To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole.

Madam Speaker, after reading an opinion from the Department of the Interior Solicitor, I feel compelled to clarify the intent of Section 1077 (c) of P.L. 109-364. While others may misinterpret and even distort the actual impact of this language upon the healthy Kaibab Mule Deer and Roosevelt Elk herds that are currently living on Santa Rosa island, I want to make clear this section's intent is to protect both herds from extermination. It is just that simple and it does not do anything more narrow or broad. Nothing could emphasize this intent more clearly than Conference Report 109-702's explanation that Section 1077 was intended to ``prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from exterminating or nearly exterminating the deer and elk on the island.''

Clearly, when this provision became law, it directed the National Park Service (NPS) to allow the deer and elk that have thrived on Santa Rosa Island to remain on the Island beyond 2011--the last year of the term within the settlement agreement. The use of helicopters is included within the settlement agreement and referenced by Section 1077(c) as it is likely the most effective way to conduct an extermination program. Section 1077(c) was not intended to prohibit only that method of extermination. These beautiful and healthy animals should remain on the island for visitors to enjoy. They should not be ruthlessly and systematically destroyed for some ill-conceived notion of native versus non-native, as others advocate.

The Solicitor has acted inappropriately by pulling a theory of congressional intent out of the air. Clearly, the intent of the language was not to ``preclude the Department of the Interior from participating in any plan approved in the settlement agreement.'' In fact, the language, which is now law, was intended to do what it clearly states: (1) vitiate the settlement agreement with respect to the deer and elk draw-down and eradication plan and (2) allow the elk and deer to remain on Santa Rosa Island indefinitely. I want to highlight the intent of allowing the deer to remain on the Island and make it clear that means these herds must be left to live on Santa Rosa Island. The congressional intent of this section was not to protect them only from slaughter, but also to protect them from relocation.

I must add, I find it deeply troubling that the administration, when testifying against the same provision before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 16, 2006, testified that this provision would, ``. . . require the Secretary of the Interior to stop the plan to remove the deer and elk from the island as required by a court-ordered settlement agreement. This provision would effectively overturn the 1998 settlement agreement, that the NPS is legally bound to, that requires the phase-out of non-native deer and elk over several years and their complete removal from the Island by the end of 2011.'' I am bewildered why such an about-face has been made on a provision that is identical to the current law provision, having just passed the House of Representatives.

In closing, I hope this statement clarifies the intent of both P.L. 109-364 and the accompanying Conference Report 109-702. Both are clear on their face, but as the lead House negotiator of the Conference Committee of H.R. 5122, I felt it important to clear up any uncertainty brought forward by interpretations following a short-sighted agenda. This important conservation provision must stand and be properly interpreted so that the elk and deer are not slaughtered. Simply restated, it would be a tragedy to have these healthy populations of elk and mule deer exterminated from public lands to forward a misguided agenda of what belongs on Santa Rosa Island. Section 1077(c) is intended to prevent such eradication carried out by NPS or other parties to the settlement agreement.

My intent was clearly for the elk and deer herds to remain on Santa Rosa. This intent was clearly manifested in my numerous floor and committee statements in which I described my intent that wounded veterans are to be allowed to hunt these animals following the transfer of Santa Rosa from private ownership. My committee and floor statements regarding Santa Rosa Island, particularly floor statements made on December 16, 2005, and May 10, 2006, demonstrate this intent.

I also discussed the Santa Rosa provision with CNN's Anderson Cooper on June 13, 2006. A transcript of the interview follows:

Joe Johns, CNN Correspondent: 25 miles off the coast of

Santa Barbara, more than triple the size of Manhattan, the

crown jewel of the Channel Islands National Park. The remote

and largely untouched Santa Rosa Island. Canyons, coastline,

chaparral and pines and you own it. Taxpayers pay $30 million

for Santa Rosa Island. A treasure trove of ancient artifacts.

Torrey Rick, Archaeologist: It's incredible. I mean you

don't get this kind of stuff anywhere else in the world,

really.

Johns: Human bones found here date back 13,000 years. It's

also unique for its inhabitants. The little island fox,

endangered but so far not extinct. With all this at stake and

more, the question before Congress is whether this park

should be protected and open to all Americans year-round. Or

should it also be used as a place where disabled veterans can

come to hunt deer and elk? Which means tourists have to be

kept safely out of the crossfire. Congressman Duncan

Hunter, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services

Committee, has been pushing for months to give the vets

special privileges on Santa Rosa.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R) California: I was driving south

with a bunch of marines, some guys fresh back from Iraq and

one of them said, there's Santa Rosa Island and they're going

to close it and they're going to wipe out the entire deer and

elk herd.

Johns: But the idea of handing over hunting rights on an

island that's supposed to be for everybody has infuriated

some Democrats from California, who say it's like telling the

public you bought it, now keep out.

Rep. Lois Capps, (D) California: It's outrageous and I told

him so. This is a Republican leadership that wants to kick

taxpayers off a national park that they paid $30 million for.

Makes you wonder, first it's Channel Islands National Park,

is it going to be Yellowstone, is it going to be the

Shenandoah's?

Johns: It's not that disabled veterans aren't important.

It's just that there are plenty of good hunting spots that

aren't in national parks. For instance, military bases in

remote areas. It's a battle playing out allover America but

especially in the west, over how best to use national parks.

In this case whether to restore the park to its pristine

condition or to allow other uses.

Much of this is about the animals. The park service only

wants animals here that are native to Santa Rosa. So the deer

and elk shipped in nearly a century ago by the family that

used to own the land must now go. So what about a compromise?

Why not allow both hunting and tourists full-time? Well

hikers and bullets are not a great trail mix. So long as

there's hunting here, the park service has to keep the public

out. The park service says the game needs to go.

Russell Gallipeau, U.S. Park Service: I'm not against

providing access to anybody. I just think that hunting and

public use of this island are not compatible. And it's not a

purpose for which this park was set aside.

Johns: So as taxpayers you paid for a remote national park,

but now a powerful congressman says it should be managed as a

place for disabled war vets to hunt deer and elk. For $30

million, Santa Rosa may well be the biggest game trophy out

there. Joe Johns, CNN, Santa Rosa Island, California.

Cooper: Well as Joe just mentioned Congressman Duncan

Hunter is the force behind the move to keep the elk and deer

on the island for hunting. We spoke earlier.

Cooper: So Congressman Hunter, you know your critics say

look, taxpayers spent $30 million to buy Santa Rosa Island.

But as long as there's hunting there, 90 percent of it's

closed to non-hunters for about half of the year. They say

that's unfair.

Hunter: Well, let me--let's put this in context. My son,

who's a marine, did a couple of tours in Iraq and when he

came back, he and I started taking wounded marines and

soldiers hunting. We went to Arizona, Colorado, lots of good

places. We had one hunt we took a person with a spinal

disability. That is, a paralyzed veteran into Colorado, into

the big national forest. And it's very difficult for them to

have a real quality experience. Now, this island, Santa Rosa

Island, which is off the California coast, which is 52,000

acres, has a very small number of public visitors. About 15 a

day from the statistics I've seen.

Cooper: But the reason that there are only 15, the national

park says about 5,000 people a year visit Santa Rosa Island.

The reason more people aren't able to do it is because they

can only visit about 10 percent of the island for half the

year because of this hunting. If you close down the hunting,

then the whole island basically would be open to visitors and

to taxpayers who paid for it.

Hunter: Listen, here's all we want. All we want is about

two weeks a year for the paralyzed veterans to come over. I

would be happy to stipulate that no congressman come over, no

VIPs. Only people who are paralyzed veterans, who are very

disabled veterans. And actually the reason most people don't

go over to Santa Rosa Island is because it's a major boat

trip or a plane trip. And tourists who are driving down the

coast of California don't want to take a plane or a boat to

simply get to another island. So we could easily accommodate

the paralyzed veterans, they could have a great time. They

could have the adventure of a lifetime.

And you know something, they may be wheelchair-bound but

their spirits are free, they like adventure. This is a great

place to take your family. And this could be a special niche

for those people. And you know something else, the people of

the United States, if the taxpayers knew that this was going

to be used by paralyzed veterans, they'd say fine.

This is the park service that says, we want to wipe out this

deer and elk herd because they're not native. They just want

to do it because they've got the power to do it. They could

easily accommodate our veterans.

Cooper: Is this the role of a national park? The national

park service which runs this, basically would be subsidizing

a hunting program. They say and critics say, look, there are

other places for people with disabilities to hunt. We talked

to the Paralyzed Veterans Association they say you know some

states even allow those with disabilities to hunt from their

cars.

Hunter: Listen, the reason the national park people have

their nice jobs and the reasons we as members of the American

public get to enjoy national parks is because of people who

wear uniforms who go out in dangerous parts of the world and

secure our freedom. So let in some paralyzed veterans, many

of whom have been injured in combat, to come have a small

piece of this island that almost nobody goes to anyway, is a

small repayment for their service to our country. I think the

taxpayers would appreciate that.

Cooper: Congressman Hunter, appreciate you joining us,

thanks.

Lastly, a letter provided by the Wounded Warrior Project reaffirms discussions and the intent to allow wounded and disabled veterans to enjoy Santa Rosa Island. The letter follows:

August 28, 2006.

Hon. Duncan L. Hunter,

Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hunter: On behalf of the Wounded Warrior

Project (WWP), I am responding to your legislation that will

cease the elimination of all elk and deer on Santa Rosa

Island in California and could provide unrivaled hunting

opportunities for severely wounded veterans.

The Wounded Warrior Project applauds any effort that

supports our endeavors to assist severely injured military

personnel. WWP has reached thousands of wounded service men

and women, providing assistance in the transition from a

hospital bed to an independent and productive life and we

believe that Santa Rosa could offer the wounded another

chance to participate in meaningful and enriching

recreational activities such as fishing, hunting and camping.

This legislation is consistent with Wounded Warrior

Project's adaptive sports and outdoors programs like hunting

and fishing, snow and water skiing, canoeing and diving. For

that reason we encourage the House of Representatives to pass

this provision to potentially allow the use of the island for

disabled service members.

We hope that together with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and other federal organizations, a viable and

sustainable daily operations system for the management of

Santa Rosa Island can be developed and that our nation's

wounded warriors will be able to enjoy the world class

hunting that the island has to offer.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

John Melia,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 860 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague from Washington on the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 860 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, under the standard conference report rule.

Madam Speaker, today the Congress will promote a stronger and safer America by approving the National Defense Authorization conference report and this rule. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which is chaired by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I am pleased to report that the committee has worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have the tools they need to keep America safe and strong.

Our military personnel and their families have sacrificed so much in past years and continue to do so. In recognition of their service, this Congress is proud to make important improvements in military pay and benefits. We have raised the pay of our brave men and women in uniform beyond the levels set originally by the President. And when our brave men and women in combat are injured in the line of duty, they deserve top quality medical care. The Walter Reed scandal drew back the curtain on some of the challenges that the military community faces when it comes to serving our brave men and women when they return from the battlefield. Unfortunately, the military health care system was not providing consistent, excellent care for our wounded soldiers. So, Madam Speaker, one of the highlights of this bill are our efforts to improve assistance to wounded warriors. These provisions have been worked on throughout the year in a bipartisan way to improve the health care for our wounded servicemembers because they deserve nothing but the best.

We move beyond the ``support our troops'' rhetoric and enact substantive improvements that will restore confidence in the quality of care that our brave men and women in uniform deserve when they return from the battlefield. This includes assistance to their very supportive families, because supporting our troops does not simply mean that you salute and send them off to war and then ask them to serve and sacrifice for our great country, but supporting our troops means that we continue to support them when they return home.

This bill improves the screening for traumatic brain injury and post- traumatic stress disorder. I am very proud to recognize the efforts of my hometown VA Medical Center, the James A. Haley Medical Center, which is home to one of the four polytrauma centers in the country where we have so many dedicated doctors, nurses and psychologists and folks in physical therapy. They are so dedicated to these brave men and women that come home with the worst injuries. But we have got to do more. And that is contained in this bill.

This bill also mandates that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs establish a standard for rating servicemembers' disabilities that takes into consideration all of their medical conditions.

An important part of improving the health care and mental health care for our wounded warriors is tackling the bureaucracy that has blocked their access to health care. So we require expedited action, provide medical advocates, improve support services for families, elevate the care for traumatic brain injuries and aid the polytrauma centers in VA hospitals across the country that are serving the most critically wounded troops.

This bill also blocks an increase that was proposed by the White House to health insurance premiums for military families and troops under the TRICARE system. It is inexplicable how the White House could propose health insurance premium increases at a time when we are asking so much of our brave American men and women in uniform. So, proudly, the Congress, in a bipartisan way, blocks these health insurance premium increases.

Madam Speaker, we know that because of the multiyear, sometimes seemingly unending war in Iraq, that the readiness, the military readiness of our country has suffered over the years. Well, this bill restores the readiness of our Armed Forces, including equipment repair, so that our soldiers go to battle with the most up-to-date equipment available. In terms of readiness, we have authorized moneys for a new Strategic Readiness Fund and to address equipment deficiencies. We have all heard stories of soldiers, especially the folks in our National Guard and Reserves, who are having problems with equipment shortages and even receiving the necessary training that they need before heading off to war. In some cases, the National Guard has been unable to help in the traditional disaster response roles in their local communities due to this problem. Well, this bill tackles that so we can improve the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves so they can do their jobs safely, efficiently and effectively.

Madam Speaker, this bill also calls for greater accountability over the waste and fraud in Iraq that has been all too prevalent under this administration. This includes the troubles we have had with various contractors. As we see from the fallout of the Blackwater contracting debacles, there has been so much waste and fraud in contracting in Iraq and under this White House that we are not going to put up with it any longer. This bill substantially improves oversight of the multibillion- dollar and sometimes sole-source contracts that have been approved during this war in Iraq.

The Armed Services Committee, under Chairman Skelton's leadership, also requires additional accountability measures for Afghanistan, including a new Inspector General for Afghanistan reconstruction, as we cannot sanction the waste and fraud that has accompanied the administration's Iraq reconstruction.

Madam Speaker, many believe that because of the White House's preoccupation in Iraq that that preoccupation has shortchanged the focus in Afghanistan where the Taliban allowed al Qaeda to flourish some years ago. And, after all, the ungoverned and dangerous tribal areas of Pakistan are just south of the Afghan border. Indeed,

just yesterday, listening to the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Armed Services Committee, it became apparent that we are not able to do as much as we would like to do in Afghanistan because of the resources that have been overwhelmingly devoted to Iraq. Well, in this bill, we direct more attention to operations in Afghanistan in addition to an Inspector General that will oversee reconstruction efforts. This bill contains a long-term plan to improve stability in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, many of the unsung heroes of our Armed Forces whose missions you never hear about are the brave men and women in America's special forces. I am very proud that the headquarters of Special Operations Command is located in my hometown of Tampa, Florida, at MacDill Air Force Base. This defense bill under Democratic leadership not only fully funds our special forces but goes beyond the Bush administration's budget request for these brave men and women, including a number of needs that were not proposed to be funded by the White House at all. Our commitment to special forces recognizes that we cannot rely overwhelmingly any longer on conventional forces in defense of our country. We have got to be smarter. We have got to be more strategic. And this bill authorizes the increases in special forces and also a new emphasis on more strategic action.

Oftentimes, to win a struggle, it is more strategic and smarter not to go in with guns blazing but instead to work with folks on the ground to prevent any terrorist inclinations from ever developing. This bill does that. We will invest additional resources to improve education and analytical intelligence surveillance. We harness the science and technology innovation in this great country by investing in information technology and other technologies to make sure that our troops on the ground have the best technology available across the globe.

Madam Speaker, this Defense authorization bill and this rule charts a new direction for true readiness, accountability and more strategic investments to protect our national security. It improves the health care needs for our wounded warriors and does a better job of helping our families work through the unending maze of benefits and paperwork that come from caring for an injured soldier.

I urge full, bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership in shepherding this bipartisan bill through the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outspoken advocate for our brave men and women in uniform, Mr. Altmire from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I urge approval of the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 1585, and this rule. This bipartisan bill improves military readiness and demonstrates our commitment to our brave men and women in uniform, including a 3.5 percent pay raise for these brave folks, a commitment to the National Guard and our Reserves, and an expansion and great improvement in the health care provided to wounded warriors who return from the battlefield. The bill also increases oversight and restores accountability over the waste and fraud that has occurred in the war in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, this bill will make America safer and stronger. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 860 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill. H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, this rule allows for the consideration of the conference report to accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This conference report is largely bipartisan, as it should be, and is an example of what Democrats and Republicans can accomplish when working together.

This conference report contains important authorizations for increases in force protection and retains provisions of the overdue Wounded Warrior Assistance Act. By passing these provisions, we will help provide the tools needed to protect our men and women currently deployed in the global war on terror. We will be setting up the improvements needed to ensure excellence in our military and veterans care system.

There are also provisions in this conference report that are important to those that I represent in central Washington.

This conference report authorizes $29 million for the Yakima Training Center. This funding will be used to increase the size of the Army's training space, allow for urban operation training, and support the digital systems used by today's Stryker forces. This new range is expected to be completed in August of 2009 and will provide critical training for our active duty and Reserve Army soldiers.

In addition, I am pleased that this conference report extends the operation of the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act. The Ombudsman's office plays an important role in assisting workers at Hanford and other sites seeking illness compensation that they are due. I might add, Madam Speaker, this issue goes way back to the Second World War when we were involved, obviously, in atomic power. Hanford, which is in my district and a county adjacent to my district, played an important part of that and those workers that worked at those sites in many cases gave the ultimate sacrifice as our men and women overseas did, but in a kind of different setting. This compensation program, I think, is very important for those that worked at the Hanford site and other sites during the Second World War.

Madam Speaker, again, I would like to stress that this conference report was achieved in a bipartisan manner, and I hope to see more bipartisan conference reports brought to the floor as Congress wraps up its business in this first session of the 110th Congress.

As the first session of the 110th Congress comes to a close, I am disappointed that Democrat leaders are still intent on micromanaging the war on terror by blocking the funding requested for all our troops on the battlefield. At a time when both Democrats and Republicans are seeing recent progress in the war on terror, this approach, frankly, Madam Speaker, strikes me as unnecessary, divisive and dangerous.

If a supplemental spending bill is not signed into law soon, some Army civilian employees may get layoff notices before the Christmas holidays, and if this funding continues to be delayed, Department of Defense officials have reported that it could affect as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors.

Madam Speaker, I am also concerned that Democrat leaders continue to use delaying tactics to block a vote on a final bipartisan bill to fund veterans services.

This inaction is causing our veterans to lose critical funding each and every day. As I have done in the past, Madam Speaker, I will later be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order to appoint conferees and quickly approve a veterans funding conference report that, again, has strong bipartisan support and which is long overdue.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, who's a member of the Armed Services Committee and former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, understanding that the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I must ask once again my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule to allow the House to immediately act to go to conference with the Senate on H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs funding bill, and to appoint conferees.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that a final veterans funding bill is sitting waiting to be acted on and that the Democrat leaders have bent over backwards to prevent this Congress in this session from passing the final bill. Democrat leaders in the House have refused to name conferees, and instead have chosen to put partisanship and politics ahead of ensuring our veterans' needs are met. They have been stalling since September and have ignored the fact that the new spending bill began October 1 of this year, nearly over 2 months ago.

Since the beginning of the new spending year, our Nation's 8 million veterans have been waiting for their $37 billion in promised veterans benefits. Sadly, each day Democrat leaders choose not to act and move final funding forward, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Since the fiscal year began 73 days ago, our Nation's veterans are out $1.35 billion.

What is even more disappointing is that this bill has almost unanimous support, unanimous support, from Republicans and Democrats; yet we are not being allowed to pass it into law, and we are getting to the waning days of this session. Meanwhile, our Nation's veterans, who have sacrificed so much on behalf of our country, are left paying the price.

It is time, Madam Speaker, like in the underlying bill that this rule makes in order, to put partisanship and politics aside and work together to do what is in the best interest of our Nation's veterans. I see no better time than right now. By defeating the previous question, the House will send a strong message to our veterans that they have our commitment to provide them with the funding increase they need, deserve, and were promised.

Once Democrat leaders appoint conferees, the House can move forward and pass a stand-alone veterans funding bill, and it will pass with strong bipartisan support.

I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. President, our Nation's bomber fleet is a vital national asset. Bombers today offer global reach, operational responsiveness, and close air support for troops on the ground in ways that their designers could never have imagined. While our bomber fleet is currently aging, there is virtually no chance that new long-range bombers will enter service before 2020.

If we remove bombers from our active force and do not furnish them with critical upgrade programs, they will be irretrievably lost. This will create a ``bathtub'' in bomber capabilities that will last over a decade.

Over the last 2 years, the administration has proposed dramatically downsizing our bomber force, particularly by cutting the B-52 force from 94 aircraft to 56. Neither the House nor the Senate found the administration's arguments for cutting the bomber fleet persuasive. They both concluded that making deep B-52 retirements would put at risk our military's ability to carry out the national security strategy. Let me quote from the House Armed Services Committee's report:

Committee also understands that the current B-52 combat

coded force structure is insufficient to meet combatant

commander requirements for conventional long range strike, if

the need should arise to conduct simultaneous operations in

two major regional conflicts.

The Senate Armed Services Committee had similar concerns:

The Committee is concerned that any further reduction in

the B-52H total aircraft inventory will create unacceptable

risk to national security and may prevent our ability to

strike the required conventional target set during times of

war.

Because of these concerns, last year Congress enacted defense legislation allowing the retirement of only 18 B-52s, reducing the fleet to 76. But the law required that the savings from those retirements be devoted to modernizing the remaining bombers, and the law prohibited any further retirements until a next generation bomber was available--probably around 2018.

I will ask that section 131 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 be printed in the Record, along with the relevant sections of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees' reports on that law.

Unfortunately, there have been some efforts to try to find a way around that law. For a while, it looked like there might be an effort to play games with the assignments of the B-52 fleet, by doubling up the assignments of aircraft that we now use for training and calling them ``dual coded'' training and combat aircraft. Then, instead of retiring B-52s, they would simply mothball them. But mothballed aircraft will do nothing to preserve our ability to fight and win two wars.

Based on the analysis of the Armed Services Committee and my own staff's analysis, it is clear that slashing the size of our B-52 force would significantly increase the risks we face in fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous contingencies. If we retired 38 B-52s, it would be impossible for the Air Force to deploy a bomber force comparable to the one we used during the initial days of the war in Iraq. During the initial 30 days of combat in Iraq, the Air Force used more than 80 B- 52s so it could sustain a deployed force of 42 B-52s at forward operating locations overseas. Obviously, the Air Force could not repeat that feat with just 56 B-52s.

Moreover, the war in Iraq has tied down a large share of our land forces and increased our dependence on the Air Force for dealing with any additional crises. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace has made the situation very clear. He said, ``If another, [conflict] popped up tomorrow, regardless of where, . . . you would have the Navy and the Air Force being able to get there very quickly.''

Because we were concerned about the risks to our warfighting ability, last year Congress barred the Pentagon from retiring B-52s until the submission of a comprehensive Bomber Roadmap study by an independent research institution. That study still has not been completed.

Some people have tried to tie the B-52 issue to an altogether different question: whether the Air Force will be allowed to retire a long list of old aircraft in its inventory that currently have restrictions on their operation or are even grounded. Let me be clear. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I strongly agree that we need to retire unserviceable aircraft. There is no point in paying to maintain aircraft that we cannot fly.

The B-52 is not part of that problem. While it has flown for many years, the B-52 is still a young aircraft in flying

hour terms. The Air Force has said that today's H-model B-52 is flyable for another 30 to 40 years. Most commercial airliners have several times as many cycles per aircraft and airframe hours as the B-52, which spent most of the Cold War sitting alert on the ground.

In fact, the B-52 is in many ways the most valuable aircraft in our inventory. Today's B-52 has been modernized and can carry the widest range of weapons of any aircraft we own. It has the highest mission capable rate in the bomber force, and it costs the least to operate of any bomber. The FY 2006 reimbursement rate for the B-52 is $10,000 per flying hour less than the B-1B and $4,000 per flying hour less than the

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Of course, I rise in support of the rule for this conference report, the National Defense Authorization Act. I will speak more at length on this issue later today after we have the privilege of passing the rule on this floor. But, I must say, Madam Speaker, that in my years of being here in the Congress, this is the most comprehensive, well thought-out and studied authorization bill that we have had. It's excellent for the troops, it's excellent for the families, and their health care. It makes great strides in the area of readiness.

I just feel like bragging on all the members of the House Armed Services Committee on both sides of the aisle. Of course, it couldn't be done without the crackerjack staff that we have, and we are just absolutely blessed with the dedicated staff that we have, Erin Conaton, who's the staff director. We owe all of the members of the staff our great appreciation.

This has been months of hard work. We have a proud tradition in the Armed Services Committee as being bipartisan. It helps with the problems of readiness, including equipment, training and people. It gives an across-the-board 3.5 percent pay raise, protects them from escalating fees for health care. It includes over 100 measures, large and small, for quality of life. We combined the best elements of the Wounded Warrior Act that was passed here in the House by 426-0, as well as a companion bill that passed the Senate.

We have many parts of this bill that are new, which will help us in the area of national security all the more. I

will, at length, discuss them when we take the bill up at a later moment today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on the conference report for H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. I will speak at more length about this bill later today.

This legislation represents the outcome of months of hard work by the House Armed Services Committee and our colleagues in the other body. It is a good bill and it is a bipartisan bill in the proud tradition of the Armed Services Committee. It is good for our troops and their families. It will help improve the readiness of our Armed Forces, who face dire problems with all elements of readiness including equipment, training, and people. And it will bring significant new oversight to the Department of Defense in areas where oversight is sorely needed.

Let me just mention a few high points.

H.R. 1585 includes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for the troops, protects them from escalating fees for health care, and includes well over 100 other measures, both large and small, to improve their quality of life. Just as important, it upholds the debt of honor the nation owes to its injured and fallen veterans, by combining the best elements of the Wounded Warrior Act which passed the House 426-0, and a companion bill which passed the Senate.

To address the readiness crisis, it establishes a new, high level board of military officers, the Defense Materiel Readiness Board, to grapple with the growing, dramatic shortfalls confronting the Armed Forces. The committee also made a special effort to authorize the most money possible for readiness accounts.

Critically, this bill will bring much needed oversight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It follows up on the bipartisan investigation of Iraqi Security Forces by the committee's reinstated Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee by increasing reporting relating to Iraqi Security Forces and requiring real accountability for weapons transferred to that nation. And it institutes, for the first time, regular progress reports to Congress on the war in Afghanistan, where our critical national interests remain deeply challenged by those who attacked us on September 11. The bill also creates a new Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Finally, this bill takes significant strides to ensure that the Department of Defense is able to posture itself to address new threats. The bill includes $17.6 billion for mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles to protect our troops in Iraq and in future conflicts. It increases funding for shipbuilding by almost a billion dollars. The bill also adds 8 C-17s to help meet the demands for global power projection in today's world.

In closing, I ask my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report when we consider it later today.