Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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.

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

I rise in opposition to this rule, despite my long-term support for TRIA, because passing a bill that has already been pronounced dead on arrival in the Senate foolishly puts the reauthorization of this important program in jeopardy as its expiration date at the end of the year draws ever closer because

the Democrat House leadership has decided to continue to play political games on this issue.

By engaging in this game of what I call ``legislative chicken'' with the Senate, the House is setting itself up for potentially allowing this important program to expire, an outcome that I believe is bad for continued growth of the American economy and is an outcome that I strongly oppose.

But even if the Senate were somehow to miraculously pass this legislation, the Statement of Administration Policy regarding this legislation that was released by the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday makes it clear that President Bush will veto this bill in its current form and that any extension of the TRIA program must be temporary and short term, include no program expansion and must increase private sector retentions.

At this time, I will submit a copy of the Statement of Administrative Policy for substantially similar legislation explaining the futility of today's legislative exercise in the Congressional Record.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, December 11, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2761--Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

The Administration believes that the Terrorism Risk

Insurance Act (TRIA) should be phased out in favor of a

private market for terrorism insurance. The most efficient,

lowest-cost, and most innovative methods of providing

terrorism risk insurance will come from the private sector.

Therefore, the Administration has set forth three key

elements for an acceptable extension of TRIA: (1) the Program

should be temporary and short-term; (2) there should be no

expansion of the Program; and (3) private sector retentions

should be increased.

The Administration continues to believe that any TRIA

reauthorization should satisfy these three key elements.

However, the Administration will not oppose the version of

H.R. 2761 passed by the Senate on November 16, 2007. The

Administration strongly opposes any amendments that move the

Senate-passed version of the bill away from the

Administration's key elements. Accordingly, if H.R. 2761 were

presented to the President in the form to be considered by

the House, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto

the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate version of this legislation is not perfect. However, I do believe that on behalf of terrorism insurance policyholders, American workers and businesses, the health of our insurance marketplace and the continued growth of the American economy, it is important for the House to stop playing games with TRIA and to pass a bill that can advance through the Senate and be signed into law by President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this exercise in legislative futility so that the Rules Committee can instead bring to the floor a rule that would provide for consideration of the Senate compromise bill that the House has already received.

It's time to stop playing games on this important issue and for the majority to finally grow up and lead to protect the American economy from the threat of terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, we urge the legislation to be passed, also. And that's why we're encouraging for the House to agree to the Senate version so we can get this done before the expiration at the end of the year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect and admiration for the chairman of the committee, and I think that virtually everything the chairman said I agree with. I think the question is of timing. The fact of the matter is that the majority has chosen to not have a conference. They have chosen to negotiate among themselves, and they have chosen to wait until the last minute. With great respect to the gentleman, these are lots of arguments I could have been making or our chairman could have made just several years ago for a number of years.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, we are not negotiating with the Senate, we are negotiating with ourselves, and I believe that what we need to do is get it done.

Now, there are reasons why the gentleman has chosen to do what he has done. I really can't disagree with him. I really don't. From an institutional perspective, for making the bill better, I think every one of these are great arguments. I think my point would be similar to what we are trying to make on our side: Let's get our work done so the rest of the world and the rest of the marketplace can get their work done. It's pretty late. We are now moving on to the middle of December and this expires at the end of December. There are lots of paperwork issues, there are lots of legal issues, there are lots of contract issues. There are lots of things that need to be done, and it takes some period of time. We are doing the same thing with the AMT. We are trying to say, why don't we not rock the boat because what you are going to do is put in jeopardy the ability this next year for the IRS to even get their work done. So the wake-up call, the head snap is, today it's darn near the middle of December. I could have completely bought off on everything the chairman said, every single word, every single philosophy, everything he said if this were November 15. It is not. It is 1 month later. It is time that we get our work done so that the marketplace can get their work done so that investors can know that they are taken care of, so that we can have certainty in the marketplace and so that we know what we are going to pass. And that is the only disagreement.

Retrieving my time, I would say to the gentleman that we believe we should not continue doing what the gentleman is doing. We should do what the agreement should be and get it done, because we believe that there are overriding considerations, Mr. Speaker, in the marketplace, with people who need an answer today to be able to get their work done. And waiting until the end, whatever that means, does not help the marketplace.

We are not the start-all and end-all of the world by being the United States Congress. There is a marketplace out there. There are people who need things done. New York City is a fine example of where the business community and those that own property need TRIA. Let's get the thing done. I would have agreed completely with what the gentleman said 1 month ago. It is now time. We are asking, please, let's get this thing done. Let's come to an agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The question that I would have for the gentleman is, whom are you negotiating with in the Senate? You talked about these negotiations. Whom is the negotiation with?

I thank the gentleman. So we are going to keep playing ping pong?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the gentlemen from the Financial Services Committee offering their explanation about this process. I would once again remind my friends in this great body that there is a lot of work that needs to be done after this bill leaves both of these bodies, including a signature of the President of the United States. What we do does matter and is important. But it is time we get our work done to allow the people who really do matter, and that is the people who are in the marketplace to be able to buy the insurance, to make it available and to get it ready days from now. It is time to put aside our differences. It is time to enter the real negotiation, and that is either to have a real conference where we know where people are to get it done, or to find a way to cut a deal. And, instead, to come back to this body and to once again change the rechange of the change I think is a bad deal.

So we're going to vote ``no.'' We would like to get the deal done, but not to continue to deal.

You see, Mr. Speaker, in the world where I come from, it is results that matter, not just reworking the work to rework the work, just like what this body has gotten used to this year with 10 out of 11 spending bills not being done. I would remind the majority, you got a lot of work to do there, too, so that we can have the confidence of the American people that we can not only run the railroad on time, but we can make wise decisions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, and responding to the gentleman, I have no additional speakers.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, the conversation that has taken place today is one that was important. The Republican Party does support and thinks what the gentleman is doing is of a worthy nature. The gentleman, Mr. Frank, has, for a number of years, not only spoken about this issue but has worked hard for its resolution. We know that if we continue to work together on issues like this, we can get things done. But getting things done is also important, and we think that a bill should have been done, an agreement should have been reached before now and negotiations should have ended because it is now time to give to the President, it is now time to give to the marketplace.

But I also recognize that this is the 44th closed rule of this session, that somebody is not really interested in what we think. That's why we have 44 closed rules this year. So we come to the floor, once again, the Republican Party, saying, you can have it your way, we know you have the votes, 44th closed rule this year. But let's get our work done. Let's not have the American people waiting on the House of Representatives.

I know the Speaker of the House wants to do things in the way that she sees fit. But let's get our work done. The American people are waiting. They are waiting not just on AMT. They are not just waiting on this bill that we have today. They are waiting on, like the rest of the government, the other 10 out of the 11 spending bills. And I do think that the American people don't confuse a lot of work that is being done with progress. Progress is the end result where you get something done and then say, We're proud of our effort. All I have heard all today, notwithstanding the prior arguments, and these arguments, that everybody is trying to take credit for everything. We are far short of the runway. We are far short of the runway because what we do here must be done right, but must be finished and done so that the American people and the economy can move forward.

I know this is a closed rule. If it had been an open rule, and that is okay, we understand. If it had been an open rule, we would have said, let's get this thing done. Let's close it. I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee the other day that said, let's take the Senate language, let's decide we will just accept what they have done so that we can get it done in proper timing. On a party-line vote that was defeated. So there is a reason why the Speaker wants to continue this dialogue. There's a reason why the Speaker wants to wait and to hold this out. I don't understand it. But the Republican Party once again today is saying, we think we ought to get our work done. We think we should do what we said we were going to do, and we should then let the American public see what we have done and not hide things in secret.

Let's get this done, let's get TRIA done, let's get our AMT done, let's get the 10 out of 11 spending bills done, and let's show the American people we can do the work which we were sent here to do. That is the position of the Republican Party.

Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

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

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.

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

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

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge full, bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

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

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

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

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

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

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

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

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

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

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, there are times when we will have arguments across the aisle. I don't think there is any need for us to engage in that now because our differences are across the building, not across the aisle.

Let me begin by saying to the gentleman from Texas, we agree, we will not let this program die. And as the gentleman from Texas knows, he has had to sit through this on the Rules Committee three times this year, twice this past week, because we did originally think about taking the bill the Senate had passed, amending it, and sending it back. I am disappointed to say that we heard from all points that if that happened, the Senate might be so unable to function as to kill the program.

The United States Senate has perfected something I call ``the strength of weakness.'' They labor to do anything whatsoever, and having done it, tell people that if we ask them to change one bit of it they will collapse in a heap. It's like the song from ``MacArthur Park,'' someone left the bill out in the rain, and they won't be able to remake it because they will never have the recipe again. That's what we keep hearing.

But, on the other hand, and here's where I do disagree with my friend from Texas, I know we've had some disagreements here about the role of preemptive strikes in foreign policy. Here our disagreement is on the role of preemptive surrender in interbranch negotiations.

I agree that if all else fails and the Senate does not act on this bill, we will have to acquiesce. I regret that. I think it would be much less good public policy than we could do if we had the normal legislative process. But I have spoken to the Senators from New York. They report to me that the Governor of New York and the mayor of New York, and New York is not the only entity covered by this, and indeed, some of these things, they're all universal. But people are concerned, and so we have reluctantly agreed not to endanger the chances of this if the Senate is unable to act.

On the other hand, and here's where I differ, I am unwilling at this point to let it end without the Senate once again being given a chance to function on several issues. The gentleman from Vermont just talked about the smaller companies. The reduction of the trigger from $100 to $50 million was done unanimously, I believe, or overwhelmingly, by our committee at the request of small insurance companies who wanted to be able to insure. The argument is, if they do not have the smaller trigger, many of them would not feel able to bid on insurance for these building projects. So, I think that's important.

We had the inclusion of group life insurance. I am afraid that in the Senate version, this is kind of the analog of the old neutron bomb. Remember the neutron bomb; it killed people and left the buildings standing. The Senate would have us have a provision that ensures buildings but ignores people. Well, people die in these terrorist attacks. We all remember that this Congress, in 2001 or 2002, passed a program that cost us billions of dollars to compensate those who lost their lives. Why should we not allow that to be done to the insurance system? That's another thing we would like to have in there.

And as part of the life insurance, as has been noted by a colleague, there is a provision that was not contested in our committee that would prevent discrimination against people who are traveling to places that some companies might think inappropriate to travel, particularly Israel. There is a provision in here that says you're not going to be penalized for, and this was brought to our attention by some of our colleagues from Florida. Now, all of those are in the bill we want to send back.

Also, a reset mechanism that, obviously it applies to New York where they've already had a terrorist attack, would apply nationally so that you don't get only one bite at the apple if the terrorists choose to strike again. And I think the major reason for doing TRIA is to neutralize the effect that murderous thugs who wish this country and its people ill can have on our policies. That's why we want terrorism insurance. This is part of national defense. This is to make it a government program as part of our defense against this activity.

But there are other parts of this where we have accepted this. Frankly, this looks like what a conference would look like if we were in a rational world where we could have a conference. We said 15 years, they said 7. We've accepted 7. By the way, I will say that in the prior Congress, we only had 2.

The reason for a longer term is that this is important if people are to be able to build in our large cities and other areas which are threatened by terrorism. Because you cannot get the building without a loan, you cannot get the loan without insurance, and a 2-year timeline is obviously too short for major building projects. We accepted that. We wanted protection against nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological attacks. No one thinks that's out of the picture. The Senate said no to it. We accepted that. So, we compromised with them.

And finally, a PAYGO issue arose at the last minute. We didn't do it well here, and the Senate did it well, and I congratulate them for that. It was good legislating. So we accept their term of 7 years. We accept their version of PAYGO. We accept their jettisoning of nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological. But we would like to include group life, and we would like to accommodate the smaller companies, and we would like to have the reset mechanism.

In the end, as I said, we understand we can't compel them, but we believe it is worth another try. Passing this bill will in no way jeopardize our ability in the end, if nothing else fails, to accept the 7 years that the Senate sent us.

But I appeal to the Members here out of an institutional concern. Let's understand that in the end, if the Senate refuses to do certain things, they may have an advantage. But let's not make it easy. Let's not continue a process by which Senators can avoid tough issues. Maybe some Senator will raise some of these issues. Maybe, I know it's ``maybe'' in a land of fantasy, the Senate would vote on some of them and Senators would have to decide if they wanted to say no, it's okay if you can't travel to Israel with your life insurance, it's okay if the smaller companies are kept out, it's okay to insure buildings but not people. Maybe it won't work, but no harm will be done.

I would also add this: In terms of the rule, nothing in the bill that we are proposing today is new except for the Senate PAYGO, and the Senate PAYGO, we all agree, I believe, is superior, given the need to do a PAYGO.

This is a bill that was voted on in subcommittee and in committee and came to the floor. It was amended in various ways. It was a bipartisan product. In the end, the vote was something like 300-plus to 100-plus when the bill passed here in the House; not unanimous, obviously, but with a lot of bipartisanship.

Everything in the bill today, with the exception of the Senate PAYGO, has already been through subcommittee and committee and the floor. But we are saying to the Senate there are important issues here, on group life, on the reset, on travel, on smaller companies. And we are simply, I hope, not ready to say to them we roll over and play dead without giving them another chance to address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would only ask to amend one thing. It is not the majority. Here we wanted a conference, and in the Senate, it was both parties that refused. It was not the majority. Indeed, there was objection more from the minority side. So I would only differ with the notion that

it was somehow a majority decision. We asked for a conference, and we were told on a bipartisan basis over there they wouldn't give us one.

I thank the gentleman.

If it were up to me, obviously, we would have done this earlier. The only thing I can say is, and I appreciate the spirit of cooperation, I only regret that he cannot love me in December as he did in May.

I would just say on this, and I didn't want to make it in any way partisan, but what we have been told is that the senior Republican on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama, has said this is all he will accept. I have talked to the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Connecticut, I've talked to the Senator from New York, and they were ready to discuss it. But they said that given Senate rules, they could not get the Senator from Alabama to do anything else, and they didn't feel they could change that.

There were also concerns that even if we were to send back exactly the bill that he had wanted, another Senator might object, because that is a volatile place. But we did talk to the Senator from Connecticut, we talked to the Senator from New York. The Senator from Alabama, the ranking minority member, was the major opponent.

I would yield to my friend.

No, this is not ping pong. This is ping. We're keeping pong

over here. That is, we are going to send them and give them one more chance. But we are keeping their version over here if all else fails.