Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes.

To my great friend, I don't deserve this honor that he has recommended here of naming the bill. I'm just an ordinary American, but I get to serve with lots of extraordinary Americans, and the gentleman from Missouri is one of those extraordinary Americans. He talked about the jointness that he's trying to bring over from his great work on the Goldwater-Nichols bill, of bringing our services together to act jointly, and extend that to the other agencies which are so crucial in this operation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to bring them in also in a way that they act as a member of the team led, most of the time, by the Department of Defense, but nonetheless, one that requires cohesion and jointness and a culture of working together as a team.

I want to commend the gentleman for the fact that he has been the corporate historian, if you will, for the House of Representatives and for the Armed Services Committee, who often brings us back in debate or in hearings to events that transpired in conflicts 100 years ago sometimes, or World War II or Korea or Vietnam, and reminds us that we shouldn't have to learn the lesson a second time. So I want to give my great thanks to this great American, Ike Skelton, and to all of the members of the great Armed Services Committee and the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees who put together such a great bill. A couple of them are sitting here next to me. I know Jim Saxton is leaving. He was the first chairman of the Special Operations Subcommittee, the Terrorism Subcommittee, and traveled the world and the country and every base where we had SOCOM people stationed, talking to the teams, talking, whether they were Green Berets or Rangers or SEALs or other operators, trying to understand what they needed from Congress in order to be effective. He worked to get them that equipment, and now, as the ranking member of Air, Land, he continues that mission.

And, of course, Terry Everett, that guy who doesn't make long speeches but spends a lot of time in classified sessions working and understanding on the issues surrounding space, and how those issues relate to national security. Probably nobody else in the country knows as much as he does on those issues.

And, of course, we've got a couple of members, as the chairman said, moving on to other offices, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, and we wish them the very best.

Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent defense bill, and I concur with the gentleman from Missouri that we should have a unanimous vote in the House of Representatives, just as we had under his leadership in the Armed Services Committee.

It does a couple of things that are important for us. It works toward the warfighting theaters, which are very important, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world where the global war on terror is taking place. But, at the same time, and in those, in that category, we put in extra money for MRAPs for these armored vehicles, for protection for our troops, for jammers, for all the things, for new surveillance capability, new anti-mortar capability, all the things that would go to force protection, and also make our troops more effective in those theaters.

But beyond that, we pay a lot of attention and put a great deal of focus on modernizing the military and looking over the horizon to challenges that may go far beyond the current theaters.

We continue to fund the F-22, which the reports now coming back from the operators are to the effect that the F-22 is doing extremely well, a high performance fighter aircraft with lots of capability, lots of legs, lots of firepower, but especially lots of sensor capability, which we're finding to be extremely valuable.

The V-22, which is this platform that the Marines wanted for years because it goes roughly twice as fast as the CH-46s that it's replacing, are working extremely well in theater. The Marines are getting from point A to point B in half the time. They're able to carry out their mission more efficiently and effectively. They like that particular platform. And across the board, we are replacing and modernizing our military equipment.

Now there are some things that we need to do in this bill, and I would hope we could do on the floor. We did cut some $300 million out of missile defense. Mr. Chairman, we live in an era of missiles. This is an era in which we will see, in the coming years, the Iranians continuing to improve on the Shahab missile classes, which already can reach parts of Europe, at some point will be able to reach all of Europe, and will be followed by missile classes that, at some point, will be able to reach the United States.

We also have seen North Korea throw a pod of missiles into the North China Sea, and the Sea of Japan; some of which have capability, if they put more sections on those missiles, ultimately, to reach American allies and the United States itself. So we're entering the middle of what I would call the era of missiles. And having defense against missiles is a key part of the American defense system.

We've had these wonderful successes where we've shot down missiles that are traveling, where the interceptor and the missile it shoots down 148 miles above the surface of the Earth are traveling roughly three times the speed of a 30-06 bullet, and we've had collisions in mid flight. We saw a great demonstration when we took down the rogue satellite that had to be destroyed to avoid possible collateral damage. We took that down with a sea-based missile system that worked very well.

We clearly are moving along in the right direction in trying to put up defenses as the offensive systems become more sophisticated. But I think we need to continue to move down that path.

We did cut money out of the European-based missile systems and other systems, and I would hope that we could restore some of the missile defense money in this particular bill. I know Mr. Franks will be offering that.

Similarly, the FCS program, I think, is an area we need to restore dollars. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of en bloc amendments and amendments that will be offered by members that I think will, in fact, make this bill even a little bit better than it is.

I want to finish by thanking the chairman for putting together a great bill in the Armed Services Committee, for moving it down the road very quickly, and getting it to the House floor.

This is the bill that provides our troops with the tools that they need to get the job done. And that's why it's important, that's why this committee acts in such a bipartisan fashion, and we follow the bipartisan model of the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton.

I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady in putting this bill together and recognize the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who, every time I talked to him over the last 4 or 5 years, he was meeting with a different group of special operators trying to figure out what they needed and where they needed to go and tireless in pouring himself into an airplane to get to yet another base and meet with more troops.

He's done a wonderful job as the ranking member of the Air and Land Subcommittee. We're going to miss the gentleman from New Jersey.

I would like to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland who is the ranking member on the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke for his great work on this bill, and I yield for 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama, who is the ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, formerly the chairman, and again a guy who has spent thousands of hours in closed-door sessions, with no press releases attached and no cameras present. He's a guy that's pretty easy to elbow out of the way at a press conference because he usually isn't there. But he has served countless hours in the service of this country, understanding some pretty complex things about space and national security, and he is the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Terry Everett, and the country needs more people like this gentleman.

I yield the gentleman another minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I want to thank the gentleman who chairs the Seapower Subcommittee for the great work that he has done and turn to another gentleman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has served for many years, first as chairman, and then ranking member of this very important Personnel Subcommittee which oversees the policies of those 2.5 million Americans who serve in uniform. The gentleman from New York has done a great job, and I would like to yield 4 minutes to Mr. McHugh.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the great gentleman from Texas for his hard work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has done a great job in working through the very difficult issues of the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), ranking member of Oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the gentleman from Hawaii for his excellent work, and I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes),

who is the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the last gentleman who spoke, I want to thank him for his kind words. But I am reminded that the chairman has been the guardian of professional military education and his work has been to try to make sure that our officers have a context in which they can place the activities in this very real war that many of them are engaged in in our history and to see situations that have gone before and to gain insights from that history, and I want to applaud the chairman for that.

I want to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman who has been a great worker on this committee and a leader, a guy who has moved over from the Rules Committee, finally traded up and got back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman who just spoke for his kind remarks.

I want to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has come back from the Rules Committee, traded up to come back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman who has such a large set of military facilities in his district and pays so much attention to those facilities and to the national issue of security, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, we have, I believe, no more speakers left, so at this time let me just say that our ranking members and our chairmen have covered the waterfront of what this bill does. They've taken it from personnel, the pay raise that the chairman started off talking about, the 3.9 percent pay raise, the end strength increases in the Army and Marine Corps, the quality of life increases that we've delivered to our people in uniform, to the equipment side, to the force protection that we are sending additional to Afghanistan and to Iraq, MRAPs, extra armor capability, extra technical capability to be able to defend our forces and help them accomplish the mission, to the modernization side, the platforms that we are building with the modernization part of this budget, to the readiness part of this budget, which is so critical to ongoing operations, and to some of the technical aspects of the budget that I think the Strategic Subcommittee spoke to so effectively, including the programs that involve space, involve missile defense. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think we've described the bill fairly effectively.

And I think also we've described the people. At least I want to make sure we understand how wonderful the people are who put this bill together, not only the ranking members and the chairmen of the subcommittee and our great chairman of the full committee, Ike Skelton, the man from Missouri, but also the wonderful staff that we have that's worked long hours to put together what is a very large bill, in many cases, very technical, and yet they did it with great precision, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Let me just say in my closing seconds here, Mr. Chairman, that I talked about the horizon that I think we face in terms of military challenges. I think that part of that horizon must require a focus on China. The fact that China is now outbuilding the U.S. in submarines by more than 3-1, with their acquisitions from the Russians, it's much more. They're acquiring great technical capability, and they are building an industrial base that, in many areas, such as building warships, could outstrip the United States very quickly in production.

And just as our great chairman mentioned, that it takes more than just a military to win wars and to carry out foreign policy, it's going to take some changes in policy to maintain the United States as a premier military force in the world. Some of those changes are going to require changes in our tax law, in our tariff law that will allow our industrial base to stay in the United States, that will stop these companies that are key to national security who are being advised right now by their financial advisors to move their production offshore, changes in our law that will cause them to stay in the United States, because the environment, the business environment in the United States and the tax environment will be such that they will not be induced to move offshore.

Also, with respect to the hemorrhage of technical information which is going on with the acquisition of American companies on a very selected basis by companies and by nations that are targeting American military technology. This committee has moved toward stopping that hemorrhage by adopting several important provisions with respect to security, site security at companies that do classified information. But there's much more work to be done there, and I know that the committee is moving in that direction and undertaking a great strides in that direction. But that's a direction that's going to require the participation of the entire body, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the entire government. So we have a big challenge ahead of us.

Again, I want to thank the chairman for putting together a bill that passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, and should pass unanimously off the House floor. So once again, a job well done to the gentleman from Missouri.

I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, today the House begins consideration of H.R. 5658, which is the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009.

This bill is a collective effort in the bipartisan tradition of the House Armed Services Committee which approved the bill in markup by a vote of 61-0. It is an excellent bill.

I want to thank the members of our Armed Services Committee, particularly the subcommittee chairmen, the ranking members, and actually every member of the committee.

Let me take this opportunity to also, Mr. Chairman, recognize the ranking member and former chairman, Duncan Hunter, for once again being a great partner on this bill, and he is certainly to be commended and thanked for it. I am proud that Duncan and I have worked so well together through the years and always with the common goal of enhancing American national security.

It is only fitting, Mr. Chairman, that as Duncan Hunter plans to retire at the end of this Congress, our committee colleagues unanimously voted to name this bill in his honor, recognizing Duncan Hunter's many years of service on the Armed Services Committee, and also recognizing his unfailing support of our men and women in uniform. And we thank him publicly for that.

Mr. Chairman, let me discuss some significant provisions of the bill. It reflects our committee's view that restoring military readiness must be our number one priority. This is serious business. If, after more than 6 years of war, our effort is to restore military readiness, then it must be sustained in order to meet not just current military challenges, which are monumental, but prepare for the unexpected conflicts we may face in the future.

We don't know what is around the corner. I might point out, in the last 31 years American military forces have been engaged in no less than 12 military conflicts, four of which have been major in size.

The bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives requested by the services. It includes $932 million to deal with equipment shortages as well as for equipment maintenance. The bill also provides for some $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment, and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks.

To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of our military; 7,000 additional Army troops, 5,000 additional marines, and prevents further military to civilian conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 Navy sailors and 450 additional Air Force personnel.

The bill also maintains our efforts to support and honor the men and women who serve our Nation in uniform and their families, providing a much needed 3.9 percent pay raise increase, and again, prohibiting increases in health care fees, among a range of other initiatives.

I might point out, the administration recommended only a 3.4 percent pay raise, and we raised that, as we should have.

The authorization bill also keeps our focus on Afghanistan, which is the primary front in the war on terror. The bill requires the administration to submit separate budget requests to clearly lay out the requirements for the war in Afghanistan, and on the other hand, the war in Iraq. It requires a system be set up to measure the success of the U.S.-led Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and requires more robust congressional reporting on the training of the Afghan Security Force.

Finally, the bill requires the Department of Defense to address the issue of command and control for forces in Afghanistan operating under Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as the NATO International Security Assistance Force.

The bill authorizes a $70 billion bridge for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we remain convinced that it's well past time for the Iraqis to step up and contribute more substantially to their very own security, as well as their prosperity. With the Iraqis' overwhelming budget and capital account surpluses, the bill requires Iraqis to invest more in their own reconstruction, as well as their own security efforts.

The bill also includes steps toward contracting reform after the substantial improvements in the law which we enacted in our previous bill last year.

This bill underlines our commitment to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It adds $31 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs of the Department of Defense, and some $215 million from the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. That's important.

Finally, I want to say a word about the need for reforms in the way our government coordinates and executes its national security policy. Many here in Congress as well as the executive branch are working to improve our interagency system. It's a massive effort that cannot be accomplished in any one single year.

I remember well the now famous Goldwater-Nichols Act. It was an effort over 4 years in the Congress of the United States which, of course, made jointness part of the military culture, and this may well be along the same line, although hopefully it will not take 4 years to accomplish. But it cannot be done in one single year.

At the appropriate time during the bill's consideration, I will offer an amendment along with Chairman Howard Berman of the Foreign Affairs

Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey to establish a standing advisory board to work with the Secretaries of State and Defense on interagency matters and report to Congress their recommendations.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, let me pay tribute to those Members who plan to leave Congress at the end of this session and for whom this will be their final defense authorization bill. In addition to the retirement of our friend and ranking member, Duncan Hunter, I want to express my appreciation to two other senior Members who plan to retire, Congressman Jim Saxton and Congressman Terry Everett. Both these gentlemen have made a very important contribution to our committee through the years and, consequently, have been wonderful partners, as well as outstanding Americans.

In addition, two of the most capable and committed members of our committee, Rob Andrews and Mark Udall, plan to leave in order to seek other offices. The House and our committee are all the better for their service, and we wish all of these members who are not going to return to our committee next year all the best. They will be missed.

This is a critical time in our Nation. This defense bill is a very important one. I urge Members of this House to support this defense authorization bill. It does so much in the area of readiness, to support our men and women in uniform and their families, and to protect the American people.

With that, and additional thanks to my friend, Duncan Hunter, on his final bill, we appreciate your work, your efforts, your friendship, Mr. Hunter.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) who also is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlelady, our friend and colleague, Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, my friend, the gentleman from Washington, who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Conventional Threats and Capabilities, Mr. Smith.

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

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.

I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize, for purposes of a unanimous consent request, the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I recognize the gentlelady from California, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), who is also a senior member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my colleague and friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

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

I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), who's also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Let me add, if I may, an additional 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman spoke about the need to study strategy. After we passed the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986, I chaired a panel on professional military education that did a great deal in upgrading the Senior and Immediate War Colleges. The Senior War Colleges really are the bosom of where strategic thought, both military as well as diplomatic, is taught and is learned. Sometimes the lessons that are so plain to those in the War Colleges do not seem to be learned by others in responsible positions. That is why I think the thought of working on strategic thought itself is an excellent one, and I commend the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), who is also a member of our Armed Services Committee.

I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentlelady for raising this very important issue, and assure the gentlelady that I certainly share her concerns. The Department of Defense is facing the same shortage of nurses as we are across the Nation. However, the need for the Department is more directly felt as we are at war, and our military nurses are caring for our wounded and injured in addition to all their other duties.

Let me say to the gentlelady that we have taken serious, substantive steps to increase the number of nurses, both in the military and in the civilian community. In this bill we have mandated the establishment of a Department of Defense School of Nursing, following the successful models of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences to produce medical doctors, the Interservice Physician Assistant Program to produce physician assistants for the military, and the Army's new School of Social Work, which will enroll its first class this summer.

Although the graduates of the Department of Defense School of Nursing will initially provide much needed care for our troops, I'm confident that following their military service they will continue to serve our Nation as nurses in civilian communities.

Finally, we've included a demonstration project to encourage retired military nurses to become faculty members at civilian schools of nursing to help alleviate the nurse instructor shortage of which you speak.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Let me assure the gentlelady that we look forward to the results of the demonstration project, and I'm always open of course to practical approaches to address the military nursing shortage.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for raising this very important issue. The Department of Defense has made many improvements to its suicide prevention programs, but more can be done. I look forward to working with the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from California. And I must add that this is properly named for Duncan Hunter in honor of the hard work that you've done through the years. Thank you.

When you put a bill together like this that's $531 billion of taxpayer money for national security, there are unseen hands that have helped glue this together bit by bit and part by part. And that's the unsung but very valuable and absolutely terrific staff of the Armed Services Committee under the direction of Erin Conaton, and I particularly wish to complement her on her hard work. Everyone on this staff is outstanding and an expert in his or her field, and I want them to know that they are appreciated, and that we're very grateful for their work.

This will close out the general debate on this bill. It's an excellent bill, and I think that in truth and fact it has made a great stride toward increasing the readiness of our troops. People in the country should take a great deal of comfort in knowing that there's such bipartisanship on this committee. So I thank the gentleman from California.

I am very, very proud of the members of this committee, the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 5658, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 which has many important provisions to help our military personnel and their families. I want to thank my colleague Congressman Skelton for his leadership on the House Armed Services Committee in bringing a bill to the floor that not only protects but supports our military and our veterans.

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.'' Well, while most of us value freedom many of us do not risk our lives for it the way our men and women in the armed forces do on a daily basis.

This defense bill reflects our commitment to support the men and women who fight to secure not only our citizen's 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. This bill directs approximately $2 billion toward unfunded readiness initiatives requested by the services, which includes an additional $932 million to deal with equipment shortages and for equipment maintenance.

The bill also provides $800 million for National Guard and Reserve equipment and $650 million to keep defense facilities in good working order and to address urgent issues such as dilapidated military barracks. To boost readiness and to reduce the strain on our forces, the bill increases the size of the military by 7,000 Army troops and 5,000 Marines, and prevents further military to civilian conversions in the medical field by authorizing an additional 1,023 Navy sailors and 450 Air Force personnel.

To improve the quality of life for our forces and their families, the bill provides a 3.9 percent pay raise for all service members, which is .5 percent more than the President's budget request, and extends the authority for the Defense Department to offer bonuses and incentive pay. The bill also preserves important health benefits to improve the readiness of our force, keep servicemembers and their families healthy, and to reduce the overall need for care.

The bill establishes a Career Intermission Pilot Program to allow a servicemember to be released from active duty for a maximum of 3 years to focus on personal or professional goals outside of the military. The bill also provides tuition assistance to help military spouses establish their own careers, authorizes Impact Aid funding to assist schools with large enrollments of military children, and establishes a DoD School of Nursing to address the critical nursing shortage in our military services.

This bill addresses the need to improve the command and control structure for military forces operating in Afghanistan providing equipment to train and properly equip the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This bill urges the President to appoint a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as required by law, at the earliest possible time.

More importantly this bill contains several layers of transparency and accountability. By requiring more detailed reporting to Congress on the status and strategies of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on the performance of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and information on U.S. contractors--this bill provides greater oversight by this body.

Rep. Jackson-Lee Proposed Amendments

While I do believe that Congressman Skelton and the Armed Services Committee have done a great job at trying to address the needs of our servicemembers, their families, and our national interests, I am disappointed to see certain areas were not addressed. I offered two amendments to the defense authorization to improve its ultimate outcome.

My first amendment would have added three sense of Congress paragraphs: (1) the war in Iraq should end as safely and quickly as possible and our troops should be brought home; (2) the performance of United States military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should be commended, their courage and sacrifice have been exceptional, and when they

come home, their service should be recognized appropriately, including through the observance of a national day of celebration; and (3) the primary purpose of funds made available by this Act should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment, and not to extend or prolong the war.

This amendment was borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. The United States will not 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 in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations.

My amendment explicitly stated that the goals laid out by the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (AUMF) have all been achieved by our troops in Iraq.

Due to the skill and dedication of the members of the Armed Forces, the entire world has now been assured that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the United States or any member nation of the international community. 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 country 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.

My second amendment would have made a declaration of U.S. policy that ``The Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; approved on October 16, 2002) is the basis of authority pursuant to which the President launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.''

Further, it describes the authorization's two stated objectives: to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defend the national security of the United States (i) by disarming Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region, (ii) by ensuring that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaida, (iii) by changing the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime no longer pose a threat to the people of Iraq or Iraq's neighbors, and (iv) by bringing to justice any members of al Qaida bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, known or found to be in Iraq.

Most crucially, my second amendment states unequivocally that ``the objectives of Public Law 107-243 described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) have been achieved. This amendment would have provided an expressed acknowledgment by the Congress that the objectives for which the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States.

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. My amendment would have recognized the exemplary performance of our men and women in uniform, and emphasizes that our military has already achieved the objectives for which it was sent to Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, although I would have liked to see my amendments included in this bill I am supportive of much of the provisions of this bill; however since this legislation provides for continued funding of the Iraq war I will not be able to vote for the continuation of the war. I will vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes to discuss part one of the proposed rule for the consideration of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009, 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.)

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which was approved by the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 61-0, as my friend from Florida mentioned, would make a number of very positive improvements to our armed services, and I think this entire House should be particularly proud of the committee's bipartisan efforts to improve the quality of life and safety of those serving our country in the armed services and their families.

This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our Nation's Armed Forces, including $530 billion in spending for defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for part of 2009.

It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training and support of the Iraqi security forces; and nearly $2 billion for unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the services.

It increases Active Duty Army personnel, Mr. Speaker, by 7,000 and Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000, while also providing our uniformed servicemembers with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent.

And for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so much to serve our country, it prohibits increased copayments and premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention efforts.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report on Iran's nuclear capabilities so that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these capabilities pose to America and our allies.

While this legislation does a great deal to improve our armed services and to provide them with the resources that they need--and it accomplishes much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion--there are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved.

While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing amendment debate on this legislation--we will do that this afternoon--I want to take this opportunity to make clear that there are a number of areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be used to improve this bill through the amendment process.

First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year's authorization bill, while it will be a structured rule, will still be as open as it has been under Republican majority, when between 30 and 40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the entire House of Representatives.

Of particular concern is the reduction in funds and focus that the Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles.

In the Armed Services Committee, my colleague Terry Everett from Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President's request fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward and to restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the request for the study of a space test bed.

Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow cochairman of the Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack.

While these amendments, Mr. Speaker, were defeated in committee, I believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their arguments and make their own decisions on these issues, as well as the amendment by my Rules Committee colleague, Mr. Sessions of Texas, to state the sense of Congress that we need to support the development, testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase to protect America's interests.

Again, Mr. Speaker, while this rule provides for 2 hours of general debate on the bill, there are areas that this House needs and deserves to address through the amendment process. That will be addressed in the second rule that we will discuss in the Rules Committee tonight and will presumably be on the floor tomorrow. I certainly hope that the House is given a full and fair chance to consider these issues that I've highlighted, as well as others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a person in whose name this defense bill is named after. I would join my friend from Missouri, the chairman of the committee, suggesting and acknowledging that it is an honor that is well, well deserved.

I had an opportunity to serve on the committee for 2 years, my first 2 years in Congress. There are probably few, if any, that are more knowledgeable on these issues surrounding defending our country than the namesake of this defense authorization bill.

I now yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Hunter).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Conaway.

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

Once again I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that, with the high price of gasoline that all Americans have experienced, by defeating the previous question, this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. When the previous question is defeated, I will move to add a section to the rule, not rewrite the entire rule, that would allow the House to consider H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.''

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question once again so that we can consider this vitally important issue for America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and, for that matter, the entire economy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, specifically my good friend, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, for including a provision in the Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization bill that finally provides for consideration of our Nation's defense industrial base when contracting officials evaluate major Federal defense contract proposals.

Few people are aware that the Pentagon is prevented by law from including defense industrial base considerations when deciding to award a major defense contract. A contract award determination is made primarily by examining which party has the ``best value'' in terms of price, quality, quantity, and delivery. However, how many jobs a particular contract would produce or retain in America or how many suppliers would be able to stay in business in America because of a particular contract is currently not part of the ``best value'' evaluation by the Pentagon. Most believe that

the Buy American Act protects the interests of American workers. However, because of a series of Memorandums of Understanding, MOUs, signed years ago between the Pentagon and other foreign defense agencies, a product can be made completely in Europe and be considered as if made in America and thus compliant with the Buy American Act. In return, U.S. defense articles are supposed to be considered by European procurement officials on the same grounds as European products. However, Europe protected its economic interests in these agreements by including European defense industrial base protections as one criterion in their source selection process. This didn't used to be a problem in the past. However, with the consolidation of major prime defense contractors in the United States and the relatively recent creation of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company, EADS, there has been more and more conflict in major U.S. defense procurements.

Section 805 of H.R. 5658 seeks to copy Europe's example. It simply allows the Pentagon to consider impacts on the U.S. industrial base during source selection for major defense acquisition programs. This section also authorizes defense acquisition officials to impose penalties on a contractor who misleads the Government regarding potential domestic industrial base impacts.

The bill also asks the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees at least 30 days before requesting a proposal for any major defense acquisition program that will not use a domestic industrial base evaluation factor during the source selection process. It also includes second and third level suppliers as part of the defense industrial base because the health of this sector of the economy cannot be measured solely by looking at the stock price of the large prime defense contractors.

As someone who voted for every free trade agreement since being elected to Congress in 1992, this section is not protectionism. Back in 1776, Adam Smith argued in his celebrated ``Wealth of Nations''; that ``(i)t is of importance that the kingdom should depend as little as possible upon its neighbors for the manufactures necessary for its defense.'' He supported a bounty--or a tax--on the export of British sailcloth and gunpowder to prevent other nations and potential enemies from benefiting from Great Britain's advantage in these products. If the founder of modern-day capitalism and free trade supported an exception to the free flow of trade in defense goods, then domestic sourcing preferences to protect our national security and defense industrial base must be considered consistent with the very foundation of free trade and capitalism.

Congress has a duty to be concerned with our nation's ability to build the weapons and equipment necessary to defend itself. Any argument founded merely on shopping for the best value without considering the larger defense industrial base will leave our great nation exposed and vulnerable. A nation that cannot produce the materials necessary for its defense will eventually become a second- rate power.

Now, some analysts have argued that we should not press for more domestic sourcing of defense articles because Europe and other nations buy more U.S. defense technology that we buy from them. These statistics, however, fail to account for the offsets in defense sales required by other governments, including our friends in Europe.

According to a 2007 report entitled Offsets in Defense Trade prepared by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, over 98 percent of all U.S. defense sales to Europe were ``offset'' from 1993 to 2006. In other words, for every dollar a European government spent on U.S. defense equipment, the U.S. prime defense contractors had to provide 98 cents in industrial compensation arrangements to that government. These compensation arrangements range from requiring re-locating a share of the production of that defense item to that country to marketing that country's goods in the United States. However, the United States is prohibited by law to require of a foreign defense contractor to ``offset'' part of the cost of the proposed acquisition. thus, our two-way defense trade with Europe is already heavily weighted in their favor.

Finally, Section 805 of H.R. 5658 will not launch a trade war because there have been several occasions in the past when European governments refused to buy from American companies because of their own defense industrial base concerns. In 2003, Pratt & Whitney lost a bid to EuroProp International (EPI) to supply the engine for the A400M European military troop transport plane despite the fact that their initial bid was 20 percent lower, they had a higher quality engine, and they committed to build a new assembly line in Europe and include 75 percent European content in the engine. According to the Financial Times on June 13, 2003, Airbus effectively declared Pratt & Whitney the winner until European governments intervened and promised financial support to EPI so it could drop its price and clinch the deal with a redesigned engine in order to keep all the work in Europe.

Similarly, in 2003, when Italy wanted to build a new fleet of search and rescue helicopters, Skirosky and MD Helicopters were interested in bidding on the contract but were not even given the opportunity. The Italian government decided instead to award the contract without any competition to their national helicopter company--Augusta/Westland--on the grounds of ``homeland security.''

Mr. Chairman, encouraging the Pentagon to consider the defense industrial base as one factor in their contract decision-making process will help us safeguard over the long-term the knowledge and innovation that make our defense industry the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5658 and, in particular, Section 805, throughout the legislative process.