Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act of 2008

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this amendment, and we lament the fact that our nuclear warheads are getting older, that we don't have a testing regime in place any longer and that that necessarily deteriorates the reliability factor. So the idea was let's build a reliable replacement warhead, and the fact that we haven't proceeded down that path is really a tragedy.

Now, I know the gentleman has $10 million in this amendment for this Reliable Replacement Warhead. He takes some money from the energy conservation program, which has many, many good aspects. I know that some Members are torn between these two important goals, one of developing energy

conservation on military bases, and the other developing this warhead.

I come down, Mr. Chairman, on the side of ensuring that this critical asset, which is a very, very important part of America's security apparatus, that is, a reliable strategic deterrent, I come down on that side. As a result of that, I support Mr. Pearce's amendment very strongly.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Mr. Boren who is a great member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing this amendment, and I think we recognize a real problem with section 526, which is really a section, and his amendment does take away some of the onus of section 526.

Section 526 really weds us to high-grade Middle Eastern oil. It says that if you come up with other types of fuel that are alternatives, but that might have a greenhouse gas footprint higher than this high-end Middle Eastern oil, and there are very few types of petroleum-based fuels which do that, you can't use it.

Mr. Boren has taken some of the onus off of that by saying that if it's not predominantly that type of oil, meaning you can use, for example, tar sands from Canada and other types, that section 526 does not apply.

Now, the problem is, I'm reading the last of the amendment, and one of the conditions is that the contracts under which this petroleum product would flow says the contract--and I'm quoting from the last of the amendment--the contract does not provide incentives for a refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source.

And I think we should be doing everything we can to expand refineries. I don't think we've built a refinery in decades, and we all sat in this Chamber and watched gas prices go through the roof here not too long ago when they had just a couple of refineries down for repair.

So I know Mr. Boren's heart's in the right place, and he's brought us at least halfway across the river here. I guess what I'd like to see is the double Boren amendment that takes us all the way and eliminates section 526.

I congratulate the gentleman. I know a lot of our Members are going to probably support this because it, in fact, does take us part way home. I wish we could go all the way, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

I reluctantly oppose it because I would like to see the full loaf here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield at this time 3 minutes to Mr. Upton, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a good discussion, and I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his contribution to the committee, and we would yield back at this time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You know, one aspect of this that I thought was troubling also was the fact that private contractors will have to disclose the amounts of money that their particular people make. That's going to go out, presumably, to others; competitors will see that. These aren't publicly held companies. I think that that's an intrusion we don't necessarily need to make.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment because of my great respect for the gentlewoman. But this Status of Forces Agreement is something that we've done now in over 80-some countries. And it's not a guarantee of security. It's not a guarantee of defense. It is not and should not be considered as a treaty. It is simply for the protection of American soldiers and American civilian personnel.

It sets out, for example, if you are sued, if you're charged with a criminal action, there has to be an agreement between the countries as to how people are treated, that is, how American personnel are treated, and under the agreement that Iraq has made with the United States.

Now, Secretary Gates has testified to us in the Armed Services Committee, and he has been asked about the SOFA, and he has said there are no security guarantees in this SOFA. We're going to have the same team that has done SOFAs, these Status of Forces Agreements, in many other countries, moving in to do the same Status of Forces Agreement that will go over the same types of things. And, again, this does not rise to the level of a treaty because this is not going to be an agreement with respect to security guarantees for Iraq. It will contain no security commitment, and it will not obligate force structure or troop strength or assure any other security guarantees.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is not a treaty. And I appreciate the gentlewoman's statements and her intent, and there may be at some point an agreement between Iraq and the United States that will be a treaty with respect to security commitments. This doesn't do it. What this does is protect American personnel. We need it and we need to negotiate it. We need to get it done. It's not a treaty, and we should not make it subject to ratification by Congress.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, these Status of Forces Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are made with. They talk about the treatment and describe the treatment of Americans with respect to getting licenses, licensing their vehicles, how they're going to be treated in cases of civil or criminal actions. Basically how the American who is in that particular foreign country, and again we have got 80 of them that we have done, how they are going to be treated by that host country.

Now, they are not security commitments, and if you have something that does, in fact, commit the United States to a security agreement with another country, and in this case Iraq, I have no dispute with my colleagues, that at that point you have a treaty, and a treaty, because it manifests commitments, has to be ratified.

But I don't understand why we are saying that the Status of Forces Agreement, which is going to talk about how our troops are treated in the same way that we talk about how American military personnel who are in Germany or Japan or 80 other countries are treated, how that now becomes something special because it's Iraq and, in the case of Iraq alone, we have to have a ratification by Congress.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply about the treatment of American military personnel in that particular place. We are talking about two different things; one that has to be ratified and the other that doesn't. And I have heard no good argument as to why, of the 80 Status of Forces Agreements that we have around the world, why this one has to be ratified by Congress and none of the others have to be.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleagues, including the gentleman from Washington who spoke I think somewhat disparagingly of the President, this is part of the duties of an administration anywhere where you have American troops. You lay down rules of how they are going to be treated with respect to civil actions, criminal actions, licensing of vehicles, payment of taxes, all the things that affect a person who is now physically residing in that foreign country, whether it's an American civilian or a military guy who's stationed there. It's a necessary thing.

The idea that we are going to elevate this thing, which has been a fairly ministerial thing, to a treaty on the basis that the people who are speaking don't like the President doesn't make any sense. You know, when the Secretary of Defense comes in, testifies to our committee that there will be no commitments manifest in this particular SOFA with respect to security, he testifies to us to that effect, the idea that we say we are not going to believe him, and certain members of the other side don't like the President so they come down to say anything he does now has to be ratified by Congress, I think that disparages the process, Mr. Chairman.

We have got a fairly run-of-the-mill ministerial thing that we need to do and, once again, I say to my colleagues, this protects American personnel. The same team that has negotiated this with presumably dozens of countries and gone over the same ministerial stuff with respect to how people are treated in that country, will be talking to the Iraqi leadership and making that same negotiation on those same points.

So the idea that we now elevate this to a treaty; if a treaty is coming with this strategic framework, that does have to be ratified by Congress, and should be ratified by Congress. But let's not mix the two up. Let's protect our personnel and then let's move to this ratification or this decision of what any security commitments might be.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we need to have a Status of Forces Agreement. If we don't have, and we now elevate this to a treaty, and Congress doesn't act on the treaty, they will lose their protection when the United Nations provision expires.

It doesn't make sense to put this onus on them, that somehow we are going to raise this thing to a treaty level and Congress, by golly, is going to have to now ratify it before we can decide how an E-5, a sergeant with a couple of stripes, living in Baghdad, how he is going to be treated with respect to the laws of that country. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think we ought to leave this thing alone. When we go to any treaties that actually manifest security commitments by the United States, certainly that has to be then ratified by Congress. This isn't one of them. It will be the 81st SOFA that we have had without requiring Congress to ratify it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, first let me express my great respect for the gentleman who is offering this amendment. He does wonderful work on the committee and truly has a heart for those who have been impacted by the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On that point, I would say I remember the time we were in Fallujah and a young Marine captain came up to us with some language he had written. In fact, his name was Kevin Coughlin. He thinks he has traded up. He moved on to the FBI from the committee staff. But we were so impressed with the language he had written to protect translators that we brought him back with us and made him part of the HASC staff. He did leave us a ``Dear John'' note after he left to go to work for the FBI, but a great young Marine captain. And he felt the same way we had, which is that our translators needed to be protected.

We have a program which protects them. Now, the question here is, are we going to mandate employment for them? That is the way I read this particular legislation. I don't think that is the right way to go.

I think that, first, a lot of these folks have got great initiative. They are happy to be in a free country. If we have a program to help make sure they know of all the job opportunities that are available and perhaps help them with language, make sure that they are connected with folks that are recruiting our people who need those language talents, I think that is great.

But I think the idea, at least the way I read this thing, that there is mandated employment, I think that is

going a step far. I think it is something we haven't done for other folks. In this case we have taken people and their families who helped the United States and we have relocated them in the greatest country in the world with the freedom to travel all these new roads that they have never been able to travel before.

But I think, for one thing, that the idea of guaranteed employment, if they have got a lot of spirit and a lot of initiative, that is the first way to kill spirit and initiative, is to give a guaranteed lifetime job to someone. I think we ought to take these folks who have this great energy, they have obviously displayed a loyalty to the United States, help them hook up with these thousands and tens of thousands of employers, including those in the government, but not have a program that guarantees employment.

So I thank the gentleman for the spirit of his amendment.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of both Mr. Israel and the ranking member. I am just looking at the language, and it says ``shall offer employment.'' So it clearly says, if I was going to read that as an agency head, I would say that means I must hire these folks.

Again, this committee worked to make sure that they got over here, that they were protected and that their families were protected, and I am glad we did that. I will offer my small offices. We have had jobs fairs at Bethesda and Walter Reed for our returning wounded warriors where we bring people from industry and we bring people from the agencies and we try to get them together with our wounded vets who are returning and help them to match up and get jobs. I would be happy to do the same thing with respect to these interpreters. And, indeed, interpreters have special skills. This should be something that can be done.

The only thing I would object to is the mandated job. We don't offer that to our veterans. I just think that is a step a little bit too far. But I would be happy to work with the gentleman in terms of helping them to access jobs.

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

To my great friend, Ike Skelton, and all my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, it is an undeserved honor, but I want to thank you for the wonderful job that you have all done in putting this bill together.

This bill would not be, with all of the exigencies that we have had, and all of the difficulties in the other body to get their bill up, this bill would not be before this body now if it wasn't for the leadership of Ike Skelton.

There are a lot of military institutions in Missouri and around this country which teach members of the uniformed services leadership, but there is another institution which exhibits leadership every day, as chairman of this committee, and that's our chairman, Ike Skelton.

Ike worked this thing through a difficult period of time, with the emergencies that are emanating right now in the Capitol and the major economic emergency which is distracting lots of folks who otherwise could be working on this bill. Time schedules have been extremely difficult, and Ike Skelton, in his quiet way with his quiet leadership and his corporate understanding, he is the main body of history for the Armed Services Committee. He is the guy who remembers not only what happened in this committee 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years ago, but also what happened in the wars that this Nation fought and what happened in that institution across the river known as the Pentagon. And being able to recall that history at important times in our deliberative processes is a great, great asset to this Nation. Ike, I want to congratulate you. This is your bill. It may have my name on it, but this is your bill. You brought this thing through to the House floor in the most difficult circumstances. Not only that, it is a wonderful bill.

The chairman has talked a lot about the details of the bill. This is an authorization of $531.4 billion. It does authorize a $68.6 billion bridge fund; a bridge fund, I might add, that was an initiative of the Armed Services Committee several years ago.

We looked at our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and said they are going to have to have the equipment and the resources during the later months in the calendar year before that spring supplemental arrives, and we came up with the bridge fund. The President followed our lead. The appropriators have followed our lead, and it has been an excellent vehicle allowing us to maintain in these warfighting theaters while we are waiting for the next funding vehicle. My congratulations to Ike for that.

We do have a good pay raise for the members of the armed services, a 3.9 percent pay raise. You know, this bill does several other things, and I will speak generally about them. It leverages American strengths. It leverages American strengths by continuing to keep the line warm, for example, on F-22 which is a key weapon system because it is a weapon system with the capability to penetrate air defenses that are here today and which may be here tomorrow. It leverages two great American innovations: stealth and precision weapons.

I would urge all of my colleagues as we go into this very difficult, very dangerous era for the United States, to continue to put pressure on and to produce American leverage. And stealth and precision technology are two of those items of technology, as is undersea technology. And we are moving toward an acceleration of the submarine program in this bill. That is very critical.

One disappointment I have is we are not doing enough in space. I would just say to my colleagues that the shooting down of a satellite by China this last year heralded a new era of military competition in space with China whether we like it or not. When you are in a military competition, there is only one alternative and that is to win. So I would urge this committee to continue in the years ahead to build a capability in space to make sure that we maintain all of the institutions and the apparatus that we need there to make sure that our military operates effectively here and that our economy operates effectively here.

Also in the area of missile defense, we are moving ahead to try to establish a missile defense capability in Europe that would handle through that throat of approach out of an Iranian missile launch that might take place 5 years or 10 years or 15 years from now, or perhaps even earlier. That is an important item because that brings the partnership, the NATO-plus partnership of the newly freed captive nations, but also the NATO membership, along with us in what is sometimes a difficult path, an expensive path, but nonetheless a necessary path to defend the world in this new era of missiles.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of excellent items in this bill. In the end they all go down to and reflect on and focus on the most important warfighting leverage that the United States have, and that is the men and women of this country who wear the uniform of the United States.

I just want to commend my colleagues for the wonderful job that they have done in making sure that the men and women of the United States have the right equipment and the right incentives and good pay and good quality of life for their families such that when I was in a recruiting office the other day, and no I wasn't signing up, but when I was in one of the old Army recruiting offices in good old San Diego, the one shortage that they had, the one specialty, military occupational specialty that they had which was not available because too many people had subscribed for it and too many people had signed up for it was infantry.

And I thought in these dangerous theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea that we have more people than we need signing up for the United States infantry is a reflection largely on this committee.

We have two Members who are retiring, the great Mr. Everett of Alabama and the great Mr. Saxton of New Jersey. Mr. Udall is moving on to another race, and we wish him well in his endeavors. But those two gentlemen are retiring.

Terry Everett has done more good for this country behind closed doors than a lot of folks have done with lots of press conferences and lots of pronouncements. The quiet man. I know that Mrs. Tauscher held a nice going-away party for Mr. Everett that I thought was well-deserved. He is a quiet man who has done so much for

this country behind closed doors and is such a valuable asset to the United States.

And Mr. Saxton, who years before the war against terror started was the chairman of the Task Force on Terrorism here in the House who did lots of research and did lots of prediction that this would be the conflict and the challenge of this new era.

Jimmy Saxton is owed a debt of gratitude by everybody who wears those special forces uniforms around the world. Whether they are Seals or Army Rangers or Green Berets, Jimmy Saxton has devoted many years to making sure that they have gotten what they need. What a wonderful member of this committee he has been.

It is with a little touch of sadness that I am here on this last bill that I am going to be involved in with this undeserved honor of having my name on this bill, which is a case of more generosity than was deserved by the chairman and the members, but it has been an honor to serve on this committee. It is a wonderful bipartisan committee, probably the most bipartisan in the House of Representatives, always with our focus on the security of the United States, even in difficult economic times like these. This committee has a very excellent focus on what is important to keep that number one requirement, that number one Constitutional mandate on government, and that is our first obligation is to protect our people. This committee does a great job.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield.

I thank the gentleman. I remember being with him when the 82nd Airborne jumped into Honduras, when the Sandinistas came across the border, and I remember the press conference that was held after that. The gentleman's statements were so inspiring, I have never forgotten them. We have been in many parts of the world, the last time up on the DMZ watching the North Koreans. The gentleman has been a real leader in this committee, and I really appreciate it.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, a very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Everett.

I would yield to Mr. Thornberry, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, 2 minutes.

I would yield to Mr. Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, a very distinguished gentleman and one of our great leaders on the Armed Services Committee, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to Mr. Akin, the very distinguished gentleman from Missouri, 1 minute.

I want to commend my seatmate from San Diego for her very hard work on this bill and her leadership.

I yield 1 minute to Mr. McHugh, who over the many years has been one of the great leaders in this country for what I call, when we used to call the subcommittee the total force, which is the Guard, the Reserve, the active duty, those 2\1/2\ million men and women who serve this country so effectively, and to this guy who knows probably more about them than just about anybody I've ever met and knows more about policy, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by again reflecting on the great leadership of Ike Skelton that brought this bill to the floor under such difficult circumstances. It's a great bill.

And lastly, to just reinforce a point that's been made by a number of speakers, you know, this is a city which really, whether you have a military crisis or an economic crisis, needs honest brokers, and those are people that can look at interested parties and make a decision that is made for the right reasons and made on the merits. This committee could not function, this Congress couldn't function, if we didn't have incredible, professional staff who can look right through a dozen conflicting interests and see one interest that should dominate the scene, and that's the American interest, the right thing to do.

And our professional staff members have that capability, and they have great character, and they have a lot of character, and in many cases, they are characters. Erin Conaton and Bob Simmons are the former staff director and the staff director, and their team have done such a great job of bringing this bill together, and only people in whom you could vest enormous amounts of trust could accomplish what they've accomplished.

I just want to commend them for this incredible undertaking that's been the last couple of weeks. They are all so sleepy right now they really just want to finish this thing and get off the floor. But let's thank them for what they've done for this country. We appreciate you.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3001) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 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, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to bring the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 to the floor today for approval by the House.

This bill represents a final agreement reached with the Senate, and I believe it can pass the Senate, which is critical, of course. The troops and their families need these authorities by September 30.

It's important to note this agreement was reached in a very short period of time. While the House finished its work back in May, the Senate approved its version of the bill just one week ago today.

The two Armed Services Committees have been working overtime ever since, and as a result we have not been able to provide all of the notice and time for examination of the bill that we normally would. I regret that fact. But I can assure the House that we observed all of the long-standing traditions of fairness and bipartisanship this committee is known for.

My good friend, Duncan Hunter, and his team of members and his staff have been involved in every step of this process, and we have also worked hard to consult with the outside committees on the issues that are within their jurisdiction. We also placed the completed bill and report language on our Web site as soon as it was done last evening.

This is a good bill. It authorizes $531.4 billion for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. It also authorizes $68.6 billion to support ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan during fiscal year

2009, a similar amount to that which passed the House in May.

To restore readiness, this agreement provides $8.6 billion for the Army and $1.8 billion for the Marine Corps to repair and replace equipment. This agreement also provides $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment. To help manage demands placed on our servicemembers by our military obligations, the agreement increases the size of the military by 7,000 soldiers, 5,000 marines, over 1,000 sailors and 450 airmen.

To improve the quality of life for our forces and their families, the agreement provides a 3.9 percent pay raise for the troops, which is .5 percent more than the President's budget request. The agreement also preserves important health care benefits by prohibiting fee increases in TRICARE and the TRICARE pharmacy program and creating new preventive health care initiatives to improve the readiness of our force.

Finally, I would like to say a word about the person for whom this bill is named, as well as for others who helped us get the bill done under an extraordinary time frame. Duncan Hunter has been a tireless advocate for the troops and a great partner, as well as a personal friend to me. The Armed Services Committee will miss him. I think it's deeply appropriate that we name this bill for him.

I also want to thank all the members of the Armed Services Committee, particularly the subcommittee chairmen and the ranking members. Finally, I wish to thank the bipartisan staff, fantastic staff, they couldn't be better. Our committee has been blessed with such a staff, and they have worked tirelessly to help get this bill negotiated and completed. It is an excellent bill. It's urgently needed by our military, and I urge my colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate, to vote for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which is named for and in honor of Duncan Hunter, the ranking member, former chairman of this committee.

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

I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Sea Power, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 90 seconds to the gentlelady from New Hampshire for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlelady for raising this important issue. I also commend her for her long-standing support and advocacy for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

At her request to the committee to support critical facility improvement projects in this year's bill, I am delighted to inform her that we have included over $30 million in capital improvement projects, including a critical Waterfront Support Facility and a Consolidated Component Improvement Facility.

I would also like to make it clear for the record that due to a clerical error, Ms. Shea-Porter's name was not included in the transparency table that accompanied the bill showing that she had requested the Waterfront Support Facility. This was an oversight and will be corrected in an addendum to show that she had requested and supported the addition of these facilities in the bill.

I commend her for her strong support of the shipyard and would support her continued advocacy for this critical national asset.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Let me compliment the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) on her interest and her work on this issue, and I think in the days ahead the efforts will be understood and be fruitful as we move ahead with the defense of our Nation. I thank her for that.

We're coming to the end of a long, arduous process here in the House. Our wonderful staff has worked more than diligently, not just through the year but the last several days. In the last

five days actually, Mr. Speaker, they've done 6 weeks of work, phenomenal, miraculous, and I compliment them for that. Erin Conaton, the director, and Bob Simmons, the minority chief, have been superb to work with, and every member of the staff has been a professional in the finest sense of the word. I cannot brag on them more. And we're very grateful for their efforts, and their efforts will pay off for those young men and women, those families who wear the uniform of our country check as they do their professional work.

This effort is really for the security of our country and is done particularly for the young people who wear the uniform. They are, Mr. Speaker, our national treasures, and those of us on the committee understand that. We work toward that end, and as we vote for this bill and it passes, hopefully with a large, large majority, and goes to the Senate, and hopefully passes to the White House and to be signed by the President, those young gentlemen and young women who really make their life and their profession the national security of our country should know that we in Congress support them, back them up, and that we're immensely proud of the work that they do.

So, with that in mind, and thanks to all the Members of our committee, superb committee, subcommittee chairmen, subcommittee ranking, and every Member, our staff and those who give advice and recommendations to us have made this bill possible in a very, very short period of time.

So with that and a great deal of gratitude especially for my friend from California, Duncan Hunter, who we unanimously named this bill for, we will miss him terribly, but we thank him for his service to our Nation, to our Congress, to our committee as chairman and ranking member, and we appreciate him, and we'll long remember him.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1476, which the house adopted yesterday, I submit an addendum to the Joint Explanatory Statement which I entered into the Record yesterday.

Due to administrative error, a number of Member requests were not included in the transparency table in yesterday's submission.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE08.285

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank my good friend, Mr. Hunter, for yielding to me, and thank him for his friendship, his counsel, and his undeserved kind words about me. He has been a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform, and this bill fittingly bears his name.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). She has shown great thought, candor and leadership in guiding the Strategic Forces Subcommittee forward.

I want to rise in strong support of this bill. This is a good bill. It provides vital resources for our armed forces, and strengthens our Nation's strategic forces. Our committee has worked well and worked together in a bipartisan, bicameral manner to produce this important legislation.

I am pleased that it restores $124 million for the European missile defense sites, and modifies conditions that would allow construction to begin.

Since May, both the Czech Republic and Poland have signed missile defense agreement. Iran continues to test longer-range missiles and ignore questions about their nuclear program.

The efforts reflects a shared commitment to our collective security. Therefore, I want to personally commend the Czech and Polish governments and encourage swift ratification of the agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my fellow subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs. We tackled complex issues such as space, missile defense and nuclear weapons, and do such with openness, diligence and professionalism.

Let me finish with this troubling statistic. China graduated 500,000 engineers. India graduated 200,000 engineers, and the United States graduated 70,000. We have some serious challenges ahead of us to maintain our technical leadership in space.

I would like my complete statement put in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Hunter for yielding to me, and thank him for his friendship and counsel. Mr. Hunter has been a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform and it is fitting for this defense bill to bear his name.

I also want to recognize and congratulate the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, and especially the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Tauscher.

She has shown great thought, candor, and leadership in guiding the Strategic Forces subcommittee forward.

I rise in support of the Ducan Hunter Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

This is a good bill that provides vital resources for our armed forces, and strengthens our nation's strategic forces.

Our committee has worked together in a bi-partisan, bicameral manner to produce this important national security legislation.

This bill makes some noteworthy improvements over the version passed by the House in May.

I am pleased that it restores $124 million for the European missile defense sites, and modifies conditions that would allow construction to begin.

Since May, both the Czech Republic and Poland have signed missile defense agreements. Iran continues to test longer-range missiles and ignore questions about its nuclear program.

These efforts reflect a shared commitment to our collective security. Therefore, I want to personally commend the Czech and Polish governments, and encourage swift ratification of the agreements.

We continue to endorse the development and fielding of near-term missile defense capabilities. The bill--

Increases Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense and THAAD by $120 million; and

Authorizes Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) at the budget request.

The bill also restores some funds to key future capabilities, specifically Airborne Laser, K-E-I and the Multiple Kill Vehicle.

I am disappointed that an independent study to examine the feasibility of space-based interceptors was not included in the agreement. With other nation's antisatellite pursuits and missile threats becoming more sophisticated, I

felt it was time to study the viability of such technology.

I remain concerned about the Department's performance in its missile defense testing and targets program.

I am, however, committed to working with them to ensure the conditions for success are in place, so we can build greater confidence in our defense capabilities.

In the area of military space, the bill funds key space modernization programs such as SBIRS, G-P-S-III, W-G-S, and T-SAT. We included a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to review our communications bandwidth requirements--to ensure we have the capabilities in place to support our future weapons systems.

Within the area of atomic energy defense activities, the bill reflects broad bipartisan agreement. The bill--

Adds funds for key nuclear surety and weapons surveillance activities;

Establishes a nonproliferation scholarship program for college students; and

Directs an assessment of how to increase the security of nuclear weapons around the world.

We also emphasize that the Department of Defense should pay greater attention to nuclear weapons matters, particularly in light of recent nuclear mishaps.

The next administration will be faced with tough decisions about our Nation's aging nuclear infrastructure, weapons systems, and workforce. I was disappointed that we did not fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead Phase 2a study. I ask my colleagues to take a hard look at this concept.

It has the potential to provide our Nation with a safer, more secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent, that may permit greater reductions in our stockpile.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not recognize my fellow subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle, and their staffs. We tackle complex issues such as space, missile defense, and nuclear weapons policy, and do so with openness, diligence, and professionalism.

As the Strategic Forces former chairman and now ranking member, I have had the great fortune to meet incredibly hard-working, talented space, nuclear, missile defense, and intelligence professionals. However, they need our help and continued support.

I heard a troubling statistic this morning:

China graduated 50O,000 engineers.

India graduated 200,000.

The United States only graduated 70,000.

We have some serious challenges ahead of us to maintain our technical leadership.

During my 16 years in the House, it has been an honor and privilege to work on the Armed Services Committee to enhance our nation strategic forces capabilities, strengthen our national security, and support our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today with a heavy heart as I cast my vote against S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. While I support our men and women in the armed forces and our need to ensure our national security, I cannot with a clear conscience support a National Defense Authorization bill that includes money for Iraq without time-lines for an exodus.

Samuel Adams, who was known as the Father of the American Revolution, stated ``All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.'' While most of us value freedom, many of us do not risk our lives for it on a daily basis like our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

H. Con. Res. 320

That is why I chose to celebrate one of our heroic daughters of Texas, Specialist Monica L. Brown of the United States Army with House Concurrent Resolution 320 for her efforts earlier this year.

Specialist Brown was the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest medal for valor. This solider from Lake Jackson, Texas is only 19 years old.

On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia when a bomb struck one of the Humvees.

When Specialist Brown saw her fellow soldiers were injured, she grabbed her aid bag and started running toward the burning vehicle as insurgents opened fire. All five wounded soldiers from her platoon scrambled out. Under this commotion, she assessed her patients and moved them to a safer location because they were still receiving incoming fire.

The Pentagon's official policy is to prohibit women from serving in front line combat roles in the infantry, armor or artillery, but the nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take part in close quarters combat more than previous conflicts.

Though I have opposed the war in Iraq from its inception, I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that we recognize, celebrate, and honor the service of our sons and daughters returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do, and I firmly believe that we must commend the men and women of our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq.

Defense BIll

This defense bill reflects our commitment to support the men and women who fight to secure not only our citizens' freedom but the freedom of others. This bill will provide the necessary resources to protect the American people and our national interests at home and abroad. The Armed Services committee has provided for military readiness; taking care of our troops and their families; increasing focus on the war in Afghanistan; and improving interagency cooperation, oversight, and accountability in this year's defense authorization bill.

Defense Provisions

We must maintain our efforts to restore military readiness in order to meet current military challenges and prepare for the future. Thankfully, this defense bill:

Provides fair compensation and first-rate health care, and improve the quality of life of the men and women in the armed forces (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families.

Provides our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seeks to reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions.

Improves the efficiency of Defense Department programs and activities, and applies the savings toward high-priority programs.

Improves the ability of the armed forces to counter nontraditional threats, including terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Promotes the transformation of the armed forces to deal with the threats of the 21st century.

Ensures aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department's programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

Thank You to Our Troops

We must extol our military for their courage and sacrifice in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The United States cannot and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. Whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us are of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

The United States Armed Forces successfully toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein and captured the key cities of Iraq in only 21 days. The Armed Forces performed magnificently in conducting military operations designed to ensure that the people of Iraq would enjoy the benefits of a democratically-elected government governing a county that is capable of sustaining itself economically and politically and defending itself militarily.

While our troops have achieved the objectives for which they were sent to Iraq, they are now caught in the midst of a sectarian conflict. Unfortunately, there is no military solution to Iraq's ongoing political and sectarian conflicts.

The objectives for which this Congress authorized war in Iraq have been met; therefore, that authorization should no longer be the basis for ongoing involvement by U.S. armed forces. Our military has already paid too heavy a price for this Administration's ill-advised and poorly planned war effort in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the need to protect our great nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, and I support without hesitation our troops, I cannot in clear conscious support S. 3001 without clear withdrawal timelines for Iraq. I yield back the balance of my time.

However, I will continue supporting the funding that is particular to supporting our troops, their families and our veterans.