National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference agreement on H.R. 5122, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. I am pleased that we have completed this Act before the onset of the new fiscal year because it contains provisions vital to the operation of our Department of Defense and to the men and women of our armed forces who are fighting the war against terrorism around the world today.

Several provisions within this Act are particularly important to my district and the people of Guam. Among these provisions is Section 1014, which closes a legal loophole that had previously been utilized by the Department of the Navy to permit repair of U.S. Navy vessels in foreign shipyards at the expense of U.S. shipyards, including the shipyard on Guam. By making clear that Guam, and in particular Guam's Apra Harbor, is a U.S. location, Section 1014 of this Act make clears to the Navy that its reliance on legal minutia to enable foreign repair of ships that are homeported on Guam or that make a port call on Guam is both unacceptable and now illegal. Congress expects the Navy to adhere both to the written word of 10 U.S.C. Section 7310, as amended by this Act, and to Congress's clear intent that Navy vessels will be repaired in U.S. shipyards except when those vessels are homeported overseas, when voyage repairs are necessary or where operational demands dictate. The Navy should not and cannot use excessively liberal definitions of voyage repairs or an overseas homeport to enable foreign repair.

Further, many vessels operating in the Pacific frequently make port calls on Guam. Section 1014 of this Act, when read in concert with related instructions from the Commander, Military Sealift Command and in particular the instruction identified as COMSCINST 4700.14A, also makes clear that vessels that make such port calls on Guam should no longer be considered eligible for repair in foreign shipyards such as the shipyard in Singapore. Paragraph 6(b)(5) of COMSCINST 4700.15A states, ``If an overseas homeported ship returns to the United States at any time during its overseas assignment, the policy governing U.S. homeported ships will apply, and the homeport status will be reevaluated.'' Ships that visit Guam regularly should not be included on the Assistant Secretary of the Navy's annual memorandum designating ships as homeported overseas and therefore made eligible for overseas repair. Ships that visit Guam must be returned to Guam, Hawaii or another U.S. location for repair, thereby being worked on by U.S. industry and our domestic skilled ship repair workforce.

Adherence to this refined and reemphasized policy is important to the vitality of the U.S. ship repair industrial base which is critical to our national security. Further, strict adherence to this policy will ensure that U.S. Navy vessels are repaired in safe harbors by U.S. citizens, thereby protecting our fleet and Navy personnel from risks such as attack, subterfuge, espionage or otherwise hostile actions. Section 1014 is a reaffirmation of Congressional intent on ``repair American'' policies applicable to the U.S. Navy. Section 1014 is an expression of this Congress's strong intent to safeguard the vital U.S. ship repair workforce and industry, one that faces significant workload reductions in coming years but one that must be maintained, even at greater cost, in order to maintain a ship repair industrial base capable of meeting any potential war time demand in the future. Congress will apply foresight if the Navy will not through the exercise of our oversight responsibilities.

It should be noted that the Section 1014 of the H.R. 5122 as passed by the House has been significantly streamlined. As a result of negotiations with the Senate and with the U.S. Navy, it was determined that Section 1014 did not need to be as robustly written as initially passed by the House. It should, however, also be noted that the Armed Services Committees will evaluate Navy compliance in light of the current revision to U.S. law and Congress's concern with the Navy's growing practice of sending U.S. Navy vessels to foreign shipyards for repair.

In addition to the revisions made to 10 U.S.C. 7310 is a provision agreed to by the conference committee, Section 1015, which provides for a comprehensive report on the operation of the Guam Shipyard and the Navy's intent for future utilization of the facility. It would be shortsighted of Congress to require greater utilization of such a facility without providing for appropriate study of the facility's current capabilities and of future needs for the facility in light of expected increased military utilization of the bases on Guam. I note that Guam will soon be home to 8,000 U.S. Marines who will be relocating from Okinawa and who will have points of embarkation in Apra Harbor. Guam will also soon become home to a third fast-attack nuclear- powered submarine and is expected to host an almost continuous presence of SSGN submarines. Further, military development plans call for the homeporting of three Littoral Combat Ships in Apra Harbor as well as significantly increased utilization of Apra Harbor by Navy aircraft carrIers.

The Navy must evaluate what capability it desires from the Guam Shipyard and begin preparations for an increase in the shipyard's utilization so that the shipyard can handle the anticipated additional repair requirements. The invaluable forward and strategic location of the Guam Shipyard cannot and should not be taken for granted and preparations must begin for growing its capability and capacity because it is clear that the yard will play an increased role in Navy ship repair in the Pacific as well as provide a vital capability to the U.S. Navy in the U.S.'s most strategic location in the Pacific. Training and growing a skilled U.S. ship repair workforce is not easy work. The Navy should begin enabling steady growth at the Guam Shipyard now so that the yard is prepared for future missions.

I would like to extend my thanks to Chairman Joel Hefley and Ranking Member Solomon Ortiz of the Readiness Subcommittee and to Chairman Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton of the full committee for their steadfast subpart in adresses these ship repair and workforce issues. I would like to particularly thank the efforts of their respective staffs, especially the efforts of House Armed Services Committee Professional Staff Members Joe Fengler and Paul Arcangeli. Mr. Fengler has recently left the committee staff but I would like to acknowledge his professionalism, expertise and work ethic in representing his Chairman and in facilitating robust oversight by the House Armed Services Committee and its Members. I know that Mr. Fengler will have a bright future and I thank him for his dedication and service to Chairman Hunter, to the committee and to our country.

This Act also includes a provision, Section 2810, to repeal Section 2864 of Title 10 in the United States Code which prohibits H2-B skilled foreign laborers, or nonimmigrant aliens, from working on military construction (MILCON) projects on Guam. Many community and industry stakeholders recognized that the restriction on labor contracts for military construction projects on Guam does not apply to other military construction projects elsewhere. Stakeholders felt that the Guam specific restrictions could negatively impact the ability to execute the planned military growth on Guam in the required timeframe. Because completing the movement of Marines from Okinawa to Guam in a timely manner is a major component of an international agreement, it was considered important to enable the Department of Defense to complete military construction projects associated with this move without undue obstacles and in accordance with the timeframe set out by the governments of Japan and the United States. At my urging, all parties agreed that the priority for hiring labor for military construction projects on Guam will continue to go to the local workforce. Many observed, however, that the amount of work expected on Guam will likely exceed local capacity and require additional labor, as have other large construction booms in Guam's past. Nonetheless, a principal part of my focus in representing the people of Guam remains preparing and training the local Guam workforce so that Guam's workers can receive maximum benefit from the military buildup. This provision ultimately enables Guam to prepare to meet the demands of future construction while also enabling the United States Government to meet its international obligations and thereby maintain its credibility and reputation with important allies.

I am pleased that this Act also authorizes a major increase in military construction funding for Guam. The military construction funding for Guam is a continued reflection of the Department of Defense's renewed interest in utilizing Guam's first-class and strategically located bases. Guam provides a capability to our Nation to project stability into the Pacific and, if ever necessary, to project force to protect our Nation, our allies and our values. I note that the Senate had previously marked against two military construction projects scheduled for Guam. I commend the Senate Armed Services Committee leadership for working with me and with my House colleagues to retain one of these two projects. Authorizing the first phase of construction at Andersen Air Force Base's Northwest Field is a critical step to completing the already begun relocation of the Air Force's Red Horse School from Osan, Korea to Guam. This relocation is an important part of

the Air Force's realignment of forces in the Pacific and its increased utilization of Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. While I am disappointed the Senate did not recede to the House authorization for the new commercial gate at Andersen Air Force Base, I join the Senate in expressing my strong intent to evaluate military construction projects scheduled for Guam to ensure that they fit within the overall plans for growth on the island and are consistent with the needs not just of the military but of the civilian community on Guam. While I believe the commercial gate already fit well within the plans for overall development on Guam, the concerns expressed by the Senate are shared in general and I look forward to working with my House and Senate colleagues to provide robust oversight of military development on Guam to ensure it is properly executed in the interests of all parties.

The $193.446 million in military construction funding for projects on Guam authorized this year represents continued growth in military activity on the island and provides assistance to Guam in preparing incrementally for the periods of military construction on the island which will soon be far more robust.

It is unfortunate that the conferees did not include in the conference agreement Section 632 of the House passed authorization bill. This provision would have authorized servicemembers assigned to and from non-foreign overseas locations to ship a second personally owned vehicle at government expense to the new assigned duty station consistent with the authorization for assignments within the continental United States. This change in law is still needed. This is an important quality of life issue for servicemen and women and their families who receive orders to serve on bases located outside the 48 contiguous States. Supported by The Military Coalition and by the Congressional delegations from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Guam, it is my hope that the committee will once again consider this provision next year and that its passage will ultimately be won. Our men and women in uniform deserve the enactment of this provision.

Finally, I am pleased that conferees retained language in this Act requiring the Department of Defense to study reestablishing a Military Entrance Processing Center on Guam. This study authorization is contained in Section 582 of the Act. The great number of patriotic men and women who enlist in our Armed Services from Guam and from the region deserve and need an entrance processing center on Guam. I encourage the Department of Defense to expeditiously undertake and complete this study. I trust it will find that the value of establishing a center on Guam is high and that such establishment will yield important results for recruitment goals. I look forward to the establishment of such a center and stand prepared to assist the Department in any way necessary to facilitate such an endeavor.

The decision by conferees to include numerous provisions important to our Nation's veterans is also to be commended. In particular, I fully support the provision which places a one-year moratorium on any increases in retail pharmaceutical prices under the TRICARE system. I join my colleagues in reiterating the principle that we must fulfill our promises to the veterans who have served our Nation. Increasing pharmaceutical fees under the TRICARE system is simply unacceptable. I also fully support the many other provisions in this Act related to protecting our veterans, our active duty personnel and our reserve personnel. I note particular support for the provision to curb predatory lending activity around military bases and the provisions to improve health care services for servicemembers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder or other combat related injuries. Our Nation remains committed to caring for those who fight and have fought to protect our way of life and our values.

This Act also contains language directing the Department of Defense to study cases of reported off shore disposal of munitions by the Department of Defense. I encourage the Department to study any cases of potential off shore disposal in the waters off of Guam. Should the Department determine that any dumping of munitions took place in the waters off of Guam, I urge the Department to take action to remedy any potential harm of such dumping. I further urge the Department to be not just comprehensive but transparent in its conduct of these studies and its findings. It is vital that the communities connected to any past disposal actions be kept fully informed as to Department findings and actions.

I also support provisions in this Act that direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare a plan that would enable the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) to assist local educational agencies that are affected by force structure changes in their communities. I plan to continue to work closely with the Department of Defense regarding the impacts that the movement of 8,000 Marines to Guam will have on Guam's local education system. The 8,000 Marines are expected to be accompanied by 9,000 dependents and perhaps several thousand civilian employees. While the dependents of the Marines are expected to attend DODEA schools, it is not unreasonable to believe that some Marine children as well as the children of civilian employees will enter the Guam Public School System. We must begin planning now to prepare Guam for any such impact.

I am a strong supporter of our Nation's National Guard and especially of the National Guard and Reserve servicemembers who reside on Guam. I remain a strong supporter of H.R. 5200, the National Guard Empowerment Act. I believe that the time has come to change the way we think about our Guard and Reserve because in this war on terror we have changed the way we use them. No longer can the Guard and Reserve come second in funding, equipping or anything else.

So while I am pleased that H.R. 5122 substantially increases authorized funding for Guard and Reserve equipment, I believe this bill should have also included the provisions of H.R. 5200 to ensure that the Guard would receive a Chief with a fourth star that sits on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and could advocate for and protect Guard interests. I also believe it is time to give the Guard independent budget authority from the parent services because history has told us that the parent services care for themselves first and the reserve component second. In an era when the Guard is completing the same mission as its active duty counterparts, it should have the same leadership and authorities as its active duty counterparts. I will continue to advocate for reform and increased empowerment of the Guard and Reserve. I look forward to the study of H.R. 5200 by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves and trust that the Commission will recommend adoption of many of the provisions contained within the legislation. I also note that conferees removed authority included in the House passed authorization bill that would have enabled the President to mobilize Guard members without the consent of a state or territorial governor in the event of a natural disaster. Granting such an authority would remove a fundamental and constitutional control granted to state governors regarding their state militias. I am pleased that the provision has been stricken from the bill.

Finally, I am encouraged that the conferees retained in the final bill language proposed by the Senate that requires the President to appoint a senior presidential coordinator of U.S. policy on North Korea and to submit to Congress a semi-annual report on the nuclear and missile programs of North Korea (Section 1211). While I remain a strong supporter of the Six-Party Talks, North Korea's testing of a Taepodong II missile earlier this year indicates that current policy toward North Korea is not proving a sufficiently effective deterrent against the unstable regime currently in Pyongyang. More must be done to secure our country and to assure allies in the Pacific of their safety from a North Korean regime that appears determined to develop additional nuclear weapons and to develop the means to deliver them. I also support the $10.4 billion in funding authorized in this Act for missile defense including the increase of $100 million for the ship based Aegis ballistic missile defense system, a system vital to protecting islands in the Pacific, including Guam, from any North Korean threat.

Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a few of the many provisions within this Act. I commend my colleagues for their work in finalizing the defense authorization bill. The legislation provides for measures ranging from a well deserved pay raise for our uniformed servicemembers to construction funding for ships vital to our Navy's future. I am in support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5122.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman and friend for yielding and thank the ranking member for his outstanding leadership, two great Americans.

You know, this city is filled with a rhetoric that we don't work well together, that we are at each other's throats, that we are partisan. This bill passed our committee with a vote of 61 to 1. This bill was done in a bipartisan way and has the support of members from both sides.

I am proud of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that my subcommittee, which has 28 members, for the 12th consecutive year had no votes, no votes or suggested votes that would split our party along or our committee along party lines. My good friend Neil Abercrombie, my ranking member, and I worked together. He had great ideas. I took his ideas and suggestions and made them a part of the bill.

I want to say to our colleagues in this body and our people around the country, the Congress is working, we are working well together. We are doing good things. Now some would say that we don't have the right thing in the Congress to change what the White House and the Pentagon gives us. Hogwash. That is our job. If we hadn't done our job, we would not have had the Predator armed. It was this Congress mandated back in 1996 that we arm the Predator. It was this Congress in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration didn't request increases for pay for the troops, that plussed up the funding for the pay for the troops.

It is our responsibility to make change, and we have done it. It was this committee that recommended we put the $25 billion up for the supplemental for the war. When the White House didn't want to do it, we led the effort, and everyone else followed.

Mr. Chairman, in this committee, in my mark we have increased $1.5 million for up-armoring Humvees. We have increased $200 million for tactical radios for the troops to use. We have increased to $69 million towards explosive jammers to allow our troops to be able to detonate these bombs before they are in the area or to make them not able to work.

We have increased technology that will reduce the weight of the equipment that our military officers and soldiers and officers have to wear when they are in combat situations in the theater of Iraq or in any place in the world.

This committee has also cut programs. There are some who say all we want to do is keep increasing defense spending. In my subcommittee alone, or our subcommittee, we cut $678 million from programs that we felt the contractors were requesting too many dollars or the services were not properly overseeing. We cut the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Future Combat Systems, even the Presidential helicopter, because as my friend pointed out, Mr. Abercrombie, we want the President to be flying in a safe platform when that helicopter is ready to go.

We took that money and we added $276 million for M1s and Bradley fighting vehicles; $408 million for an additional alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter to continue competition. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into our Guard and Reserve troops.

The role that this committee played is an unbelievable role. It is the legitimate role that was thought of in advance by our Founding Fathers when they designed our Constitution, that we just do not rubber-stamp what the White House and the Pentagon tell us.

Mr. Chairman, this committee went through dozens and dozens of hearings. This chairman has had more briefings for us. In fact, Members of Congress walk around with their eyes partly closed because he has us up at 8:00 in the morning attending briefings and our markups and hearings go until late at night. The involvement of both our members from the other side and our members from this side produces a cooperative spirit where the resultant product, I think, is outstanding.

There may be some disagreements on floor. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud of the committee and the work that we did in delivering a 61-1 vote.

But it is not just about our troops. It is not just about giving them the best technology, the best training, the best equipment. We have also taken some bipartisan steps to increase the flexibility of using our cooperative threat reduction dollars, to go after those weapons of mass destruction, whether it is in North Korea or whether it is in Libya. In our bill in a joint bipartisan amendment with Mr. Spratt, we have put language in providing flexibility for up to $30 million to be used by the Pentagon to go into these areas without having to go back for a reprogram request to allow us to immediately take action against these deposits of WMD when we find them.

We have also put into place the Nuclear Strategy Forum. We happen to think there should be a national debate on what the use of nuclear weapons should be in the 21st century. Again with bipartisan support, we have put together a team of the best thinkers, the best academics in America, who in a bipartisan and nonpartisan way will hold meetings and hearings on what should be our nuclear posture. Should we in fact reduce our nuclear arsenal? Should we in fact look at testing? Should we in fact look to an alternative type of technology away from nuclear weapons totally?

That is a part of this bill. So it is not just about weapons systems. It is about a comprehensive approach that will allow us to maintain security and, in the end, avoid war, which is the ultimate objective I have as long as I am going to be a Member of this institution.

We also reauthorized the EMP Commission. I want to pay particular accolades to Roscoe Bartlett, our colleague, who has been out front on that issue for a decade warning us of the threat from the use of electromatic pulse. We have put into place a panel. That panel has now been reauthorized and are advising us on how we can protect America's infrastructure and weapons systems.

Mr. Chairman, there is a personal priority in this bill to me because I am also vice chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and I work on behalf of the Nation's firefighters.

You know our firefighters are our domestic defenders. Our soldiers are international defenders. Much of the technology we developed for the soldiers has direct application to our firefighters, our paramedics and our first responders, but we haven't done a good job in transferring that technology, whether it is thermal imagers or whether it is GPS capability. We need to give our first responders the same kind of protection that we give to our warfighters. In this bill, again with the cooperation of members on both sides, we put in a specific provision that focuses on the need to immediately transfer technology developed by our military people and put it into use for our domestic defenders.

I ask our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important domestic bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of serving as the Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and as the Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

I, first of all, want to thank my distinguished chairman for the leadership he continues to provide across the wide range of issues that come before our committee. And similarly, I would like to express my admiration for the ranking member, for the leadership and expertise he brings to the committee. To the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), my ranking member, I thank him. He is a great American and it is great to work with him.

We have a great committee. Yes, there are contentious issues, but they get debated, we vote, and then we move on. We address the vast majority of issues in a what is best for the troops and taxpayer, non- partisan way. I cannot tell the Members how proud I am to serve on this committee. Every day that I serve in this institution, I am happy that we work so well together. This committee, I think, sets the example for the entire Congress, demonstrating that we can all work together. I think the best evidence of that is, we again had a vote out of committee of 61 of the 62 members coming together. Where we had areas of disagreement, we have been able to work those out. This is a real credit and testimony to this Congress and those 62 members who are on this committee and to our Chairman.

Those of us in the Subcommittee have two priorities: to take care of the troops and to do our best to hold DOD accountable for its acquisition programs.

This committee did this year what we have done for the prior two years to support our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have held hearings at the subcommittee and full committee level, pushing the Pentagon's bureaucracy to get the best available equipment to our personnel as soon as it can be properly tested--body and vehicle armor; improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, night vision equipment, and so on. It was this committee that first called for additional funding to up-armor our Humvees and take care of the troops that were in harm's way. It was this committee that led the White House two years ago in getting that first $25 billion supplemental.

This bill makes big changes to programs and it makes seemingly small changes to programs that are yet very meaningful to the average soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. H.R. 5122 provides over $1.5 billion in additional funds to procure up-armor Humvees and body armor to protect our personnel. The bill provides over $200 million in additional funds to procure tactical handheld and small unit radios for ground forces, addressing urgent needs in Iraq. The bill also provides an additional $69.0 million to produce and deploy 10,000 man-portable improvised explosive device jammers that can address a full spectrum of threats in theater.

At the same time increased authorization is provided for small arms and small arms technologies. The basic infantryman or marine entering combat can be required to carry combat configured loads of ammunition and equipment, that combined, can exceed 90 pounds. The bill contains funding to advance technologies that can reduce this carrying load through advancements in lightweight components for existing small arms and caseless ammunition.

With our military personnel at risk each and every day, supporting those personnel by providing them the proper equipment is where our number one priority must continue to be. We cannot shortchange the current force for a promised future capability.

Our military is facing major financial challenges in upgrading tactical aircraft programs, shipbuilding programs, and space programs. And the Army in particular is facing a major budgetary challenge in trying to fund its Future Combat Systems Program--a $200 billion program; along with Modularity--a major restructuring and equipping of its combat brigade structure, a $52.5 billion program; and Reset, repairing and remanufacturing equipment returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a $72.3 billion program.

The bill is about balancing the health and capability of the current force with the needs of future military capability.

Our concern with several programs is one of excess R&D and procurement concurrency. We have cut $678 million from the Pentagon's request in programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Both the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, and Presidential Helicopter Program, the VH-71, have been reduced by a total of $280 million because of our concerns that they are not meeting our ``fly before buy'' rule.

We make other changes that better balance current against promised future capabilities: $276 million has been added for M-1 tank and Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades. Instead of the Army paying $3 million per Bradley upgrade, if done at the minimum economic order quantity rate, the Army is paying $8 million per vehicle--2\1/2\ times what we should be paying. Instead of paying $5 million for an M-1 tank upgrade, the Army is paying $7.4 million a tank. Our $276 million recommended increase would fund the economic order quantity for each vehicle.

Finally, we seek to correct major last minute budget decisions by the Pentagon that seemingly make no sense whatsoever. An example is the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35. Congress has supported a competitive engine strategy for that program for the past ten years. The Pentagon proposes to terminate that program without having done any substantive analysis. It was a last minute decision to balance the books. We add back $408 million to maintain competition in the F-35 engine development program. The Subcommittee believes engine competition is an important ingredient in fielding an F-35 that is both capable and affordable.

In closing, I again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full committee and our subcommittee. This bill is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 5122, pursuant to House Resolution 806, general debate shall not exceed 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last week the Committee on Armed Services reported out a bill that very clearly reflects our steadfast support for our service members and their families, our deep appreciation for their many sacrifices, and the strong bipartisan spirit that characterizes this committee.

Passing with a committee vote of 60-1, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 provides for both near and long- term military personnel and force structure requirements, and highlights the need for improvements in acquisition processes and cooperation among key Federal agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation provides $512.9 billion for the Department of Defense and the security programs of the Department of Energy. We include a recommendation of active duty growth of 30,000 for the Army and 5,000 for the Marine Corps above the President's budget request.

We also include a supplemental bridge fund of some $50 billion to support our troops operating in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places in the global war on terrorism, and this, Mr. Chairman, is to provide for a seamless continuity in the waning calendar months of this year so that our troops continue to be well supplied before any supplementals in the following year.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the National Guard and Reserve, and we have provided for additional end strength up to 350,000, and we also have right now a series of other enhancements that are being looked at by the special commission chartered by this body and the other body and the President to address National Guard issues. We are going to be doing that. We are going to be getting their recommendations shortly, and those recommendations may be manifested in a bill to follow this one.

But this year, taking care of our troops and protecting our troops has been a real priority, and we have included additional money, in excess of $100 million, for jamming devices to handle roadside bombs. We have included additional money for greater armor in our platforms, better armor with our new technology in the body armor units that are issued so our Army and Marine Corps personnel, in fact all personnel who are stationed in this theater, and we are spending a lot of resources protecting our forces, protecting the troops.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, we look over the horizon and we look at potential trouble spots around the world, security challenges over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years, and we do a few other things, and our very able chairmen of the subcommittees are going to describe a lot of the things that we do with respect to equipment and personnel in detail. But we keep a little more insurance, perhaps, than the administration has in a couple of areas.

One is stealth attack aircraft. We used just a few percentage of these great F-117 stealth aircraft in the first gulf war, and yet they knocked out over 20 percent of the targets. This combination of stealth and precision munitions has been a very critical and important factor in the American security apparatus. We don't allow the Air Force to move so quickly to retire those stealth aircraft until we get others online.

We also retain a greater part of our bomber force. That has been the backbone of our deep strike for many, many years. We don't have a new bomber program right now and we don't want to let quite as many of those birds go before we are well embarked on this new bomber program.

As you move across the modernization spectrum, Mr. Chairman, our members have done an extraordinary job in putting together packages for our special operators, for our line troops, for our Guard and Reserve. We have also done some great things for people, for families.

We have extended TRICARE. We have completed this movement of coverage of TRICARE to our National Guard personnel. We have made prescription drugs more affordable. We have put an emphasis and an incentive on getting your medicine through the mail, because that is a much lower burden for the taxpayers of the United States and very convenient now for those recipients.

Mr. Chairman, we have great subcommittee chairmen and great ranking members. We are going to be recognizing them to tell us about this bill. I want to give my thanks to them and my special partner and friend, Ike Skelton, who has put in countless hours leading on issues and developing issues and working to ensure that the people that wear the uniform of the United States have the very finest conditions and the very finest treatment for themselves and their family, and that America's defense remains the envy of the world.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, with many thanks to all the committee, and all the staff, who helped to put this bill together.

Mr. Chairman, we are at a crossroads on a lot of our defense weapons systems. There is no one more capable or better trained to lead in these very important decisions than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, Joel Hefley, who has done remarkable work in this Readiness Subcommittee, which controls such a big portion of the defense bill. The gentleman is a great friend to everyone who wears a uniform and is probably the best rodeo cowboy who has ever served in this House.

Mr. Chairman, the heart of this bill is the 2.5 million Americans that wear the uniform of the United States, and the subcommittee that oversees personnel issues and sets the pay raises and does personnel policy is headed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). This is an enormous job, and he has done a great job. I yield the gentleman 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee is extremely important to our country, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett) does a wonderful job of overseeing this very important dimension of national security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who heads the Projection Forces Subcommittee, which oversees the construction of the platforms and our ships and our bomber forces and our airlift that projects American power around the world.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the desert country of Iraq to the jungles of many hemispheres, Special Operations and Special Forces personnel in the U.S. military are cognizant of an individual in this House who works for them night and day, and that is Jim Saxton, who is the chairman of the Terrorism and Special Operations Subcommittee, and I want to recognize the gentleman for 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I might add the gentleman who just spoke, the gentleman from Texas, has been to the warfighting theaters more than any other Member of either body in this Congress and we appreciate his great efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who took the place of the great Floyd Spence, former chairman of this committee, and nobody has devoted more in terms of their personal effort toward national security or, in Mr. Wilson's case, more of their family members. The Wilson family wears the uniform of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), who brought his experience as an officer of the 82nd Airborne to the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke. I share his focus on IEDs, and we will work together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who represents so many great people in uniform in North Carolina and has spent so much time working for their quality of life and for their effectiveness on the battlefield, and also for all of the people who work in the defense industry so we can make sure when the American taxpayer pays for defense items, since we defend the free world, that those items are made by Americans and represent American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Armed Services Committee, who is

still very devoted to national security and exercises that role as a member of the Rules Committee.

I would say to my good colleague, I have just one additional thing that I would like to mention about a provision in the bill. But outside of that, we are ready to wrap up the general debate. So I have got just maybe a minute or two.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to my colleagues that this, the story of this global war against terror with the special focus in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a story of families. It is a story of enormous sacrifice, not just by the people that wear the uniform in the theater, but by their families back home, their moms, their dads, their wives, their husbands, their children.

And there is a particular family, the Holley family from San Diego, California, that brought an issue to the attention of the Armed Services Committee here over this last year when their great 101st Airborne Trooper, Matthew Holley, was killed in the Iraq theater. And they pointed out that in the present chain of transportation of our fallen heroes home, where they come through Dover, Delaware, and ultimately go to their final resting place at their particular hometown or community in America, that part of that chain of transportation has been carried out by commercial airlines. And despite the best wishes and the best efforts on the part of those people who operate the commercial airlines, the proper amount of respect, the extreme respect that should be afforded those fallen heroes is in some cases, has in some cases been lacking.

And that came to the attention of the Holley family. And they talked to me and to other members of the committee, and we looked at the issue and as a result of that, we have, in the law, in this bill or in the proposed law, some very clear and strong directives to the administration to utilize military aircraft in taking our fallen heroes from Dover, Delaware, from where they land on American shores, to the military base that is closest to their hometown, unless otherwise directed by the family, and to use those military aircraft and to accompany those fallen heroes with American military personnel, and to greet that military aircraft when it arrives at that military base closest to their hometown with an honor guard.

And so we have laid out very directive language, very clear language for the administration. And I want to thank John and Stacy, who really brought this to our attention in honor of their son, Matthew Holley. And I think that we have talked to the other body and I think that this will have clear support all the way through.

But this is an important part of this bill because part of this bill is about respect. And this particular provision is about respect for those people who have given that last full measure of devotion to our country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment that has been worked out with both sides. And briefly, Mr. Chairman, this adds a section to add $4 million for the call of the fire trainer/joint fires and effects trainer with an offset of $4 million from the Joint Tactical Radio System.

It adds a section to add $6 million to the Air Force Science Engineering Lab Data Integration with an offset of $6 million from IT,

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1062, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 5122) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me start out by saying this is a tough job for a lot of our members of the committee and the subcommittees that make up the Armed Services Committee. It involves a lot of travel to the warfighting theaters. Almost every member on our committee has gone multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan. It involves a lot of time away from families and a lot of tough work in committees. It involves a lot of analyses to try to figure out how to manage the logistical problems of all of the problems that attend the war fight in two theaters, Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war against terror around the world, and at the same time look over that horizon and try to exercise some vision as to what the next conflict may be and what we have to do to prepare for the future.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I could have no better partner in that endeavor than the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Skelton is a tremendous, tremendous guy. And he has got kind of a corporate memory in terms of military history. He has got a recommended reading list for all of us. He analyzes the present situation through the prism of history. We all appreciate that. And today we actually dressed in uniform. That is amazing. And without design, I might say. We simply came in with the same outfits because this is

the military and you have got to be in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, this is an immense bill, $532-plus billion. We did something very unusual in this bill and I think unprecedented, and that is that we added to the bill that includes lots of money for force protection, for body armor, for up-armored Humvees, for surveillance capability to fight the IED war in Afghanistan and Iraq, lots of things to support the troops, and, of course, all of the quality-of-life issues for the troops.

This pay raise this year means that over the last 80 years, we will have increased pay by a little more than 40 percent for our men and women in uniform. The base readiness of our forces and military construction and all the things that combine to make America's defense apparatus the strongest in the world, we did all of that, but this year we did something extra. We asked the Army and the Marine Corps to come in and testify to our committee, largely in classified session, as to what shortages they had that they needed to be funded so that they could take the tanks, the trucks, the fixed-wing aircraft, and the helicopters and all the other platforms and pieces of equipment for the Marines and the Army and reset them, that is, repair them as they come off the battlefield so that they can be ready to go again.

A massive analysis. And they came forth and they gave us that analysis. And when we got finished, we funded, we authorized on top of the defense budget $20-plus billion to make up the total reset cost, every dime, that was submitted to us by the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army. And the appropriations committees, God bless them, did the same thing and followed the authorizing committees on that. And that is a tribute, I think, to all of our Members, all of our colleagues who worked on and voted on that very important piece of funding.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. I want to mention that we have wonderful members on both sides of the aisle that make up this committee.

And Joel Hefley is leaving after many, many years, a great personal friend and a guy who is kind of architect of privatization of housing so that American military families, many of whom were living in homes that were built 40, 50, 60, and 70 years ago and were under some sort of disrepair, now live in new homes that afford a great quality of life. And many of the developments now that they have come in and built on military bases have community centers. I have been in a number of them, where families can come in and enjoy swimming pools and recreation and moms can come in and work out and have their toddlers in a little room right off the exercise room and keep watch on their kids while they are having a little relaxation and a little rest and where families can get together for social activities.

This new military construction that is springing up all over the United States at our bases is largely a function of Mr. Hefley's foresight and vision, and he is leaving us after those many years. I have often said Joel Hefley was the best cowboy in Congress. He used to rodeo with the great Casey Tibbs and a number of other rodeo greats. He is a wonderful guy whose word was his bond and still is, and we wish him the very best.

And along with him now leaving us and running for Governor in Nevada is Mr. Jim Gibbons. Jim Gibbons also brought a great deal of background and expertise to our committee. As a fighter pilot who worked the Desert Storm I operation and who understands tactical aircraft as well or better than any member of the Armed Services Committee or the full House, Jim Gibbons brought a special insight to our committee. He also brought a great love for the National Guard and has been a great and powerful advocate for them. I know he is going to continue to do that in his new role. But Jim Gibbons, like Joel Hefley, is one of those quality guys that you just enjoy working with and you know when he comes to the job every day, he cares about the service, he cares about the people that wear the uniform.

There is a real joy in working on this committee, Mr. Speaker, and those gentlemen are people that every one in this House likes to work with and understands the value added that they bring every time they walk into this Chamber or into the committee room. So our many, many thanks to them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to my great colleague, who had a great taste in coats today because we came with exactly the same outfits here. Mr. Skelton, the fine gentleman from Missouri, has done a wonderful job working on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 8 minutes to the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Mr. Hefley, the gentleman who is departing after 18 years of great service on this committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. Hefley, I appreciate that. Let me just say the fact that we were able to bring this bill to the floor and do as much work as we did on it, as big as it is and as comprehensive as it is and with so many people dependent on it and at the same time do the bill that will allow us to prosecute terrorists, do all that, that was largely a product of this tremendous staff, this wonderful bipartisan staff that we have on the Armed Services Committee.

They have done a fabulous job, and that is why we are able to juggle these two important challenges at the same time. They are great, great people, and what professionals, and also people who can work very effectively when they have been up for 24 hours. That has always astounded me, frankly, but they have done a great job, and I think they deserve a lot of thanks from this committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

You know, we went into this thing. I thank her for all of the great work that she did and lots of other Members who really worked this hard. I know Mr. Davis brought some important elements to this package.

We wanted to have a package that would make the sergeant majors who saw their kids going out and paying massive loan fees trying to pay off their loan, they could not pay it off, having the loan rolled over, and then seeing higher and higher fees stacked on top of that. In fact, I think it was Mr. Davis' provision that barred the roll-overs.

We want to see those sergeant majors see a bill come out of our committee and out of conference that, as I said, would make them throw their hats in the air and shout: Hooray, Congress has done what it took for our kids.

And we kept them apprised, as we moved this conference report along, as the gentlewoman knows in working on the team, to protect our people. And when we showed them the product, they threw their hats in the air, and they yelled hooray, and they felt like it was a good product.

You know, the other thing we have got to do is we have got to get these credit unions that are in the base, the guys in the institutions we allow to be inside the perimeter of that base, to reach out and establish short-term loans for our servicemembers so servicemembers go there instead of feeling they have got to go a to a loan shark to get that loan.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and her great work on this.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I just want to thank the champion of Groton for his hard work and all the work that he and Mr. Langevin, and as you said, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Bartlett, have done. I want to thank all of them for their great work and also to the gentleman for his hard work on payday lender and trying to make sure that our troops have a good situation now and will not be the victims of loan sharks and what to do on that.

You have brought a real insight to undersea warfare that has been important to us and especially in a Taiwan scenario or another type of scenario in the future which could be very, very critical to American sea power.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield back some of that time to the distinguished proponent of this amendment. I thank her for her leadership, and the leadership of Ms. Harman and Ms. Sanchez.

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that this is a question certainly of the flag and the Declaration of Independence and the rights of all Americans. But what it says is that the men and women of the United States military have equality, the equal rights to good health care and health procedures all over the world, wherever they serve.

This is a good amendment. I associate myself with this amendment, and

I ask that you vote for the men and women of the United States military and allow this amendment by Mrs. Davis, Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, to support the women of the United States military to have equal access to good health care and to be able to secure appropriate procedures regarding their female surgical needs at overseer military facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of a committee that really protects the lives of our soldiers on the front line and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I hope today that my colleagues will join me in a bipartisan effort to give a gift to our soldiers' families. I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad as well as the debate and consideration of which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engage to do this good job on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces.

For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who choose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve.

Unlike members of the National Guard or Reserve, Individual Reserves do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind support. Might I just say that in joining in a bipartisan manner, I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a Reservist and a National Guard member needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military and our country.

The inclusion of this passage and this language in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a Nation of morals and honorable decision makers. The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a Reservist back to duty.

The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards. Therefore, the frequency of assignment is also an important question, and the fact that we are clarifying it today and instilling and including that in the bill is going to give Reservists and National Guard families a great deal of celebration.

Let me tell you a very pointed story. One constituent from Houston who was born in Texas, has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned, not because he did not love his country, not because he did not enjoy serving, but he wanted to try and understand the fact that he was redeployed three times in a 4-year period, a man who has a family, had a job, and of course we know it was mentally and emotionally draining and of course heart-breaking to leave his family.

Therefore, this amendment will help the many Reservists and families and the National Guard families all over America. Serving your country is noble, honorable and generates pride in one's self and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble. That is the constituency we serve today. Yet it can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military, if we do not take into consideration the frequency of their service.

I thank my colleagues, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the military families all over America, Re- reservists and National Guard who will benefit from understanding their plight and their situation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to offer an amendment to the National Defense Reauthorization Act that clarifies the factors that must be taken into consideration when recalling a reservist to service to include the frequency of assignment over the duration of a reservist's career.

I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad, as well as the debate and consideration in which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engaged.

For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve.

Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who chose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve. Unlike members of the National Guard and Reserve, individual reservists do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up.

Forty percent of American troops in Iraq are from National Guard and Reserve units. For many, the financial sacrifices are great. Many lose the salaries they were earning in the private sector, and their families are struggling to pay bills. 57 percent of National Guard members and reservists have cited too many activations and/or deployments as a reason to leave the military, and 66 percent of Guard members and reservists express that they are likely to continue in the Guard or Reserve.

In the case where it is necessary for these reserves to be recalled to duty without their consent, the bill currently provides for appropriate consideration to be given to the length and nature of previous service, family responsibilities, and employment necessary to maintain the national health, safety, or interest.

I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a reservist needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military. The inclusion of this passage in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a nation of moral and honorable decision- makers.

The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a reservist back to duty. The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards.

Related to this, however, is the fact that the frequency of assignment must also be taken into consideration. As we have seen, our reservists are brave citizens and soldiers who have willingly traveled to the other side of the world to defend their homeland. If these were career military we were talking about, I do not think that frequency should necessarily be considered.

However, we must take the occurrence, and not just the length of time, of previous service into account when recalling reservists. One tour of four years is substantially different than four tours of one year. I am not making a qualitative or quantitative judgment, or that one reservist should be preferred over another.

One constituent from Houston, who was born in Texas and has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned that the 4 years he served over a 6 year time span would not be recognized by the military as he thought it should be. His three separate deployments were mentally and emotionally heartbreaking, and I heard his point clearly: His situation should be considered as dissimilar to an individual who had been deployed once and served 4 non-interrupted years.

The number of times an individual has been deployed must be included when recalling a reservist to duty, just as are family responsibilities, previous length and nature of service, and employment consequences.

Serving your country is noble, honorable, and generates pride in oneself and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble, yet can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

This is a bipartisan amendment that is supported by Members on both sides. In order to give our Reservist families a moment of celebration, I would like the yeas and nays so that they can see the vote on the floor in support of Reservists and National Guard families.