International Nuclear Fuel for Peace and Nonproliferation Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 860, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this conference report.

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

I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm so extremely proud of the members of the Armed Services Committee, of all of those who worked hard in and out of the Armed Services Committee to make this happen. And a special thanks to the fantastic staff that we have supporting us, Erin Conaton, Bob Simmons, who is the leader of those on the other side of the aisle regarding the staff, and everyone just pitched in so very, very well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. As a matter of fact, I think it's the best bill in decades that this Congress has put forward. It's good for our troops, good for our families, it will help improve readiness of our Armed Forces, and it will bring new significant oversight to the Department of Defense in areas where oversight was sorely needed in the past.

Let me begin by saying that the Armed Services Committee has remained committed to a tradition of bipartisanship, and we appreciate that, and we have all throughout the year.

Special thanks to our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and today to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who's been such a great help through the years.

When the 110th Congress began, we laid out, from the Armed Services Committee, six strategic priorities, and we have met them in this legislation. The bill before us is the culmination of our efforts. It addresses strategic priorities in important ways. It includes a 3.5 percent across-the-board

pay raise, it protects the troops and their families from escalating health care fees, and includes well over 100 other measures, both large and small, regarding quality of life. It is especially important because it adopts the elements of the Wounded Warrior Act which passed this House earlier in the year 426-0. And I think that that, in and of itself, is a major victory for those in uniform.

It addresses readiness. It establishes a new, high level board of military officers, the Defense Materiel Readiness Board, to grapple with the growing shortfalls confronting the Armed Forces. The bill allocates $1 billion to a Strategic Readiness Fund.

The bill will bring much needed oversight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does so by instituting new reporting requirements developed on a bipartisan basis.

The bill builds on the successful passage of H.R. 1, which fully implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. H.R. 1585 authorizes the funding required to carry forward that act by continuing, and this is important, and expanding the Department of Defense's cooperative threat reduction program and the Department of Energy's nuclear nonproliferation programs. Mr. Speaker, these programs address perhaps the single largest threat to the American homeland, the threat of nuclear terrorism and other weapons of mass destruction, and we address that very carefully in this bill.

We also include $17.6 billion for the mine resistant ambush vehicle, which is known as MRAP, to protect our troops in Iraq and in future conflicts. It does a great deal in the area of funding for our various ships, including production of two Virginia-class submarines per year by 2010, and adds eight C-17s to meet the needs of the demands of global power projection.

One of the most important elements of this bill, in addition to the money and the hardware, is a requirement that the Department of Defense perform a quadrennial review of its roles and missions. The first time this was addressed, and the last time it was addressed thoroughly, was back in 1948 at the behest of President Harry Truman and his then Secretary of Defense, James Forestal. The review we require in this bill causes a full examination as to whether the Department of Defense is truly developing the core competencies and capabilities to perform the missions assigned to it and whether those capabilities are being developed in the most joint and efficient way by the military services. Much has changed since 1948. Technology has changed and has blossomed and mushroomed, and that's why it's important that we update, by way of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense, the Key West agreement that was met back in that year of 1948.

I am very, very pleased with this bill, Mr. Speaker. I think that history will say that this one was a comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive, Defense authorization bill that our Congress has passed in decades.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record, regarding the Key West agreement of 1948, a statement by Sam Rushie, who is the supervisory archivist of the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

On December 19, 1945--3 months after the end of the Second

World War--President Truman recommended to Congress that the

War and Navy Departments be unified in a new Department of

National Defense. In his statement to Congress, Truman

declared, ``One of the lessons which have most clearly come

from the costly and dangerous experience of this war is that

there must be unified direction of land, sea and air forces

at home as well as in all other parts of the world where our

Armed Forces are serving. ``We did not have that kind of

direction when we were attacked four years ago--and we

certainly paid a high price for not having it.''

On May 13, 1946, Truman met with Secretary of War Patterson

and Secretary of the Navy Forrestal, and he urged that the

Army and the Navy reach a compromise on the problem of

unification.

The President's proposals were finally enacted on July 26,

1947, as the National Security Act, the main feature of which

was the establishment of a unified Department of Defense.

That same day, the President issued Executive Order 9877, an

attempt to define the functions of the Army, the Navy, and

the newly created Air Force within the unified National

Military Establishment. However, bickering between the

services continued, especially over issues that the Executive

Order had failed to address specifically. Many of these

issues concerned the functions of the Navy. The Army regarded

the Navy's Marine Corps as a rival for control of combat

operations on land; similarly, the Air Force viewed Naval

Aviation as an infringement on its jurisdiction over air

operations.

In an effort to resolve these conflicts, Secretary of

Defense James Forrestal summoned the Joint Chiefs of Staff to

a meeting at Key West, Florida in March 1948. Following

suggestions made by Forrestal, the Joint Chiefs drafted a

directive entitled ``Functions of the Armed Forces and the

Joint Chiefs of Staff,'' popularly known as the ``Key West

Agreement.'' Forrestal submitted this proposal to the

President in late March. On April 21, 1948, the President

issued Executive Order 9950, revoking his earlier executive

order. This cleared the way for the Secretary of Defense to

issue the new directive that same day.

With modifications, the Key West Agreement continues to

govern responsibilities within the armed forces to this day.

In contrast to the broad language of the earlier executive

order, Forrestal's directive specified the primary and

secondary responsibilities of each branch of the service. In

a tenuous compromise, it was agreed that the Navy would not

establish a strategic air component, but would be permitted

to have aircraft carriers and use its aircraft against inland

targets. (This was interpreted by the Navy as an endorsement

of the projected new supercarrier, the USS United States.)

The Air Force would retain primary responsibility for

strategic air operations and air defense. At the same time,

it was agreed that the Marine Corps would be preserved, but

would be limited in size to four divisions, and would

cooperate with the Army in planning amphibious operations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the

gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), my friend who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my friend from Mississippi for the historical reference back to 1944 regarding the fuel situation, and I think that the subcommittee is making a substantial contribution in requiring the nuclear ships that it does.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Will the gentleman from Alabama yield, please?

I thank the gentleman, and I do appreciate his concern on this issue. Protecting classified material of course is the utmost importance, and the standards for protecting this material should be consistent across government as well as industry. In that regard, I intend to work very closely with my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, on the issue, starting with the request of the Department of Defense to obtain their plans for meeting the 2012 deadline for phasing out containers used by defense contractors that have not been approved by the GSA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from California, who is also the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Mrs. Tauscher.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend and colleague from California, who is the chairwoman on the Subcommittee on Personnel, Mrs. Davis.

It appears we have no additional speakers except myself.

Mr. Speaker, before I make my closing remarks, I would yield 1 minute to my friend from Iowa, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Loebsack.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a good number of provisions that have not been fully discussed today, including contracting reform and acquisition reform. We did speak of roles and missions. But I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, of the years I have had the privilege

of serving in this body, this has to be the best, most comprehensive, troop-friendly, family-friendly and readiness-friendly bill that we have ever had.

When it first came to the House before we had our conference, it had a very, very strong vote here, and, Mr. Speaker, I hope we have as strong a vote when we seek the final passage on this bill today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by very, very sincerely thanking my good friend from Missouri, Chairman Skelton, for the great leadership that he has provided in the months past in writing the original version and then shaping the bill and then using his steady hand to guide us through the conference, of course with the help of my good friend, Ranking Member Duncan Hunter. Both of these leaders provided great direction for us, and I might say that the product of their work is here today. I agree with the chairman, that this is a very, very good bill, and I am very fortunate to be able to stand here today to say how important I think it is that we all support it.

Unfortunately, Ranking Member Hunter could not be here today, but I know he is very proud of this conference report as well. I'd like to thank all of the subcommittee chairmen and their ranking members for their hard work and leadership. It is responsible for almost 1,500 pages that this bill contains. And the staff that helped make this a reality, obviously Members would not have been able to be here today if it were not for them either.

This is a good, bipartisan bill. Last Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee filed this conference report after an overwhelming majority of conferees signed the report. Seldom in my career here have I seen this kind of agreement among Members on the bill. Our subcommittee chairmen and their ranking members will provide a detailed summary of the bill, so I will only highlight a few key areas.

Most importantly, this bipartisan bill takes care of the brave men and women serving our country at home and abroad. It authorizes $506.9 billion in budgetary authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. Additionally, it supports current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism by authorizing $189.4 billion in supplemental funding for operational costs, personnel expenses and procurement of new equipment for fiscal year 2008.

This amount provides for end-strength growth in both the Army and the Marine Corps, continuing initiatives started several years ago by the Armed Services Committee, by authorizing increases of 13,000 Army and 9,000 Marine Corps active duty personnel to sustain our required missions.

Additionally, this conference report authorizes a 3.5 percent pay increase, as the chairman remarked earlier. These pay raises for all members of the Armed Forces for 2008 are extremely important.

We talk a lot about quality of life and here we're doing something about it. Some of the initiatives in this legislation continue successful, practical programs such as the Commander's

Emergency Response Program, which is working well in battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other initiatives reinforce good legislation that the House has already passed, such as the Wounded Warrior legislation to address the challenges that face our recovering servicemembers and their families. Still others modify existing authorities or establish promising new programs and new policies.

Some of the new programs and policies include these:

Providing $17.6 billion for the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, an armored vehicle which will save lives going forward; setting guidelines for all private security contractors operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas where we have combat operations. And we know from recent news reports how important this provision is.

We also authorize eight additional C-17s to support the intratheater lift requirements and meet the airlift needs for the increased end strength in the Army and Marine Corps.

We added major acquisition reform initiatives, such as establishing new responsibilities for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and mandating that new acquisition programs be aligned with the missions of the Department and the competency and capability of the service proposing the program.

And finally, we acted to elevate the chief of the National Guard bureau to a four-star general and adopted many of the recommendations of the Commission on National Guard and Reserve Corps.

Just as importantly, this legislation avoids contentious language, such as the hate crimes provision, which would have put our bill at risk of a Presidential veto. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, whose hard work in shepherding this vital legislation through the conference has guaranteed that our servicemen and women will get what they need, and they will get it when they need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Chesapeake, Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hagerstown, Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rehoboth, Alabama (Mr. Everett), the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, Mr. McHugh.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel, Mr. Kline.

I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

I want to say a word on behalf of the Air Land Subcommittee. I want to first thank our great subcommittee chairman, Mr. Abercrombie, the gentleman from Hawaii, for his outstanding work and for his great cooperation on our subcommittee.

The major highlights of the Air Land Subcommittee's portion of this bill provide aircraft providing multiyear procurement authority for the CH-47 helicopter program; ensures continued development of two options for the propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter; authorizes $2.3 billion for eight badly needed C-17 aircraft; and allows the Air Force to proceed with their request to divest 24 C-130E and 85 KC-135E aircraft. These retirements will greatly help the Air Force. The aircraft are grounded or are unable to be used in combat operations.

The land forces under our subcommittee benefited from several areas of upgraded armor: the mine resistant ambush protected MRAP vehicles; the up-armored Humvees; the body armor that we provide in the IED fragment armor kits are very important elements of the bill. We also authorized $3.4 billion for the Army's future combat systems.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense continues to have acquisition directives that are rarely followed. This is not a good thing. Requirements for advancement through research and development to procurement, these provisions are routinely waived by the Department of Defense. It is hard to know if acquisition policies actually work if we rarely follow them.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report takes steps to address some of these issues, and I am encouraged by some of the things that I have recently seen and heard coming from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

Mr. Speaker, this conference report supports our military men and women and provides them with the equipment they need while at the same time taking steps to redress acquisition concerns of Congress. This conference report certainly in this regard deserves all of our support.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman as to how many additional speakers he has.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First let me, again, sincerely thank Chairman Skelton for the great job that he has done here bringing us to the floor with this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan used to say that all of the things that Congress does are important and all the programs that we fund are great programs and important programs. But then he would say, ``But none of that really matters much if we don't have a good system to protect the American people and our national security.'' I have kept that in mind ever since I was a freshman here, because that was when I heard him say that.

I believe that this bill today carries on that same kind of tradition, because we work together as Republicans and Democrats, understanding that we have a finite amount of money and resources to put toward our national security, and therefore it's incumbent upon us to do it the best way we can.

We do face a multitude of threats to our way of life and our national security interests, and as legislators, we therefore must accept that it is our responsibility to ensure that our brave men and women in uniform have the best available tools at their disposal to combat those threats and protect those interests.

The provisions of this bill go a considerable way in demonstrating that kind of support. And so I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report.

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

I'm particularly grateful to Chairman Skelton for working with me to include things important for Colorado, including: a provision to keep the cleanup of the Pueblo Chemical Depot on track and fully funded; a review of DOD's training requirements for helicopter operations in high-altitude conditions, a provision that will help the High-Altitude Army National Guard Training Site in my district to establish its need for additional training helicopters; language requiring the Army to make its case for expansion at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site; an agreement between the Air Force and the city of Pueblo about flight operations at the Pueblo airport; a report on opportunities for leveraging Defense Department funds with States' funds to prevent disruption in the event of electric grid or pipeline failures; and restrictions on the move of key NORAD functions from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson Air Force Base until security implications and promised cost savings are analyzed.

I am also pleased that the final bill includes two amendments I offered in committee, including one to repeal a provision adopted last year that makes it easier for the president to federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement purposes during emergencies. By repealing this, my amendment restores the role of the Governors with regard to this subject. My other amendment extends for 5 years the Office of the Ombudsman that assists people claiming benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA, which is so important for affected workers from the Rocky Flats site in my district.

Mr. Speaker, this bill rightly focuses on our military's readiness needs.

After 5 years at war, both the active duty and reserve forces are stretched to their limits. The bill will provide what's needed to respond, including a substantial Strategic Readiness Fund, adding funds for National Guard equipment and training, requiring a plan for rebuilding our prepositioned stocks, and establishing a Defense Readiness Production Board to mobilize the industrial base to address equipment shortfalls.

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

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

The bill incorporates provisions from the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which passed the House earlier this year and was driven by the revelations of mistreatment and mismanagement at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. These provisions establish new requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight needed to ensure high-quality care and efficient administrative processing at Walter Reed and throughout the active duty military services. The bill also establishes a Military Mental Health Initiative to coordinate all mental health research and development within the Defense Department, and establishes a Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative to allow emerging technologies and treatments to compete for funding.

Given the increased use of the National Guard and Reserves in recent years, the bill gives important new authorities to the National Guard to fulfill its expanded role, including authorizing a fourth star for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, making the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense, and requiring that at least

one deputy of Northern Command be a National Guard officer.

The final bill also addresses ongoing problems of contracting fraud by tightening controls on managing contracts and improving whistleblower protections, as well as improving accountability in contracting by requiring public justification of the use of procedures that prevent full and open competition.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for his leadership in bringing the Conference Report on H.R. 1585, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008,'' expeditiously to the House floor. This legislation includes critical program and funding authorizations for the men and women in our Nation's armed forces.

This Conference Report contains several provisions that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, including provisions that affect the Federal Aviation Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the General Services Administration. I have no objection to the inclusion of most of these provisions.

I rise today in opposition to one provision in the final Conference Report that significantly affects the responsibility of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ``Corps.'' Section 2875 rewards the city of Woonsocket, RI, for failing its statutory obligation to operate and maintain its local levee by shifting responsibility for this now- failing levee to the Federal government. Current law provides that operation and maintenance responsibility for flood control projects is a non-Federal responsibility. However, this section requires the Corps to conduct any repairs or rehabilitation of the existing structure, including its replacement.

This provision is bad policy, because it establishes the precedent that the Federal government will assume responsibility for failing flood control systems, which according to the Corps, may include an inventory of roughly 15,000 miles of levees and other flood control structures, nationwide.

This provision also creates the false impression that communities that sign contractual obligations with the United States, through the Corps, can have these contracts overturned by congressional action if the community can convince one Member of Congress that the community lacks sufficient resources to meet their operation and maintenance responsibilities.

The Corps is often called upon to construct flood control projects, in partnership with a non-Federal interest under a normal cost-sharing agreement. Once the project is completed, the responsibility for long- term operation and maintenance is transferred to the non-Federal interest. With the exception of the projects along the Mississippi River that are part of the Mississippi River and Tributaries project (MRT), the Corps is typically not responsible for operation and maintenance of flood control projects.

The Corps currently has responsibility for operation and maintenance of navigation projects. For these projects, the backlog for operation and maintenance of existing Federal responsibilities is roughly $4 billion annually, but appropriations for operation and maintenance have hovered around $2 billion. The result is that roughly 50 percent of vitally needed operation and maintenance responsibilities of the Corps are not being met, and are deferred to future appropriations. To shift additional operation and maintenance responsibilities to the Corps is unwise and is likely to impair the ability of the Corps to carry out its existing obligations for operation and maintenance.

During pre-conference negotiations, I proposed to provide the city of Woonsocket with some flexibility related to the cost of operation and maintenance of this project, but not a permanent blanket waiver of operation and maintenance.

I proposed two solutions, which I believe would have addressed the concerns of the city of Woonsocket. Unfortunately, the Senate was unwilling to compromise, and both proposals were rejected.

Both proposals would have authorized the Corps of Engineers to assume greater responsibility for the reconstruction of the failing levee system, but would have continued the long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities for the city of Woonsocket. I believe that both offers were made in the spirit of compromise without violating fundamental statutory and contractual responsibilities of the non- Federal sponsor. Both offers would have allowed the city of Woonsocket to start fresh with a structurally sound flood control system, provided that the city retained its obligation to operate and maintain the levee system.

I continue to believe that this shift of operation and maintenance responsibility is bad policy that will worsen the backlog of deferred operation and maintenance responsibility for the Corps and set a poor precedent of shifting responsibilities for other projects in the future.

I opposed a similar provision in last year's Defense Authorization bill that changed operation and maintenance responsibility from the local sponsor to the Federal government for another project in Rhode Island.

As chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue to explore the implications of these changes in operation and maintenance responsibilities in the formulation of the Water Resources Development Act of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2008. I urge my colleagues to pass the conference report because the bill improves the readiness of our men and women in uniform and takes necessary steps toward ensuring that our wounded warriors get the care they deserve. I want to applaud the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton for working closely with Members on both sides of the aisle and across the Capitol to ensure that the legislation before the House of Representatives today will truly help our servicemembers in the field.

I am especially pleased with section 374 of the bill, which provides for priority transportation on Department of Defense aircraft for military retirees residing in the United States territories who require specialty care that is not available in that territory. Specifically, a military retiree who requires specialty care and is under the age of 65 will be considered under category 4 priority instead of the current category 6 for space-available seats aboard Department of Defense aircraft. Section 374 also requires the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress indicating how it will internally address the issue of improved TRICARE coverage in the territories. I worked with the Department of Defense over the past several years to address the specialty care travel dilemma but no satisfactory resolution ever emerged. The provision that I sponsored that is contained in this bill begins to address the concerns that have been raised by military retirees on Guam regarding their access to space-available seats on Department of Defense aircraft. This provision represents an improvement over the current situation but more work remains to strengthen TRICARE benefits for retirees in the territories. I thank the professional staff of the House Armed Services Committee who worked diligently with me and my staff to include this provision in the final version of the legislation.

The bill also includes language that allows the U.S. Army to remain as the program management executive for the joint cargo aircraft program. The provision requires several reports to be submitted to Congress before appropriated funds can be expended by the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force for procurement of additional aircraft. The joint cargo aircraft program is critical to replacing aging C-23 Sherpa aircraft that are operated by the Army National Guard. It is also critical so that certain Air National Guard units do not lose their flying missions. The joint cargo aircraft program provides critical intra-theater lift capabilities delivering supplies to servicemembers in the field. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Courtney of Connecticut and Mr. Hayes of North Carolina, for their support and leadership on this matter.

As I stated earlier, this piece of legislation helps to improve the readiness of our forces. In particular for Guam, the bill authorizes just over $290 million for military construction on our island. This funding will provide continued economic opportunities for businesses on Guam and begin to fund improvements to critical infrastructure that is needed before the realignment of military personnel begins. In particular, I requested a project be added to the bill to build a technical training facility at Northwest Field on Andersen Air Force Base. This project is a needed training facility for emerging missions at Andersen Air Force Base. As the 607th Training Flight ``Commando Warrior'' Unit moves from Osan Air Base, Korea they will need this facility to ensure optimal readiness for missions at Andersen Air Force Base.

Finally, I am encouraged to see portions of the National Guard Empowerment Act included within H.R. 1585. We will finally give the National Guard the recognition and tools that they need to continue operating as a dual-hatted force responding to crises at home and abroad. As a former lieutenant governor, I know first-hand, how brave, valiant and essential the National Guard is to the safety and security of our Nation. Elevating the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star general helps to give the Guard the priority in decisionmaking that it deserves. The provision making the National Guard Bureau become a joint activity within the Department of Defense is even more important. Now that the National Guard Bureau is a joint activity I hope that the Department of Defense will give very serious consideration to giving State Adjutants General joint credit for their service to the State or territory. The National Guard is truly a joint force and the work of their general officers should be recognized as such.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt H.R. 1585.