Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany 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 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. 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. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to thank my friend from California for being such a gentleman and for his courtesy not just this year but through the years. We appreciate it very, very much and also his very thoughtful words a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, we thank Duncan Hunter very much.

Leaving us is Lane Evans, a gentleman who was a marine and served here and is on the top row of our committee, ranking member for so long for the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and we say a fond farewell to him and thank him for his excellent service to the Nation.

Joel Hefley, who, as the chairman has spoken so well of, has been such a good friend to all through the years. Jim Gibbons, who is going into other political pursuits, we certainly wish him well. Dr. Schwarz, Cynthia McKinney also will not be coming back. We wish them Godspeed in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the National Defense Authorization Act. It is, as you may know, named in honor of Senator John Warner, who is for the last time, under the rules of the Senate, chairing the Armed Services Committee. We thank him for his accomplishments with the Armed Services Committee as chairman. He is responsible in large measure for many of the compromises that were allowed under this bill.

This is a good bill. It is good for America. It is good for the troops. It deserves our support. This wartime bill authorizes a total of $462.9 billion and, as was mentioned by the chairman a few moments ago, $70 billion authorization for a bridge fund supplemental, of which $20 billion is for the reset of the equipment lost or damaged in operations overseas.

As many have heard me speak, I am terribly concerned about the readiness of our ground forces, our Army, our Marines; and this bill provides the critically needed downpayment to begin to set things right.

Under the testimony of General Schoomaker, it is not only for the Army, some $17 billion needed this year, but 12 billion reset dollars for over the next several years apiece. And we know the Army and Marine Corps equipment is wearing out, and we do know that some units are coming back to little or no equipment whatsoever. That has a serious readiness challenge, particularly in the Army and the Marines. Our ground forces must be, in the days and years ahead, prepared to deal with sustained deployment not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but who knows what the future will hold.

I have been blessed, Mr. Speaker, to represent the Fourth District of Missouri. This is my 30th year here in Congress. And during that 30 years, there have been 12 engagements in which American forces have been either deployed or used, some minor, some major. And if the future is anything like the past, we will have times when our forces will need to be prepared to be called on, to be used, if nothing else, to deter aggression or adventurism in the years ahead by other countries. And it is a serious matter to make sure that the reset comes to pass and that the readiness is corrected.

Of course, the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demand our immediate attention, but we cannot afford to lose sight of other security challenges that loom across the road.

We are getting seven new ships for the Navy and recommend some $400 million for advanced procurement of a second VA-class submarine. We have a multiyear procurement contract for the F-22, and other aircraft is on the books for us to authorize and build.

I am most pleased about what the bill does for our magnificent men and women in the Armed Forces and their families. The end strength for the Army and Marines has increased by 30,000 and 5,000, for the Army and Marines respectively. In addition, this year we are able to enact an initiative

first proposed by the gentleman from Mississippi, Gene Taylor. This conference report expands the TRICARE Reserve Select to members of the Selected Reserves and terminates the current three-tier eligibility program. I am also particularly glad to note that there is a 1-year moratorium on increases on TRICARE and pharmacy fees. I had offered a similar amendment in committee, and I am pleased that that was included in the final product.

I am proud to say that we are able to provide our servicemembers with a well-deserved 2.2 percent pay raise and a targeted pay raise for those mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and warrant officers who truly are the backbone of our military.

These are just a few examples of why this is a critical bill at this critical time.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about Iraq. Much has been said about the fight against terrorism, which has the genesis in Afghanistan. But the bright spot in all of this is the young man and young woman who wear the American uniform. There is no way for us to say as eloquently as we should thank you for your service. And a special note of gratitude for the families of the young men and young women in uniform, to be called on for a year, one, two, three, and in some cases I know some SEALs that have been deployed four times for 7 months at a time. And there is no way really to say thank you well enough to the families that endure this: the spouses; the children; and in some cases, yes, the grandchildren, for which the chairman and I share a mutual interest.

So let this bill be a tribute to their service, a thank you for their service, and a warm note of appreciation to the spouses and children of those magnificent warriors wearing the American uniform.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I really want to say a special personal thanks to you for the tremendous work you have done on our committee and in working with me in particular for helping Whiteman Air Force Base, Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri, be what it is. I would be remiss if I did not just say a special note of gratitude to you, Joel Hefley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the ranking member on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from El Paso, Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is also the ranking member of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the hardworking gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a member of the Projection and Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry as to the time remaining for each side, please?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members have the right to revise and extend their remarks this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is the ranking member of the Projection Subcommittee, a true friend of those who wear the uniform of our country.

Mr. Speaker, good things happen and we Members, of course, often take the credit, but truthfully the staff does so much work. We would be at a loss without them, so a special thanks to all of our staff.

And it is special to note that Betty Gray of the Armed Services staff is now completing 30 years of service on our Armed Services staff. So a special thanks to her for her dedication.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Island, New York (Mr. Israel), who belongs to the Tactical Air and Projection Subcommittee and who has taken a great interest in professional military education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Mr. Speaker, the great Roman orator, Cicero, once said that the greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and I am filled with gratitude at this moment, Mr. Speaker, for our chairman Duncan Hunter, for the members of this committee, the ranking members, subcommittee chairmen, every member, as well as our hardworking and dedicated staff.

I think it is also a moment like this when we are getting ready to pass a defense bill which fulfills the first duty of Members of Congress and of our government to protect the citizens of our country.

A special note of gratitude and appreciation should go to those who wear the uniform of our country, to those who have worn the uniform of our country, to those who have sacrificed, and especially to those tremendously supportive families of those who serve in our various services.

With that, a great moment of reflection and gratitude, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1062 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and attach tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a special rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. Today, we are at a critical juncture. The conference report for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act is before us. This legislative companion to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill authorizes and provides critical legislative language for full implementation of our defense policies.

Let us be clear: This is an excellent piece of legislation, a good bipartisan package that represents the best work of the House Armed Services Committee. Recognizing that, I would like to personally thank both the gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, for delivering a package that I am sure almost all of us can support.

Mr. Speaker, having served on the House Armed Services Committee and currently being a member on leave of absence from that committee, I know how closely the members of that committee work together to achieve a bill that is bipartisan, that is good for our servicemen and women and that is good for increasing the security of our country.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Armed Services Committee produced a bill that contains several major legislative initiatives and funding impacts. Among them are an additional $70 billion in supplemental bridge funding to support the war on terror's operations costs; personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment; additional funding for force protection needs in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including up-armored Humvees, Humvee IED protection kits and gunner protection kits, IED jammers and state-of- the-art body armor; a 2.2 percent pay raise for all members of our Armed Forces; and an increase of 30,000 personnel for the Army and 5,000 personnel for the Marine Corps to help them sustain their required missions.

The bill blocks the Department of Defense proposed TRICARE Prime, Standard, and Select Reserve fee increases. The bill authorizes grants and loan guarantees to U.S. shipyards to approve their efficiency, cost effectiveness, and international competitiveness. The bill fully funds the immediate Army and Marine Corps shortfalls for replenishing supplies and replacing equipment in the amount of $17.1 billion for the Army and $5.7 billion for the Marines.

Mr. Speaker, more importantly this legislation directly supports our servicemen and -women in the field and on deployment. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are dependent on us passing this legislation that contains so many changes in legislative language.

Mr. Speaker, a bumper sticker we often read says: ``I support our troops.'' Today we have that opportunity and responsibility. We could support our troops and improve the security of our Nation in a way that other Americans cannot. We can offer our vote in support of this legislation as 60 of 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee did when they initially passed the bill.

This is not a controversial proposition. This is something we should be proud to do, regardless of our perspectives and different positions on the war in Iraq. All of us are proud of our troops. All of us are committed to them and commend them for their courage and their professionalism, and all of us will do everything we can to increase their safety and effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not also note that the Afghan and the Iraqi people also deserve to be commended for their efforts in our common struggle. During this war, the citizens of both these countries have held elections, written constitutions, and formed permanent governments. Afghan and Iraqi citizens are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build new and better countries. The passage of this rule and underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and Congress will keep its commitments. Afghanistan and Iraq are striving to create a future of hope and promise. We can play an important role in helping them do that here today.

Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to providing for the needs of our men and women in uniform. And I welcome that exchange, if indeed it occurs.

Mr. Speaker, I believe we should focus on what should count. We have committed hundreds of thousands of our service men and -women to fight terrorism and advance the cause of

freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them our full support in the battles they wage on behalf of the American people and the cause of liberty. This rule and the underlying bill represent the efforts of Congress to keep that solemn commitment to the sons and daughters of America. Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who does so much to make sure that we operate in an orderly and expeditious fashion in this Congress.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may care to consume to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter, from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Today, in closing, I want to reiterate the importance of passing this rule. This rule allows us to move forward and pass necessary legislation and do the business of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly again want to thank the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and also the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). They have worked together on this legislation and presented us with a truly model bill and one I think they adjusted during the legislative process to meet the needs of American men and women who are serving under very difficult circumstances to protect this country.

I particularly appreciate the fact that they made sure that these deserving individuals got a pay raise, that they made sure that the people who defended the country in the past were not subjected to unnecessary fee increases in the Tricare system, and they worked hard to shift funds towards force protection and the protection of individual American soldiers. And, at the same time, they addressed the very, very serious and critical needs of the Army and Marine Corps in terms of additional personnel and additional equipment.

I think the chairman and the ranking member can be exceptionally proud of their efforts, and I think all of us can appreciate the bipartisan spirit that the members of the House Armed Services Committee acted in, and I am sure when we vote later today we will have a strong vote in support of the legislation.

Obviously, it comes as no surprise that I intend to vote for the rule and the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this year's National Defense Authorization Act. It includes many provisions that are vital to giving our military the tools it needs to defend the nation, although it also leaves much work undone that will have to be addressed in the future.

The bill addresses one issue in particular that merits attention. Despite the Pentagon's repeated denials of a military readiness crisis, this bill authorizes an additional $23 billion in funding as a downpayment on the damage to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from repeated and sustained deployments to Iraq, and the Bush Administration's decision to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through a parade of emergency supplemental appropriations. The wars themselves are wearing down our equipment at a tremendous rate. Further damage is done by supplemental appropriations because the military services are denied the funding they need in a timely and predictable fashion. These two factors are doing serious and longterm damage to the nation's military readiness, and the Congress must address them.

During Armed Services Committee deliberations on this bill in March 2006, I offered an amendment to add $42 billion for this reason. Sadly, that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. I offered the amendment because we had a growing readiness problem and because I thought putting as much of the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as possible into the base budget was the most honest and effective way to proceed. My approach ended up in the final version of this bill. The $23 billion in this year's bill is a good start, but this funding will have to be sustained in many subsequent bills to address the readiness crisis we continue to face.

I am also pleased that this bill includes many important legislative provisions that directly improve the lives of the people of my district and my state. First, it takes the first step toward dealing with the chemical munitions dumped off the coast of Hawaii in the 1940s. These weapons could still pose a serious health and environmental risk, and Section 314 of this bill requires a comprehensive research effort by the military to identify, analyze, and assess the potential threat these sites may pose.

Section 2843 of this bill addresses a major land transfer issue in Hawaii regarding the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station. Affordable housing for the people of Hawaii and a new public transit system are critical local issues. This language requires the Navy to turn over an important parcel of land that will allow both new housing and transit development. Balancing the needs of the military and the local population in Hawaii is a challenge, but in this case, I think an arrangement was reached that helps both sides accomplish their goals. I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Chairman Hefley for working with me on this language.

Lastly, Section 343 of the bill requires an analysis by the Army of its future live-fire training infrastructure needs in Hawaii. The Army's presence in Hawaii is undergoing tremendous change. A new Stryker Brigade is due to be activated this coming year, and thousands more troops will be coming to Hawaii as part of the larger changes in the military's Pacific region basing posture. Supporting these growing needs while accommodating the cultural, environmental and quality of life concerns of the people of Hawaii is essential. This report will help Congress understand where the Army wants to go in Hawaii with its training infrastructure, and how to get there. In particular, it will address the sensitive issue of the Army's long-term future in the Makua Valley, an area of Hawaii owned by the people of Hawaii and on temporary loan to the military. Eventually, this land must be returned, so the report requires the Army to look beyond its current use of the Makua Valley toward the eventual return of this historic and environmentally sensitive treasure to the people of Hawaii.

There are critical quality of life issues that were not resolved. Specifically, it does not do enough to help military families who need the Survivor Benefit Program and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation offset repealed. For me, this is a basic issue of fairness that must be addressed at some point in the future. The bill does not do enough to protect TRICARE health insurance patients from skyrocketing prescription drug prices. The Department of Defense asked for legislative authority to negotiate lower prices with major drug companies. The majority was unwilling to let this provision into the final bill. Finally, the bill before us only provides a 2.2 percent pay raise for the military in 2007. This is meager thanks for our men and women in uniform in a time of war; for those who are experiencing sustained and repeated deployments and absences from their families.

As well, this raise is simply too small to help our military families keep up with rising cost of living expenses at many bases around the nation, and especially in Hawaii. We have asked a lot from these men and women. We owe them more in return.

I want to now turn to the portion of the bill that falls under the jurisdiction of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, on which I am proud to serve as the ranking minority member. This year, the subcommittee had a daunting task: to reconcile a budget submission that was simply unrealistic in some respects when compared to the needs of the military both today and in the future.

Our military is clearly being pulled in many directions at once. Today our forces are fighting unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the demands of which, in terms of equipment, are very different from possible future conventional conflicts. The U.S. military has to be able to fight and win both types of wars, but there is clearly not enough funding for doing everything the services want to do.

This bill authorizes critical short-term needs such as modernization of Army equipment in combat today and increased production of aircraft like the C-17 that are absolutely vital to current military operations. The bill also looks to the future in continuing successful aviation and ground systems. Finally, it takes funding from a few programs that are off-track or not working and moves that funding to more pressing needs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

It also demands additional analysis and testing of systems in development that the subcommittee has concerns about. These provisions may discomfort some people at the Pentagon, but it is Congress' duty to oversee these programs and ensure that the troops get what they need.

Overall, this year I think the subcommittee did an excellent job. I especially want to commend Chairman Weldon on his leadership of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. His willingness to work in an open and nonpartisan manner greatly facilitates the subcommittee's work and produces a better product for our troops and the civilians who serve the nation at the Department of Defense.

Finally, another member of this committee deserves special recognition. I worked for many years with Joel Hefley on the Armed Services Committee. He is a both a valued colleague and a close friend. Among his many accomplishments during his distinguished career on this committee, he helped shepherd through one of the most important changes in

military housing construction in decades. His vision for leveraging private investment dollars into a massive new program to rebuild and rehabilitate military family housing is now a reality. In my state alone almost ten thousand military homes will be upgraded in the next few years. This housing is a vital part of keeping an all-volunteer military ready, and Joel Hefley was a leader in this revolutionary program. I was and am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to partner with him in accomplishing passage and implementation of this key legislation enhancing the quality of life of our fighting men and women.