evaluation will 
accelerate the installation and deployment of critical ship self-
defense improvements. The weapons systems we are developing through 
this directed energy program will counter rockets, artillery, mortar, 
and unmanned aerial vehicles for ship and expeditionary base defense, 
and will ensure the safety of our fighting men and women. Such funding 
promotes Navy objectives, and the development of directed energy 
weapons will provide unique capability against emerging asymmetric 
threats, thereby increasing our Nation's effectiveness on the global 
war on terror.
  Lastly, I would like to discuss the importance of basing our defense 
budget on 4 percent of GDP, and I hope that we are able to address this 
in the future as that is one important part of this bill that is 
lacking.
  I would also like to talk about the importance of submarines in our 
national defense. Assessing the feasibility and cost of actions to 
maximize the service life and number of Los Angeles class submarines 
and assessing the attack submarine force structure requirement in the 
2009 Quadrennial Defense Review and basing such an assessment on 
combatant commander requirements are important aspects of this bill. 
Submarines have been a central component of our naval forces for over a 
century, and today the submarine helps our Navy conduct numerous 
operations around the world. Our national defense demands that we have 
a strong and capable naval fleet, and we must maximize the use of the 
very capable Los Angeles class submarine and base our force structure 
on what commanders in the field and on the seas need to accomplish 
their diverse joint missions. We must keep our number of submarines 
high, and this aspect of the bill would be a positive step in 
strengthening our Nation's fighting forces.
  I am honored to do my role in supporting the men, women, and 
equipment of our Nation's military.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Our military should be able to meet its 
operational requirements at all priority levels, and I request your 
support on these important aspects of this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Capps) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for your assistance to help alleviate the 
shortage of qualified and experienced nurse instructors in the United 
States, including in the military. Right now, we are told that the 
limiting factor in increasing the number of nurses to try to head off 
the looming nurse shortage is the number of faculty available in our 
nursing schools.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlelady for raising this very important 
issue, and assure the gentlelady that I certainly share her concerns. 
The Department of Defense is facing the same shortage of nurses as we 
are across the Nation. However, the need for the Department is more 
directly felt as we are at war, and our military nurses are caring for 
our wounded and injured in addition to all their other duties.

                              {time}  2115

  Let me say to the gentlelady that we have taken serious, substantive 
steps to increase the number of nurses, both in the military and in the 
civilian community. In this bill we have mandated the establishment of 
a Department of Defense School of Nursing, following the successful 
models of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to 
produce medical doctors, the Interservice Physician Assistant Program 
to produce physician assistants for the military, and the Army's new 
School of Social Work, which will enroll its first class this summer.
  Although the graduates of the Department of Defense School of Nursing 
will initially provide much needed care for our troops, I'm confident 
that following their military service they will continue to serve our 
Nation as nurses in civilian communities.
  Finally, we've included a demonstration project to encourage retired 
military nurses to become faculty members at civilian schools of 
nursing to help alleviate the nurse instructor shortage of which you 
speak.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I want to thank the chairman for his excellent leadership 
in improving health care for our servicemen and women, and especially 
appreciate his inclusion of a demonstration project in the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California has 
expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Like you, I feel that military nurses are especially 
equipped to take on the leadership role required of a nurse instructor. 
We need to ensure that we meet our mutual goal of increasing the 
capacity of colleges of nursing in order to graduate more nurses who 
can fill current vacancies that are widespread, both in the military 
and civilian sectors. I believe that this type of program can be a 
model for other programs to alleviate shortage of nurse faculty, and 
would ask the chairman to keep an open mind to other approaches to 
alleviating the nursing shortage. And I appreciate the urgency created 
during a time of war.
  Mr. SKELTON. Let me assure the gentlelady that we look forward to the 
results of the demonstration project, and I'm always open of course to 
practical approaches to address the military nursing shortage.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank the esteemed chairman for his efforts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman

[[Page 10308]]

from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Chairman Skelton, let me thank you for your friendship 
and for your extraordinary leadership on the Committee on Armed 
Services. I appreciate your willingness to engage me in the important 
topic of suicide prevention in our military forces.
  As you know, earlier this year, my constituent, Master Sergeant 
(retired) Christopher Scheuerman, testified before the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel about the tragic circumstances surrounding the 
suicide of his son, Private First Class Jason Drew Scheuerman. Jason 
was deployed with the 3rd Infantry Division at Forward Operating Base 
Normandy in Iraq, and died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound from his 
M16 rifle. Jason showed clear signs of mental distress, but the system 
failed Jason.
  Recent reports indicate the Army suicide rate is the highest in 26 
years of record keeping. While there are many outstanding mental health 
professionals in the Army system, the command structure creates an 
inherent conflict of interest and a lack of independent objectivity.
  Servicemembers are currently allowed a second civilian opinion, but 
often find it nearly impossible to access an outside mental health 
provider. I appreciate the fact that this bill addresses the issue of 
suicide prevention by directing the Secretary to consider how the 
military can make a second opinion more accessible, including the 
possibility of providing a second medical evaluation in combat theater 
by telephonic evaluation. I know that that is a somewhat controversial 
suggestion, but we must find a way to stop preventable suicides like 
Jason Scheuerman. We owe our servicemen and women no less.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to work with you, Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member McHugh on this important issue, and I hope 
that the Secretary will undertake this study immediately so that it is 
possible for our troubled servicemembers to obtain a second civilian 
health opinion.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for raising this very important 
issue. The Department of Defense has made many improvements to its 
suicide prevention programs, but more can be done. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for his time and help.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have, I believe, no more speakers left, 
so at this time let me just say that our ranking members and our 
chairmen have covered the waterfront of what this bill does. They've 
taken it from personnel, the pay raise that the chairman started off 
talking about, the 3.9 percent pay raise, the end strength increases in 
the Army and Marine Corps, the quality of life increases that we've 
delivered to our people in uniform, to the equipment side, to the force 
protection that we are sending additional to Afghanistan and to Iraq, 
MRAPs, extra armor capability, extra technical capability to be able to 
defend our forces and help them accomplish the mission, to the 
modernization side, the platforms that we are building with the 
modernization part of this budget, to the readiness part of this 
budget, which is so critical to ongoing operations, and to some of the 
technical aspects of the budget that I think the Strategic Subcommittee 
spoke to so effectively, including the programs that involve space, 
involve missile defense. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think we've described 
the bill fairly effectively.
  And I think also we've described the people. At least I want to make 
sure we understand how wonderful the people are who put this bill 
together, not only the ranking members and the chairmen of the 
subcommittee and our great chairman of the full committee, Ike Skelton, 
the man from Missouri, but also the wonderful staff that we have that's 
worked long hours to put together what is a very large bill, in many 
cases, very technical, and yet they did it with great precision, and we 
owe them a debt of gratitude.
  Let me just say in my closing seconds here, Mr. Chairman, that I 
talked about the horizon that I think we face in terms of military 
challenges. I think that part of that horizon must require a focus on 
China. The fact that China is now outbuilding the U.S. in submarines by 
more than 3-1, with their acquisitions from the Russians, it's much 
more. They're acquiring great technical capability, and they are 
building an industrial base that, in many areas, such as building 
warships, could outstrip the United States very quickly in production.
  And just as our great chairman mentioned, that it takes more than 
just a military to win wars and to carry out foreign policy, it's going 
to take some changes in policy to maintain the United States as a 
premier military force in the world. Some of those changes are going to 
require changes in our tax law, in our tariff law that will allow our 
industrial base to stay in the United States, that will stop these 
companies that are key to national security who are being advised right 
now by their financial advisors to move their production offshore, 
changes in our law that will cause them to stay in the United States, 
because the environment, the business environment in the United States 
and the tax environment will be such that they will not be induced to 
move offshore.
  Also, with respect to the hemorrhage of technical information which 
is going on with the acquisition of American companies on a very 
selected basis by companies and by nations that are targeting American 
military technology. This committee has moved toward stopping that 
hemorrhage by adopting several important provisions with respect to 
security, site security at companies that do classified information. 
But there's much more work to be done there, and I know that the 
committee is moving in that direction and undertaking a great strides 
in that direction. But that's a direction that's going to require the 
participation of the entire body, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the entire 
government. So we have a big challenge ahead of us.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman for putting together a bill that 
passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, and should pass 
unanimously off the House floor. So once again, a job well done to the 
gentleman from Missouri.
  I would yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is advised that he 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman from California. And I must add 
that this is properly named for Duncan Hunter in honor of the hard work 
that you've done through the years. Thank you.
  When you put a bill together like this that's $531 billion of 
taxpayer money for national security, there are unseen hands that have 
helped glue this together bit by bit and part by part. And that's the 
unsung but very valuable and absolutely terrific staff of the Armed 
Services Committee under the direction of Erin Conaton, and I 
particularly wish to complement her on her hard work. Everyone on this 
staff is outstanding and an expert in his or her field, and I want them 
to know that they are appreciated, and that we're very grateful for 
their work.
  This will close out the general debate on this bill. It's an 
excellent bill, and I think that in truth and fact it has made a great 
stride toward increasing the readiness of our troops. People in the 
country should take a great deal of comfort in knowing that there's 
such bipartisanship on this committee. So I thank the gentleman from 
California.
  I am very, very proud of the members of this committee, the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5658, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This 
legislation authorizes $601.4 billion for defense programs in FY 2009, 
including $70 billion in emergency funds authorized specifically to 
support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is funding that is 
critical to our nation's defense, as well as to the troops serving so 
valiantly in the wars being waged on two fronts.
  Thanks in a large part to the leadership of Chairman Skelton, this 
legislation provides

[[Page 10309]]

greater funding than had been requested by the President for equipment 
depleted by the war in Iraq, including new combat vehicles, new battle 
gear for the Army National Guard and reserves, military pay raises, and 
shipbuilding.
  H.R. 5658 authorizes $25.4 billion for defense health-care programs, 
and blocks the president's plan to raise user fees for programs such as 
Tricare and deductibles for service members and military retirees. This 
legislation will also authorize an increase of 7,000 active-duty Army 
personnel, and provide for 5,000 more Marine Corps personnel than 
current levels.
  This legislation also provides for a 3.5 percent pay raise for active 
duty military, rolls back proposed benefit reductions to spousal 
benefits, and increases funding for military housing upgraded for bases 
like Fort Bragg, North Carolina, located in my district.
  Mr. Chairman this is a good bill for our troops. It is our duty, our 
charge as members of this body, to ensure that those who protect and 
defend our nation in this all-volunteer army receive the best health 
care, pay, and living conditions that we can provide for them. We owe 
this to them.
  I support this legislation and I would urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on 
the House Armed Services Committee, specifically my good friend, 
Representative Duncan Hunter of California, for including a provision 
in the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill that finally 
provides for consideration of our Nation's defense industrial base when 
contracting officials evaluate major Federal defense contract 
proposals.
  Few people are aware that the Pentagon is prevented by law from 
including defense industrial base considerations when deciding to award 
a major defense contract. A contract award determination is made 
primarily by examining which party has the ``best value'' in terms of 
price, quality, quantity, and delivery. However, how many jobs a 
particular contract would produce or retain in America or how many 
suppliers would be able to stay in business in America because of a 
particular contract is currently not part of the ``best value'' 
evaluation by the Pentagon. Most believe that the Buy American Act 
protects the interests of American workers. However, because of a 
series of Memorandums of Understanding, MOUs, signed years ago between 
the Pentagon and other foreign defense agencies, a product can be made 
completely in Europe and be considered as if made in America and thus 
compliant with the Buy American Act. In return, U.S. defense articles 
are supposed to be considered by European procurement officials on the 
same grounds as European products. However, Europe protected its 
economic interests in these agreements by including European defense 
industrial base protections as one criterion in their source selection 
process. This didn't used to be a problem in the past. However, with 
the consolidation of major prime defense contractors in the United 
States and the relatively recent creation of the European Aeronautic 
Defense and Space Company, EADS, there has been more and more conflict 
in major U.S. defense procurements.
  Section 805 of H.R. 5658 seeks to copy Europe's example. It simply 
allows the Pentagon to consider impacts on the U.S. industrial base 
during source selection for major defense acquisition programs. This 
section also authorizes defense acquisition officials to impose 
penalties on a contractor who misleads the Government regarding 
potential domestic industrial base impacts.
  The bill also asks the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional 
defense committees at least 30 days before requesting a proposal for 
any major defense acquisition program that will not use a domestic 
industrial base evaluation factor during the source selection process. 
It also includes second and third level suppliers as part of the 
defense industrial base because the health of this sector of the 
economy cannot be measured solely by looking at the stock price of the 
large prime defense contractors.
  As someone who voted for every free trade agreement since being 
elected to Congress in 1992, this section is not protectionism. Back in 
1776, Adam Smith argued in his celebrated ``Wealth of Nations''; that 
``(i)t is of importance that the kingdom should depend as little as 
possible upon its neighbors for the manufactures necessary for its 
defense.'' He supported a bounty--or a tax--on the export of British 
sailcloth and gunpowder to prevent other nations and potential enemies 
from benefiting from Great Britain's advantage in these products. If 
the founder of modern-day capitalism and free trade supported an 
exception to the free flow of trade in defense goods, then domestic 
sourcing preferences to protect our national security and defense 
industrial base must be considered consistent with the very foundation 
of free trade and capitalism.
  Congress has a duty to be concerned with our nation's ability to 
build the weapons and equipment necessary to defend itself. Any 
argument founded merely on shopping for the best value without 
considering the larger defense industrial base will leave our great 
nation exposed and vulnerable. A nation that cannot produce the 
materials necessary for its defense will eventually become a second-
rate power.
  Now, some analysts have argued that we should not press for more 
domestic sourcing of defense articles because Europe and other nations 
buy more U.S. defense technology that we buy from them. These 
statistics, however, fail to account for the offsets in defense sales 
required by other governments, including our friends in Europe.
  According to a 2007 report entitled Offsets in Defense Trade prepared 
by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, 
over 98 percent of all U.S. defense sales to Europe were ``offset'' 
from 1993 to 2006. In other words, for every dollar a European 
government spent on U.S. defense equipment, the U.S. prime defense 
contractors had to provide 98 cents in industrial compensation 
arrangements to that government. These compensation arrangements range 
from requiring re-locating a share of the production of that defense 
item to that country to marketing that country's goods in the United 
States. However, the United States is prohibited by law to require of a 
foreign defense contractor to ``offset'' part of the cost of the 
proposed acquisition. thus, our two-way defense trade with Europe is 
already heavily weighted in their favor.
  Finally, Section 805 of H.R. 5658 will not launch a trade war because 
there have been several occasions in the past when European governments 
refused to buy from American companies because of their own defense 
industrial base concerns. In 2003, Pratt & Whitney lost a bid to 
EuroProp International (EPI) to supply the engine for the A400M 
European military troop transport plane despite the fact that their 
initial bid was 20 percent lower, they had a higher quality engine, and 
they committed to build a new assembly line in Europe and include 75 
percent European content in the engine. According to the Financial 
Times on June 13, 2003, Airbus effectively declared Pratt & Whitney the 
winner until European governments intervened and promised financial 
support to EPI so it could drop its price and clinch the deal with a 
redesigned engine in order to keep all the work in Europe.
  Similarly, in 2003, when Italy wanted to build a new fleet of search 
and rescue helicopters, Skirosky and MD Helicopters were interested in 
bidding on the contract but were not even given the opportunity. The 
Italian government decided instead to award the contract without any 
competition to their national helicopter company--Augusta/Westland--on 
the grounds of ``homeland security.''
  Mr. Chairman, encouraging the Pentagon to consider the defense 
industrial base as one factor in their contract decision-making process 
will help us safeguard over the long-term the knowledge and innovation 
that make our defense industry the best in the world. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 5658 and, in particular, Section 805, 
throughout the legislative process.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I stand here in support of H.R. 5658, the 
Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act of FY 2009.
  Just a few months ago, we reflected on the 5-year anniversary of this 
war. Today we send a message to our troops that we are with them.
  This bill authorizes additional funds for the needs of our troops 
overseas, and more importantly will authorize a pay raise larger than 
that requested by the President.
  During these hard economic times of recession, foreclosures, and high 
gas prices, our military families need all our help and support. This 
bill prohibits fee increases in TRICARE and expands available health 
care services.
  This bill is a step in the right direction, with directives for the 
Afghanistan conflict, and more accountability of the Iraqi government 
and contractors.
  Today we make our commitment to the Americans we represent, and their 
sons, daughters, husbands, wives, sisters and brothers serving as part 
of the Armed Forces. They are fighting a war that is not their fight.
  In my district alone, 13 families will sit at their dinner table 
without a loved one. To these families in my district and those 
throughout the Nation, I thank you for your service, your sacrifice and 
your love for this Nation. You are the back bone of the Armed Forces.
  I urge my colleagues to keep our commitment to our troops, redirect 
this war in the right direction and vote for H.R. 5658.

[[Page 10310]]

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Skelton and Ranking Republican 
Hunter, I rise in support of my Amendment to H.R. 5658, the Duncan 
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 which has been 
included as part of an en bloc amendment. My Amendment requires the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to identify the mental health 
risks associated with the performance of individual military duties. 
This assessment will recognize cases of suicide by military occupation, 
and identify military occupations with a high incidence of suicide. 
More importantly the study shall suggest additional suicide prevention 
programs specific to military occupations with higher risk.
  To my knowledge, the issue of differing suicide risks amongst 
military occupations has not been studied in any great depth. Colonel 
Michael Bartley of Nellis Air Force Base and Colonel Chris Chambliss of 
Creech Air Force Base have highlighted for me the unique mental health 
challenges that members of our military face who are on the front lines 
of the Global War on Terror, but located here in the States. The State 
of Nevada is home to Creech Air Force Base which serves as the premier 
host for MQ-1 Predators and MQ-9 Reapers Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 
(UAVs).
  The operator of a UAV fleet is truly at the forefront of the Global 
War on Terror. I am greatly concerned that some military occupations, 
such as UAV operators, may suffer from chronic mental health disorders 
such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to stress and 
fatigue. I feel these soldiers may not receive the same level of 
emotional support from their peers that they would receive if they were 
located overseas. Rather, they return to their families and civilian 
society without the appropriate outlet for dealing with the emotional 
tolls of their duties.
  It is my hope that the Secretary of Defense will continue to address 
the pressing matter of the mental health strains inflicted upon our 
active duty service men and women. This study will help us begin to 
understand how the new technologies that allow us to wage wars more 
effectively, bring about unforeseen complications for the service men 
and women who volunteer to serve our Nation. I encourage my colleagues 
to support this common sense amendment that will provide the mental 
health services needed by the 21st Century war fighter.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about an 
important topic relevant to this legislation.
  It's distressing that a rising number of our brave service men and 
women are coming back from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq 
suffering from the ``signature injuries of these conflicts''--Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.
  I believe that PTSD is a critically important issue and as a Congress 
we need to continue to do all we can to get our military leaders, 
commanders, and medical professionals to focus on this problem for our 
newest generation of veterans.
  In the past few years and even weeks, a number of studies have 
pointed out the gaps in our military health care system into which may 
be falling a growing number of our servicemembers who may be suffering 
from PTSD.
  I am sure that my colleagues are very aware of the recent RAND report 
that up to 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may be suffering from 
PTSD and/or depression.
  This issue was brought to my attention most vividly by a constituent 
who served 10 months in Iraq. After he came home, he began to self-
medicate--as a number of soldiers who may be suffering from this deadly 
disease do-- using alcohol and engaging in misconduct that ultimately 
got him discharged from the service.
  Unfortunately, this discharge not only prevented him from continuing 
to receive needed mental health care from the DOD but also from going 
to the VA to get treated for PTSD.
  My constituent ultimately took his life and left many, including his 
family, to wonder if he had been able to get needed help after his 
return from Iraq, or if he could have accessed the number of mental 
health services that are available from the VA, whether the outcome 
could have been different.
  What is clear from the DoD's mental health task force and other 
reports is that the outcome can be different for the thousands of our 
soldiers who may be suffering.
  I am pleased by the hard work and focus on this issue that the Armed 
Services Committee has taken in the past few years. I commend the 
Chairman, the Ranking Member, and others who have worked and continue 
to do so to ensure that the ``signature injuries'' of our ongoing 
conflicts receive the highest level of attention from this Congress.
  I also want to commend the Services on the changes and improvements 
they've made thus far.
  However, let's be clear: more can be done. I offered three amendments 
to this bill to highlight the need to continue to try and make those 
improvements.
  The amendment made in order today would ensure that recommendations 
that have been put forward to close identified gaps are actually 
implemented and that our servicemembers see actual improvements in 
terms of their ability to receive help when they need it.
  That is the purpose of the amendment which the Chairman has 
graciously included in this En Bloc package that would require the GAO 
to assess the DoD's progress in implementing the June 2007 
recommendations of the Congressionally created DoD Mental Health Task 
Force.
  It is my expectation that the GAO will examine and assess the 
implementation of all the recommendations with a focus on those related 
to:
  Developing a comprehensive public education campaign to reduce the 
stigma associated with mental health problems;
  Changing Department of Defense policies to ``Guarantee a Thorough 
Assessment of Behavioral Symptoms When Evaluating Combat Veterans for 
Administrative/Legal Dismissal from the Military'' including 
``carefully assessing a soldier's history of exposure to conditions 
that could cause PTSD, or traumatic brain injury, or related diagnoses 
for those facing administrative or medical discharge'';
  Appointment of a psychological director of health in each military 
department, military treatment facility, the National Guard, and the 
Reserves;
  Enhancing TRICARE benefits and care for mental health problems;
  Implementing an annual psychological health assessment addressing 
cognition, psychological functioning, and overall psychological 
readiness for each member of the Armed Forces, including members of the 
National Guard and reserve components;
  Developing a model for allocating resources to military mental health 
facilities, and services embedded in line units, based on an assessment 
of the needs of and risks faced by the populations served by such 
facilities and services;
  Maintaining adequate family support programs for families of deployed 
members of the Armed Forces.
  It is my desire that GAO report on the dates on which recommendations 
are expected to be fully implemented and progress on implementing the 
recommendations throughout the year covered by the report, including 
barriers.
  We must never lose sight of the fact that the goal is not just for 
DoD to have a plan, although that is helpful, but to actually make 
these changes and do it in a timely way.
  I thank the Chairman for his support of this simple amendment and 
look forward to working with him in the future to ascertain what 
additional steps, if any, that are needed and which can be taken to 
help our servicemembers who may be suffering from PTSD.
  Again, I thank you for your efforts.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Murphy of Connecticut) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ellison, Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________