National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2008

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Franks amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Franks amendment. This amendment would increase fiscal year 2009 funding for the Missile Defense Agency by $719 million, back up to the level of the President's budget request. The Bush administration's request of $9.3 billion in fiscal year 2009 for the Missile Defense Agency already represents an increase of $680 million above last year's funded level.

With prudent reductions and selected increases, H.R. 5658 authorizes $8.6 billion in FY 2009 for the Missile Defense Agency, roughly equivalent to the fiscal year 2008 level. We provide increases in funding for assistance geared to current threats, like Aegis BMD, THAAD, the missile defense testing program and missile defense cooperation with Israel, all of these by $185 million. At the same time, we make prudent reductions to longer-term, less-mature systems, like the Multiple Kill Vehicle and the Airborne Laser.

Unfortunately, the Franks amendment would unravel the thoughtful work of the committee. First, Mr. Franks proposes that the offset would come from any Pentagon research and development account, except the Missile Defense Agency, unfairly placing missile defense programs above all other R&D priorities.

Second, it is unlikely that the proposed increase in the funding for the programs outlined in this amendment can be executed in fiscal year 2009.

Third, and perhaps more important, the amendment is inconsistent of section 223 of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, which requires that procurement funds be used for procurement activities, not research and development activities.

Also, as written, the amendment would not allow any of the funding to be used for additional THAAD or Aegis Standard Missile Interceptors, because it provides only research and development funding.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5858 provides our warfighters the real capabilities to meet the real threats to our homeland, deployed forces and allies. It also makes prudent reductions to systems geared to less urgent threats, ensuring that other important national defense priorities, such as readiness, strategic programs and nonproliferation efforts, are well-funded.

The House defeated a similar floor amendment last year, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume prior to introducing my colleague from Washington.

I just wanted to correct the record. My colleague from Texas must have very old talking points. The subcommittee increased the money for both THAAD, a $75 million increase above the President's budget, and Aegis BMD, $75 million over the President's budget. So what the gentleman just said is totally incorrect.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), who is a very valuable member of the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for many reasons. I think it is interesting that my colleague from the other side of the aisle sloughs off the fact that we plussed up the President's budget by $75 million for THAAD, $75 million for Aegis. But what he doesn't want to tell anyone is that the President's budget actually cut funding for THAAD firing units, and it wasn't until the majority, the Democrats, went to the administration and said we thought that was a really, really bad idea, and gave the money back to the account. We would have been in a deeper hole.

So I think that my colleague is doing a good job supporting the Missile Defense Agency, but that is not what our job is. Our job is to make sure that we have a balanced portfolio of investments for the American people and our warfighters. This mark does it. I think that is why we have such strong support. I think that it is also important for people to know that Mr. Franks wants to buy more Aegis and THAAD inventory; but under the current law his amendment cannot do that because he is using RDT&E funds. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tierney amendment. The amendment seeks to reduce funding for the Missile Defense Agency by about $1 billion beyond the $719 million that the committee has already reduced.

I have several concerns with the amendment. Our bill strikes the right balance between the current requirements of the warfighter and the need to invest in future technologies. Our bill increases funding for systems geared toward current threats like Aegis BMD and THAAD, while reducing funding for longer term projects.

Our bill already reduces funding for most of the programs the amendment seeks to cut, like the kinetic energy interceptor, the multiple kill vehicle, and the airborne laser. Our bill makes the different reductions to the proposed missile defense sites in Europe based on the slow pace of diplomacy and the technological immaturity of the proposed system.

The Tierney amendment, on the other hand, is ill-conceived. First, the amendment undercuts deployment of the existing ground-based mid course defense system in Alaska and California.

Second, by eliminating any and all funding for the potential missile defense system in Europe, the amendment would undercut U.S.-NATO cooperation on missile defense against emerging Iranian missile threats to Europe and U.S. troops in the region.

Third, the amendment's additional reduction to ABL could actually lead to more missile defense spending because it would delay the planned shootdown demonstration scheduled for next year, leading to increased costs in 2010.

Missile defense provisions in this bill by the committee were carefully crafted to balance the need to deliver missile defense capabilities that address current threats, and make prudent investments in future capabilities. It pares back spending on immature science projects, like last year's bill did, and includes a host of provisions to improve accountability for MDA programs. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Tierney amendment.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1218, and as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that, during further consideration of H.R. 5658 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of the second en bloc amendment, the following amendment be considered in the following order: amendment No. 22, amendment No. 52, amendment No. 25, amendment No. 32, amendment No. 31, amendment No. 55, amendment No. 56, amendment No. 58, amendment No. 51, amendment No. 4.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a technical corrections amendment to H.R. 5658, as reported by the Committee on Armed Services on May 16 of this year, and I certainly hope it will be adopted and I so move.

I yield.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that deals with a very difficult situation that has arisen in recent years: the cooperation, or I should say, the lack of cooperation between various departments of our government that relate to national security. This in particular, however, deals with just the Defense Department and the State Department. We had a historic hearing in our committee touching on this subject with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State testifying side by side.

This amendment provides both the Congress and the executive branch with specific recommendations by a specified panel to key issues based on practical experience. It will also serve as a useful tool to guide future congressional efforts in this area and demonstrate congressional commitment to long-term solutions and cooperation.

I wish to compliment my friend and colleague from California for his assistance on this as well, Mr. Berman, and I might say this also is a bipartisan amendment. Several people, the gentleman on the Armed Services Committee on the other side of the aisle, are strongly in favor of it, as well as on the Democratic side.

I also wish to thank, besides Mr. Berman, Nita Lowey for her cosponsorship of this particular amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) who is the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, as I mentioned, a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, my colleague, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis) who is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of our Armed Services Committee.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who is a member on leave from our Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time, please.

Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to say a special thanks to those who worked so hard and so long on this issue. Number one is recognizing the problem, number two is doing something about it.

Now, it really crosses more than two departmental lines or two committee lines, the Defense and the Foreign Affairs. This is a major step in the right direction, and Congress is doing something about it.

Let me say special thanks, first, to our ranking member, Mr. Hunter, to Dr. Snyder, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Thornberry of Texas, Mr. Murtha, of course cosponsor Mr. Berman, cosponsor Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Cooper, who chaired the panel on Roles and Missions, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Langevin and Mr. Geoff Davis. I'm sure there are others that have worked on it, but those need special recognition for the efforts that they put forth in this.

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

I do have at least one additional speaker, Mr. Chairman.

Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1218, and as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that, during further consideration of H.R. 5658 in the Committee of the Whole, and following consideration of the en bloc amendments, the following amendments be considered in the following order: amendment No. 6, amendment No. 23, amendment No. 33, amendment No. 8, amendment No. 15, amendment No. 26, amendment No. 50, amendment No. 53.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Tennessee, (Mr. Cooper).

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Back in law school when you had a question, the instructor would say, ``Read it. What does it say?'' And this amendment says that $163 million is attained from a military personnel account and from the health care account for our troops. That's what it says.

Let's be clear. The personnel account deals with pay and benefits and the health care for our military community. Cutting that is not acceptable.

Let me explain. The subcommittee system in the Armed Services Committee does a good job. This particular program, the Future Combat System, was scrubbed. As a matter of fact, some items in it were plussed up by several millions of dollars. Nothing well beyond 2015 was touched. It has come in at an estimate of nearly actually twice what the original estimate was.

I just think it's wrong to take this money or attempt to take this money from these accounts which take care of our troops. We are doing our best to increase the readiness of our troops, and readiness also touches families, families' attitude whether someone will re-enlist and keep the skills in uniform or whether they will go home and not remain part of our military.

Consequently, I think this is just a wrong amendment and I do oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the amendment in front of us. That's what I think people should read. Not something else. Not something that is not on point in the middle of the discussion before us today.

Read it. It takes money from the personnel account and from the health care account. That's not treating the troops right.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to H. Res. 1218, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, all of which have been examined by the majority as well as the minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time 1 minute to my friend from Maryland, from the Armed Services Committee (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Watson).

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

At this time, I yield 1 minute to my friend and also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr Inslee).

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

In doing so, I want to reflect on the work that the subcommittees do in the Armed Services Committee. The gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher) chairs the subcommittee that deals with this subject matter that Mr. Franks seeks to amend. Hearings, witnesses, briefings discussions, markups, all of that goes into the work product that this gentlelady's subcommittee did. And for us to second-guess on anything of this magnitude or on any subject that has been studied as thoroughly as this one has, and I compliment all the members of that subcommittee on the work that they did.

I think it would be improper to do so, and I do oppose this amendment.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Having served on the House Armed Services Committee, I know that it handles some of the most complicated and contentious issues before Congress, but through a combination of hard work and a commitment to bipartisanship, it has been able to assemble a good bill that all Members should support. I would particularly like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for their leadership and their efforts to enhance our national security.

The members of this body hold significantly different opinions about what our Nation's role should be in Iraq. Personally, having voted against the authorization of the use of force in Iraq, I believe that our current combat operations are doing significant and systemic damage to our military readiness and that we need a new strategy that emphasizes diplomatic and economic efforts and that allows us to bring our troops home. Despite our differences on Iraq policy, though, my colleagues and I stand in full support of the men and women in uniform who serve our Nation, as well as their families. This legislation recognizes their service by providing a pay raise of 3.9 percent--an increase of 0.5 percent over the President's budget request. It also rejects the President's ill-advised proposal to raise premiums and co- pays for participants of TRICARE, the military health care system. Congress recognizes that other options exist to reduce the cost of health care and that we must not place an undue burden on our military families. To that end, H.R. 5658 establishes several new preventive health initiatives, which will keep people healthier and reduce future costs.

As co-chair of the House Submarine Caucus, I am particularly pleased that the bill before us makes a major investment in our national security by providing an additional $722 million for advanced procurement of a second VIRGINIA-class submarine in FY2010--one year ahead of schedule. Last year, Congress provided $588 million to expedite the VIRGINIA-class construction schedule to attain two submarines in FY2011, and this legislation moves the target date even sooner. Submarines are one of the most effective and flexible platforms in our military, but if we don't build more quickly, we will lose our strategic advantage over nations that are rapidly expanding their naval forces. Furthermore, this funding will help our submarine industrial base, which, without additional work, will face layoffs, and our Nation could lose their specialized skills and expertise. The men and women who work at Electric Boat in my district make the best submarines in the world, and I am pleased that this legislation will allow them to expand their contributions to our national security. I am deeply grateful to Chairman Ike Skelton and Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor--as well as my friend and neighbor Joe Courtney and my co- chair on the Submarine Caucus Randy Forbes--for their commitment to our submarine force.

This Congress has shown a commitment to our Navy and recognizes the importance of shipbuilding. While I applaud many provisions in this bill that will help restore the size of our fleet, I have concerns about the decision to delay the purchase of the third Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000). Instead of funding the President's full request, the bill provides $400 million that may be used either to purchase long-lead materials for the thud DDG-1000 or to begin procurement of two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG-51). The DDG-1000 is the first installment in the Navy's Family of Ships line, which will develop new technology for later insertion in the next-generation cruiser and other surface ships. Delaying DDG-1000 will prevent the development of new technologies and weapons systems that are necessary to address current and future threats. Additionally, while purchasing additional DDG-51s will help us increase the size of our fleet, they cannot fulfill the mission requirements of the DDG-1000, which was specifically built to have greater capability and a smaller crew. As we move forward with this bill, I ask that the committee keep these concerns in mind.

I am very proud to support H.R. 5658, which provides our men and women in uniform with the resources, equipment and services they need to continue their excellent service to the Nation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Skelton-Berman-Lowey amendment, and I want to commend the sponsors for proposing this amendment.

Having served on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security Committees, I have seen firsthand the stovepiping that occurs in the various parts of government responsible for national security. I recognize the urgent need to encourage greater interagency cooperation, both in strategic planning and at the operational level.

Our Nation has many ways to promote stability and peace throughout the world and protect our Nation. We often see a focus on our hard power assets, such as use of our military, but we also use our diplomacy, financial assistance, or other ``soft power'' assets such as cultural exchanges and communications. We need far better coordination and cooperation between our hard and soft power assets to truly achieve a comprehensive national security strategy for the United States.

This amendment would create an advisory panel to encourage collaboration among Department of Defense, State Department, and USAID. This is an important first step in promoting a comprehensive view of national security, and I'm confident that the sponsors of this amendment will build on this effort.

I look forward to working with them to encourage more interagency cooperation so that the United States can be more effective in reaching our national security goals.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to urge support for my amendment to restore funding to the Missile Defense Agency to fund against short and medium-range ballistics missiles. My amendment restores $719 million in funding to the Missile Defense Agency, to return the President's budget request to $9.3 billion. My amendment directs that this $719 million be specifically targeted toward the Theater High Altitude Area Defense System and the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and the test and targets necessary to test those systems.

I agree with the Democrats, Madam Chairman, which is pretty unusual. I agree with the Democrats that we need to be concerned about the threat of short and medium-range ballistic missiles to our forward- deployed troops on the Korean peninsula, North Japan, and throughout southwest Asia. Today, these forces are at risk of attack by thousands of lethal ballistic missiles that may carry conventional, chemical, or, in some cases, nuclear warheads. Our close allies, South Korea, Japan, Israel, and Turkey are held at risk by these missiles as well.

Deployed Patriot batteries provide some limited point defense to shield some, but not all, of our key command and control centers. We can improve upon this very limited defense and offer a larger umbrella of protection against ballistic missiles to our forces with area defense. Both the land-based Theater High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, as well as the sea-based AEGIS Ballistic Missile system, offer significant area missile defense capabilities to our theater commanders.

I want to applaud the entire House Armed Services Committee for increasing funding for both of these programs. Unfortunately, I fear these increases do not do enough for our theater commanders, who cannot get these systems deployed fast enough because they simply are not yet available to apportion. The House Armed Services Committee has received testimony from Admiral Keating, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and General Bell, Commander of U.S. Forces in Korea, to this effect.

The administration should accelerate production of THAAD fire units and interceptors, as well as the AEGIS 3 standard missile 3 interceptors to adequately source the combatant commands with area defense against short and medium-range or theater class ballistic missiles.

The committee has authorized $75 million above the President's budget for each of these programs, but I am concerned that this increase will not deliver capability to the warfighter soon enough in the most expeditious manner. The short and medium-range ballistic missile threat exists today, and we can procure more interceptors to defend our troops in harm's way.

Mr. Chairman, very simply, probably one of our best hedges against proliferation of nuclear arms today in the world is missile defense, and it is very important that we do everything we can to be prepared for any eventuality. So I offer this amendment and urge the support of my colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Chairman, this bill being labeled the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act, named after the distinguished ranking member of our committee, who has been the former chairman for a long period of time, he has been here for 26 years, he should have been chairman for that time, I now yield to the gentleman from California, it is my honor, perhaps for the last time, to yield to him for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I request the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, the $75 million increase to the Aegis BMD that the Democrats have spoken of here does not even fund the necessary upgrades to the Aegis weapons systems BMD signal processing capability necessary to keep pace with the evolving short-range and medium-range ballistic missile threat. So we are definitely not doing enough there.

This $75 million increase to the Aegis ballistic missile defense budget that they speak of does not even cover the expenses incurred by the Missile Defense Agency to conduct a shootdown of the U.S. 193 satellite. This cost the agency approximately $100 million.

My Democrat friends have often stated that far-term systems are much less important than near-term systems. So I believe it is reasonable to assume that the RTD&E accounts are the appropriate offset for such an amendment.

The bottom line is this: A $9.3 billion request budget from the President has been decreased by $719 million. And in an age of missiles, as the ranking member mentioned, this is not a time to cut our missile defense capability. Missile defense is not only the last line of defense against an incoming missile, perhaps with a nuclear warhead representing the most dangerous weapon in the history of humanity, it is the first line of defense against proliferation. And, Mr. Chairman, proliferation I believe, given the examples that Mr. Lamborn mentioned of Iran and others, represents the greatest threat to human peace in the world today.

Missile defense is an opportunity for us to devalue those programs in the hands of such enemies, and perhaps help this generation and others to walk a little bit longer in the sunlight of freedom.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill emphasizes the need to counter short- and medium-ranged missiles in five different places. The committee report highlights that the warfighters themselves have suggested and asked for increased inventory, and we shouldn't be second-guessing them in a time such as we live.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered to S. 3001, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The bill, once again, renews our commitment to ensuring the highest levels of readiness and supporting the individual needs of our men and women in uniform. The bill is a product of hard work and dedication by our Chairman, Ranking Member and committee staff.

The bill also continues to ensure that Congress will have the appropriate oversight and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure the military build-up on Guam is a success. In particular, the bill establishes an account to manage funds contributed to the U.S. Government in support of the military build-up by the Government of Japan through authority granted in Section 2350k of Title 10 of the United States Code. This account will provide us, as well as the Government of Japan, with greater accountability of how funds are being used. Over $13 billion dollars on military construction projects alone will be spent on Guam over a six year period as stipulated in the Alliance Transformation and Realignment Agreement.

As important, the bill also contains provisions that express Congress's position on a variety of issues that will impact the local civilian community on Guam. Congress directs the Department of Defense to ensure that any improvements to utilities made on Guam as a result of the military build-up benefit the entire island community. Most specifically, it expresses that the Department of Defense should be a consumer and not a provider of basic services. If the Department of Defense is a consumer of water, power and wastewater resources then an economy of scales can be reached that will help lower the cost for both the military and civilian community.

The bill also calls on the federal government to work more closely with their respective counterpart agencies in the Government of Guam to develop Memoranda of Understanding to ensure continuity of effort as Administrations prepare to change in Washington, D.C. and in Guam. The Memoranda of Understanding will allow federal and local governments to adequately prepare and plan infrastructure needs to meet the capacity demands added by the build-up of forces on Guam. The agreements will also give private industry a commitment that the federal and local governments are serious about and committed to ensuring success for the build-up.

A successful example of a Memorandum of Understanding is the one signed by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the Port of Guam in May, 2008. The memorandum commits MARAD to use its technical expertise in contracting and planning to assist the Port of Guam in making necessary improvements for the port's capacity. The private sector, Government of Guam and the Department of Defense all agree that the port, if not improved and expanded, would have potentially been a ``bottleneck'' in the successful completion of projects related to the military build-up. However, the Memorandum of Understanding could not be fully implemented without the inclusion of authorizing language that is contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The language that I sponsored grants MARAD the authority to execute the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding. Now, we have a successful example of how Memoranda of Understanding can guide development of civilian infrastructure on Guam.

Finally, the bill continues this Congress's commitment to our nation's indispensable force, our citizen soldiers and airmen of the Army and Air National Guard. In addition to a 3.9% increase in pay for all service members, the bill adds $800 million specifically for National Guard and equipment. The bill also fully authorizes the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program for the Army, allowing them to procure seven aircraft in fiscal year 2009. However, in order to maintain this indispensable force, it was critical that we authorized a substantial increase in full time manning for the Army and Air National Guard, and this funding was placed in the base budget in a fiscally responsible manner. Ensuring that the National Guard has adequate full time positions is imperative if they are to remain a fully operational force.

There are other provisions of interest to me and of relevance to Department of Defense activities on Guam. Of note is a provision authorizing the Department of Defense to participate in and financially contribute to conservation banking and in-lieu fee mitigation initiatives. This is important to protecting our environment and Guam presents an ideal opportunity for the Department of Defense to partner with the Government of Guam toward meeting conservation goals and mitigating the impact of the military build-up. I regret that the other body has withheld support from some provisions related to the military build-up that were adopted earlier this year by this House.

I will continue to work on these provisions in the next Congress.

I want to thank Congressman Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and Congressman Solomon Ortiz, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness for their leadership and steadfast support of provisions relating to the Guam military build-up that are included in this bill. I also want to thank the staff of the House Committee on Armed Services, specifically Erin Conaton, Paul Arcangeli, Will Ebbs, Debra Wada, Eryn Robinson, Vickie Plunkett, Cathy Garman, Andrew Hunter and Michael Higgins. However, David Sienicki should be especially commended for his outstanding work and understanding of the strategic importance of the Guam military build-up.

I urge passage of the amendment to S. 3001.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment asking the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to develop a report on the effectiveness of certain Guard ``empowerment'' provisions that were contained in the FY08 Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Chairman, since September 11, 2001, the United States has increasingly turned to the men and women of the National Guard to provide much needed support in our efforts to prosecute a global war against radical Islamic jihaddists. Answering their Nation's call to arms, Guard units from across the country have faithfully and courageously served in harm's way on the front lines of this historic struggle.

The men and women of the Iowa National Guard are no different. Just last month, constituents from my congressional district in Western Iowa welcomed home members of the Iowa Army National Guard who returned from deployments in Iraq. As has been the case with many Guard units across the country, this is not the first welcome home ceremony that these units have enjoyed in the past few years.

And yet, while the Guard is deploying many of its members to distant battlefields, it is still expected to meet the many demands of its domestic mission. Despite the Nation's need for men and women of the Guard to serve on the battlefield, our State Governors must continue to have ready access to the Guard to respond to the emergency and disaster relief needs of their States.

There is no doubt that the services and capabilities of the Guard are in high demand. In many respects, this is due to the fact that both active duty commanders and governors know that when they call, the Guard will be there. They also know that Guard members can always be counted upon to complete their mission in the most efficient and professional manner possible.

The many demands placed upon the Guard, however, have begun to wear down its capabilities. To address this, Congress included several provisions in the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act intended to boost the standing of the Guard within the Department of Defense. The ``empowerment'' provisions included the elevation of the Chief of the Guard Bureau from the rank of Lieutenant General to the rank of full General. The bill also made the Guard Chief the primary advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on Guard matters.

In addition to these important changes, the bill also made the National Guard a joint agency, charges the Secretary of Defense with writing the Guard's charter, and requires that the Deputy Commander of the Northern Command be a member of the Guard.

All of these changes, Mr. Chairman, were aimed at ensuring the National Guard would have a clearer voice in policy and budgetary discussions within the Department of Defense. To determine the extent to which these empowerment provisions have accomplished this goal, my amendment asks the Chief of the Guard Bureau to submit a report to the Secretary of Defense analyzing the effectiveness of the empowerment provisions. My amendment then requires the Secretary of Defense to submit the Chief's report to Congress with the Secretary's own comments on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, as we continue to wage a global war against radical Islamic jihaddists, it is imperative that we give the National Guard the resources and pull necessary to ensure it is able to remain an integral part of this fight and to ensure it is able to carry out its duties with respect to its domestic mission here at home. To do this, we must see to it that we are responsive to the needs of the Guard. With the passage of the empowerment provisions in last year's Defense Authorization bill, we have taken some important first steps toward addressing the 21st century needs of the Guard. But only the Guard itself will be able to tell us if these changes have hit their mark and are having their intended effect.

This amendment will allow Congress to get important, first-hand feedback from the Guard on this important issue, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.