To extend the authorization for the Coastal Heritage Trail in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The provisions of this bill are critical to our national security and to improving the readiness for our fighting men and women who serve our country so ably. I commend Chairman Ike Skelton, Ranking Member Duncan Hunter, and my colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services for their leadership and work on writing this important legislation. The work of the committee ensures that this Congress will make a meaningful and positive impact on our Armed Forces.

Many members of the United States armed services, including scores of servicemembers from Guam, are at duty stations in the United States, at sea, or are deployed to combat zones and elsewhere around the world today. I have had the unique opportunity, since I was elected to Congress in 2002 and sworn into office in 2003, to travel to many of the combat zones and visit with our servicemembers there. I remain impressed by the professionalism of the members of the United States armed services. I am inspired by their continued, steadfast commitment to their achieving their missions. And I am heartened by their daily, unquestioned acts of bravery performed in defense of the American way of life, despite the hostile intentions and aggressive actions of persistent and deadly enemies.

The responsibilities and obligations of members of the United States armed services are significant and honorable, but not without great risk. The tenth soldier from Guam to be killed in action during operations support of the war on terror will soon be laid to rest by his family, friends, and a grateful country. I, like all of my colleagues, am deeply saddened when we learn that the life of one of our country's finest young men and women has been ended as a result of their service to our country. Such a loss is grave to the United States and to the United States armed services. But there is no doubt their passing is a more grievous loss to their family, friends, and communities who knew and loved them as individuals. All of us should try to find comfort in the thought that our service men and women serve so that others might someday know the joys of liberty and justice. And for that, we should all be proud and thankful.

We have the opportunity today to act and renew our commitment to our servicemembers. Supporting this legislation will help provide for our military heroes and their families. There are few who deserve our support and gratitude more than these individuals and their spouses and children. At home and abroad, they serve and represent our country and government in a manner that is both honorable and admirable.

This legislation in particular addresses many critical issues that face Guam, our community and the existing and planned military facilities for our island. Included in this bill are authorizations for a total of over $300 million of military construction projects on Guam for fiscal year 2008. This amount represents a significant increase above the amount of military construction funding that was authorized and appropriated for Guam for fiscal year 2007. I welcome this significant increase in investment in Guam. These increases improve the facilities and capabilities of the military bases on Guam. But they also help Guam's business community to begin to build the capacity that it will need in order to successfully compete for, and complete the scopes of work of, the tremendous amount of military construction planned to support the rebasing of United States Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam.

The bill before us today includes approvals for full funding of several key infrastructure projects at Naval Base Guam. Among them is an authorization for $59.4 million to improve the base's electrical system security; for $57.2 million for Naval family housing; for $51.8 million to expand wharf capacity at Kilo Wharf in Apra Harbor; for $42.5 million for a new fitness center on base; for $40.8 million to repair and upgrade the base's wastewater treatment plant; and for $31.4 million to build Phase I of a potable water distribution system on base. This legislation would also provide authorizations to fund needed projects at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. The authorizations are for $15.8 million for two projects at Northwest Field to support the 607th Training Flight ``Commando Warrior'' unit that will soon relocate from Osan Air Base, Korea, to Guam.

In addition to military construction projects, H.R. 1585 addresses quality of life issues for military retirees and military dependents on Guam. The Department of Defense has been unresponsive to the needs of retirees on Guam who are reliant on the TRICARE system. Military retirees who live on Guam who are referred off island for specialty care are forced to travel to those locations at their own expense. These trips to access referred specialty care in Hawaii or California cost in the

thousands of dollars. The Department of Defense used to cover this significant expense. But in 2005 it suddenly changed its policy and practice and discontinued reimbursements to retirees for the travel expenses they incur as a result of such referrals. I raised this matter repeatedly during committee hearings since 2005. I have written to Department officials regarding this issue, and discussed it with them during meetings. The committee included report language on this matter in the report that accompanied H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. Unfortunately, the Department has taken no action to provide relief to Guam's retirees.

I understand that this is a challenging issue. But Guam's retirees deserve to be treated better and deserve resolution brought to this matter. This is why I requested that H.R. 1585 include a provision that would authorize retirees requiring specialty care at off-island medical facilities to receive space-available category 4 level seating priority. Additionally, I have requested that the Department of Defense be required to submit to the committee a report that would identify the administrative actions needed to be executed in order to provide relief to the affected TRICARE beneficiaries residing in the territories of the United States. I most sincerely hope that the Department takes a very close look at its current policies and provides the committee with a thoughtful, innovative, and actionable plan to resolve this matter. I remain committed to working with the Department toward this end.

The report accompanying H.R. 1585 includes language that directs the Department of Defense to conduct a study on the treatment of general and flag officers, and other servicemembers who are called out of retirement to serve their country. It has come to my attention that there are numerous instances where officers left active duty or reserve status only to return and were not allowed to retire at the highest grade attained. In an era where our Reserve components are operational forces, we can ill afford losing any servicemembers who have the institutional knowledge and expertise that is critical to maintaining a ready and operational force. Moreover, we must ensure that our Reserve component members are treated equitably and fairly. I am committed to ensuring that the affected servicemembers receive a fair and equitable solution to this issue and that they be able to retire with the benefits they have earned. I commit that I will work closely with the Department to ensure that we come to a fair solution to this matter.

Finally, I was honored to co-sponsor the National Guard Empowerment Act under the leadership of Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Hayes of North Carolina. I am pleased that a substantial portion this legislation has been incorporated into H.R. 1595. After comprehensive studies undertaken by various research institutions and by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve we finally have legislation that addresses the concerns brought forward in these studies. We will finally give the National Guard a seat at the table. As Lieutenant Governor, I know firsthand, how brave, valiant, and essential the National Guard is to the safety and security of our country. Elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four- star general allows the Bureau to overcome certain cultural dynamics within the Department of Defense. The provisions making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity and the requirement to have the Chief of the National Guard Bureau help identify Department of Defense civil support requirements are even more essential. If we are to give the National Guard a seat at the table, then we must ensure that the root problems are rectified. Nothing can be more important than ensuring that we have a ready force to respond to natural disasters and terrorist attacks. Where other departments and agencies have failed in previous years, I am confident that the National Guard will develop a solid lay down of requirements so that we, as a country, are truly ready to respond to emergencies. I also believe, consistent with my other initiatives, that the Department should give very serious consideration to allowing State Adjutants Generals joint credit for their service to the State. The National Guard is truly a joint force and the work of their general officers should be recognized as such.

I support this bill Mr. Chairman. There are quality provisions in it that will benefit the bases on Guam. The quality of life experienced by military personnel who are stationed there and their families who accompany them will be improved as a result of passage of this bill. The provisions of this bill moreover will help us better serve retirees who have served us so nobly in their careers. Indeed, this bill will make notable contributions to the security of the United States and to defending our country's interests around the world. But I want to take this opportunity to note my concern regarding a couple of matters contained in or related to the provisions of this bill.

The Committee has authorized the funding for the Kilo Wharf project at Naval Base Guam, but has directed a phased approach to executing this project. The administration opposes this approach. I share these concerns. I am particularly concerned that the funding for this project will receive further cuts as this bill proceeds through the legislative process. I encourage the Department of the Navy to redouble its efforts to ensure that this project can proceed according to plan and to engage with me in dialogue regarding potential barriers to success for it. The Kilo Wharf project is critical to increasing wharf capacity at Naval Base Guam. Guam offers the United States Armed Forces a strategic location to counter threats posed by the People's Republic of China, North Korea, and al Qaeda affiliated terrorist forces in Southeast Asia. Further funding reductions for the Kilo Wharf project will negatively impact the ability of our commander to re-fit and re-supply vessels operating in, and to respond to contingencies, in the region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.

I applaud Chairman Skelton for his leadership in guiding this bill to the floor today. He and Ranking Member Hunter have done a tremendous job, and they have been ably supported by the expert staff of our committee.

I'm grateful to Chairman Skelton for working with me to include things important for Colorado, including limits on how the Army can pursue possible expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado. I agree with Senator Salazar and others in the Colorado delegation that any expansion, if it takes place at all, must be conducted in a way that it is a win-win situation for the Army and for Colorado and that any expansion plan should not involve condemnation of private land. My proposal will shine a necessary caution light before the Army charges forward, and force the Army to do what it has so far failed to do--that is, to make a compelling case for why the proposed expansion is necessary to meet the training needs of our soldiers in the 21st century.

Other provisions I offered in the bill include--funding for a new squadron operations facility for the Colorado Air National Guard; promoting agreement between the Air Force and the city of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo airport; urging the Defense Department to use on-site disposal of chemical weapons stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot; asking the Army to track pilots who train at the High- Altitude Aviation Training School in Eagle, Colorado; and reporting on opportunities for leveraging Defense Department funds with States' funds to prevent disruption in the event of electric grid or pipeline failures and encouraging the Defense Department to leverage Energy Savings Performance Contracts with Energy Conservation Investment Program funds to provide additional opportunity for renewable energy projects; and naming a housing facility at Fort Carson in honor of our former colleague Joel Hefley.

I am also pleased that the committee adopted two of my amendments, including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it easier for the president to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this subject. My other amendment will continue the office of the Ombudsman that assists people claiming benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and expands its authority.

Mr. Chairman, this bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs. After 5 years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund, adding funds for National Guard equipment and training, and establishing a Defense Readiness Production Board to mobilize the industrial base to address equipment shortfalls.

It also provides important funds for the Base Realignment and Closure process, including $62 million to assist communities expected to absorb large numbers of personnel as a result of the BRAC decision. This funding is especially important to Colorado, given that Fort Carson in Colorado Springs will add 10,000 soldiers and will be home to 25,000 troops by 2009.

The bill provides substantial resources to improve protection of our troops, including additional funds for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, body armor, and up-armored Humvees for our troops in the field. The bill enlarges the Army and Marine Corps, consistent with the Tauscher-Udall Army expansion bill in the last Congress. And it will provide for a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for service members, boost funding for the Defense Health Program, and prohibit increasing TRICARE and pharmacy user fee increases.

The bill incorporates provisions from the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which recently passed the House and was driven by the revelations of mistreatment and mismanagement at Walter Reed Army Medical

Center. These provisions establish new requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight needed to ensure high-quality care and efficient administrative processing at Walter Reed and throughout the active duty military services. The bill also establishes a Military Mental Health Initiative to coordinate all mental health research and development within the Defense Department, and establishes a Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for funding.

Given the increased use of the National Guard and Reserves in recent years, the bill gives important new authorities to the National Guard to fulfill its expanded role, including authorizing a fourth star for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense, and creating a bipartisan Council of Governors to advise the President on how best to use the National Guard for civil support missions. The bill also requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to consider how to incorporate more National Guard and Reserve personnel into positions at Northern Command, based in Colorado.

I'm pleased that the bill fully supports the goals of the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs and the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction program, consistent with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The bill also slows development of a Reliable Replacement Warhead and the construction of a new plutonium production facility, and establishes a bipartisan commission to evaluate U.S. strategic posture for the future, including the role that nuclear weapons should play in our national security strategy.

I also want to mention funding for missile defense in the bill. The bill increases missile defense funding for systems that address current needs and vulnerabilities, while reducing funding for less mature and higher risk systems. The cuts in missile defense programs in the bill have been cause for concern among some on the other side of the aisle. But the bill funds 93 cents of every dollar of the President's missile defense request, so the cuts are far from extreme. It fully funds the budget request for the Patriot PAC-3 missile, the Ground Based Missile Defense System, and THAAD development and deployment, and adds funding for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. But it makes reductions to the Airborne Laser program and funding for the 3rd BMD Site which the Administration has proposed building in Eastern Europe.

Importantly, the bill provides for an independent study to examine the political, technical, operational, force structure, and budgetary aspects of the proposed European missile defense deployment; an independent study to examine the future roles and missions of the Missile Defense Agency; a two year extension of the requirement for GAO to annually assess the missile defense program; and assurance that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has access to all MDA operational test evaluation information.

In my view, the bill strikes the right balance with regard to missile defense. I did not support the amendment by Representative Franks to increase missile defense funds because I believe the Committee takes a better approach in its bill. Likewise, I did not support the amendment offered by Representative Tierney to decrease missile defense funds because I thought it went too far in the other direction. There are emerging and real, near-term threats facing the Nation, the warfighter, and our allies that we need to be able to counter, so I think it would be irresponsible to terminate the longer-term missile defense as Representative Tierney's amendment proposed to do.

Finally but no less importantly, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report on the implementation of the Joint Campaign Plan for Iraq, on national reconciliation efforts on the part of the Iraqi government, and on metrics to measure American efforts in Iraq, based on assessments by GEN David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. The bill also requires the Secretary to produce a report outlining the direction of U.S. activities in Afghanistan along with indicators of progress, and the bill establishes a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today does an excellent job of balancing the need to sustain our current warfighting abilities with the need to prepare for the next threat to our national security. It is critical that we are able to meet the operational demands of today even as we continue to prepare our men and women in uniform to be the best trained and equipped force in the world.

This is a good bill, a carefully drafted and bipartisan bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, the principal role of our Federal Government is to help keep America safe.

As such, we in Congress must make our national defense a top budget priority.

This means we must pledge our steadfast support to American troops serving both at home and abroad, and we must renew our unwavering commitment to homeland security, in recognition of the dangerous world in which we live.

H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act, makes a genuine effort to achieve each of these goals. That's why I will vote for it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

In 1945, at the end of World War II, the defense budget of the United States represented 34.5 percent of our Gross Domestic Product. By 1968, that number had shrunk to 9.8 percent. Today, the number is less than half of that: about 4.3 percent.

Certainly, the overall dollars spent on defense have increased as our economy has grown, but it is clear that our priorities have shifted. This bill, while not perfect, commits to funding our defense budget in a way that many of us would have thought impossible just a few months ago, given the nature of the debate at that time. Some would argue that the tenor of the debate on national defense has shifted from talk of cutting off funds for our troops in battle to this bipartisan bill.

Some of the bipartisan provisions contained in this defense funding blueprint include: Continued support for our troops in harm's way, serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere. $4.1 billion for state-of-the-art Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to help protect our soldiers from IEDs. Increased Army and Marine Corps active duty end strength, as well as a 3.5 percent pay raise for all members of the armed forces in 2008, and guaranteed pay raises in 2009, 2010, and 2011. $1 billion in new funding for National Guard equipment to benefit both our homeland security and national defense missions.

These are great and welcome achievements for our national defense-- achievements that each of us can be proud to support. But make no mistake: this bill is far from perfect. The measure contains some critical funding cuts that, in my opinion, will hurt our ability to protect our homeland and our national defense interests from missile attacks.

The Democratic bill guts funding for a ballistic missile defense system capable of intercepting missiles in each phase of flight. This type of program can help protect against growing threats in a changing world. Though I was pleased we Republicans were able to restore some of the funding for this important program through the amendment process, I am disappointed that cuts still exist. But in terms of helping achieve our most critical role--keeping America safe--this bill has, and deserves, bipartisan support.

Again, Mr. Chairman, though there are some aspects of this legislation that I clearly oppose, it is an important step in the direction of making national defense and homeland security a continued priority of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good Defense bill, and I want to compliment my great friend the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership in helping to put together this bill that passed the committee unanimously, came to the floor, and we can expect a big vote, I think, of support from the Members of this body. We are about to make this bill better.

In 1987 this committee, the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the leadership in Israel, and we told them that there were lots of things that they could defend against very effectively, that if tactical aircraft were sent into Israel in an attack they would shoot down all of them, and they have proven that, but that if ballistic missiles were launched for Tel Aviv, every single one of them would impact because they had no defenses. And we urged them to join with the United States in developing a system of missile defense. And upon our urging, they started what is known as the Arrow missile program. It has come a long way. It has been deployed.

And that prophetic letter that we sent them in 1987, of course, was followed by real missile attacks on Israel. They didn't quite have that system up at that time. We rushed PATRIOTs over. They now have the Arrow missile defense system up. But in the most recent attacks we have seen short-range missiles that also impacted in Israel.

This motion to recommit is $200 million that is dedicated to integrating our missile defense systems with those of Israel, using the great innovation of Americans along with their great innovative capabilities, to defend against this new era of terrorists with high technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who has been a leader in putting this motion to recommit together.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

And let me just remind all my colleagues that the day will come when missiles from other countries, adversarial countries, will not fall harmlessly into the Sea of Japan. They will not fall harmlessly into desert sands. We will have a time when we have to defend against incoming ballistic missiles in this country and across the borders of our allies, including Israel.

Do what is right for the United States, and what we do today in providing missile defense will protect the next generation of Americans. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield for just 5 seconds?

I thank my friend for yielding.

This amendment was offered by Mr. Cantor and was not ruled in order by the Rules Committee. So this was not without precedent.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this year's Defense Authorization presented us with a great opportunity to bring the focus of the American military back in line with American values. Unfortunately, that opportunity was missed. This bill does little to correct the President's misplaced priorities of missile defense, indefinite detainment of prisoners, pre-emptive war, and weapons for wars we are not fighting today.

Last year the House passed the Military Commissions Act which attempted to add legitimacy to the improper actions of the Bush administration to ignore habeas corpus rights for prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. By not adhering to the strictest standards when putting suspected terrorists on trial, we run the risk of punishing innocent people who could simply have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is now widely known that hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo Bay may in fact have had nothing to do with terrorism. Sadly this bill does nothing to change the status quo of wrongdoing.

It perplexes me that while we are fighting an urban war against improvised explosive devices, snipers, and suicide bombers in Baghdad, we continue to spend precious resources on weapons that are unproven or designed for an obsolete Cold War. We had an opportunity today to push the Department of Defense to review these weapons and report back to Congress on their viability and value, but unfortunately the amendment failed. I also voted for an amendment to ensure that the power to declare war solely resided with Congress, as our forefathers intended, and not with the Executive Branch. This amendment also failed. This administration has repeatedly shown that it will make bad judgment and has repeatedly crossed the line of its constitutional powers. I am deeply concerned that the House is unprepared to rein in the President's stance of pre-emptive war with Iran and it is my hope that we will not regret this decision in the future.

Finally, I planned to offer an amendment that would have simply required the Department of Defense to create a database of incidents involving unexploded ordnance. I am disappointed that it was not made in order, and that we were not able to deal with that critical issue today.

With so little progress made in this year's authorization, I am forced to vote against this bill. I will continue to work for the changes that the American people and our men and women in the military deserve.