Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4986) to provide for the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as previously enrolled, with certain modifications to address the foreign sovereign immunities provisions of title 28, United States Code, with respect to the attachment of property in certain judgments against Iraq, the lapse of statutory authorities for the payment of bonuses, special pays, and similar

benefits for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill that is now under consideration.

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

I rise today in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2008, a bill which we will today consider for the third time on the House floor and which has been revised to address the objections expressed by the President. I strongly believe, Madam Speaker, that this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation passed by this Congress and I must say one of the very best, if not the best, defense authorization bills that I can recall during my time in Congress. And I am so extremely proud, Madam Speaker, of all the members of the Armed Services Committee as well as all those who have worked hard in and out of our committee to make it happen.

A special thanks to our wonderful staff, our crack staff, for the hard work that they have done to get us where we are today, with a bill that will be signed by the President, and the recipients of the benefits of this bill will be those young men and young women in uniform.

Last night, we disposed of the President's veto of an earlier version of this bill. That veto was a surprise, frankly, to all of us. Today, we move on. We send a final version to the President that his aides have indicated he will sign. The changes to the conference report, which we passed in the House by a vote of 370-49, and passed the Senate by 90-3, are minimal. Only one section, section 1083, dealing with claims against countries that are or have been state sponsors of terrorism, caused a problem for the administration that led to this veto.

This bill before us includes a compromise on that provision we worked out on a bipartisan basis with the body on the other side of the Capitol, as well as with the White House, and it allows the President to waive the application of the section under consideration to the government of Iraq, while also expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should negotiate with the government of Iraq to satisfy the legitimate claims that American citizens have against that country and its former leader, Saddam Hussein.

The only other changes made to the bill were those required to make retroactive the pay increases and many benefit improvements provided for the military servicemembers as well as their families. Those provisions will be made effective under this bill as of January 1 of this year, as would have been the case had the President signed the original bill that was before you.

This is a good bill. I think it's the best defense bill in decades that this Congress has put forward. It's good for our troops, good for their families, it will help improve the readiness of our Armed Forces, and it will bring significant oversight to the Department of Defense in much needed areas where oversight was so needed in the past.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a longstanding and hardworking member of our Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

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

Madam Speaker, if I may, let me add to the comments today the importance of this legislation. Under our Constitution, it is up to the Congress of the United States to raise and maintain the military and provide the rules and regulations therefore. We do that by means of a defense authorization bill that comes from the Armed Services Committee.

We worked long and hard, and we were able to pass such a bill from our committee back in May and the Senate passed one back in September. And we, of course, had conference with the Senate, and we were finally able to reach an agreement on a conference report that is a piece of legislation that embodies both the House and the Senate provisions.

The people at the White House had the opportunity to look at it and give comments on various sections of the proposed legislation, which they did. We looked at them and worked with them and passed a good piece of legislation. Like I said before, 370 Members of this House and 90 Members of the other body voted for it. However, the President chose to veto over this provision--that to me was a surprise--that it rose to the level of a veto. Nevertheless, it is what happened, and that is why we are here.

There seems to be a rather interesting intellectual discussion as to the type of veto. If I remember correctly, the veto message that was read to us yesterday here in this Chamber, the President's remarks made reference to the fact that it was a pocket veto for the reason that we were not in session and also that it was a regular veto. To me it sounded as if there were two vetoes wrapped up in one message.

Nevertheless, regarding the issue as to whether it was a pocket veto or not, the 1974 case Kennedy v. Sampson, which was a D.C. Circuit Court case, said that the ability to receive a veto message, which we had, under our adjournment resolution, Madam Speaker, we had language that allowed the Clerk of the House to receive any messages which, of course, on December 28 was the veto message from the President. The Speaker designated the Clerk to receive it. As we saw, it was a regular veto as opposed to a pocket veto. I hope that puts that issue to rest for the days ahead.

Let me briefly also mention, Madam Speaker, that besides the pay raise and the family benefits and the fact that we prevent the increase in fees for pharmaceuticals and TRICARE for the troops and their families, we provide for taking care of the problems that were raised in the Walter Reed situation a good number of months ago where our injured and wounded soldiers were not receiving the best care. We knew that and discussed it. As a matter of fact, on this floor, in the Wounded Warriors Act, we included that in toto in this legislation; also, outstanding sections on contract reform regarding the possibility of fraud, the reform of acquisition, we touched on many areas such as that.

I was so pleased with the outcome of this, including, of course, most importantly readiness, which we need to keep up, allowing additional troops for the Army and the Marine Corps.

I have been on the Armed Services Committee most of my career in Congress, and I just can't think of any more comprehensive and far- reaching authorization bill that we have ever had. I have to really give credit to our committee for the hard work they did. I just can't say enough about our crack staff on the committee. They are just first rate, and we appreciate them, rely on their hard work so very, very much, and I want to again pay tribute to them.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time. If my friend has some further comments to make, we would appreciate them.

If the gentleman from New Jersey yields back, I yield back.

Madam Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to a dedicated and loyal public servant, Henry L. ``Butch'' Hinton. On January 4, 2008, Mr. Hinton will retire following a distinguished 37- year career with the United States Government Accountability Office, GAO, capped by 13 years as the Managing Director of the agency's Defense Capabilities and Management team.

Mr. Hinton began his career with GAO in 1970, rising through the ranks to lead one of its major divisions--the National Security and International Affairs Division, and after an organizational realignment, one of its key teams--the Defense Capabilities and Management team. He is an acknowledged subject matter expert on a wide variety of national security programs and policy issues dealing with defense planning and budgeting, force structure and readiness, weapon systems acquisitions, homeland defense, military and civilian personnel, logistics, infrastructure, and business and force transformation. In addition, he has an in-depth understanding of the Federal legislative and regulatory processes.

Through the years, I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Hinton in my capacity as both chairman and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a result of his work on highly sensitive and complex issues related to military readiness, threats to national and global security, the global war on terrorism, the base realignment and closure process, and human capital management, he has been a two- time recipient of the Comptroller General's Award for exceptional effort and achievement of results in support of the Congress and the American taxpayer. He has also received GAO's Integrity Award, two GAO Distinguished Service Awards, and GAO's Meritorious Service Award.

GAO was created in 1921 with the mandate to audit, evaluate, or investigate virtually all Federal Government operations--wherever they might take place. In other words, the GAO serves as a ``watchdog'' over the taxpayers' money--guarding against fraud, abuse, and inefficient allocation of public funds.

GAO evaluations under Mr. Hinton's guidance and leadership have saved taxpayers billions of dollars. During his career as head of GAO's National Security and International Affairs Division, and GAO's Defense Capabilities and Management team, Congress has implemented numerous recommendations resulting from his work. He has also led the work on reports to improve the readiness and capabilities of active and reserve forces, oversight of military operations including the use of contractors on the battlefield, reliability of cost reporting, transparency over military compensation costs, defense planning in such areas as infrastructure and force protection, and efforts to transform the Department of Defense's business operations, including the need for a Chief Management Officer.

Madam Speaker, Butch Hinton's tenure at GAO has been characterized by success on every level. He has served as an example of a truly exceptional public servant. I am sure my colleagues will join me in wishing him well in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, let me take this moment to recognize the work of

Bernie Fechtel of Jefferson City, Missouri. A successful businessman in central Missouri, Mr. Fechtel served as the Chairman of the Board for the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce in 2007.

During his time as Chairman, the local Chamber was awarded the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry's ``Chamber of the Year'' award in recognition of the Chamber's effectiveness and efficiency in implementing its economic goals. Jefferson City is the fifth city in history to receive this distinguished award.

Mr. Fechtel will continue to serve the Jefferson City Chamber of Commerce in 2008 as it's Chairman-Emeritus. I trust that Members of the House will join me in thanking Bernie Fechtel for his outstanding leadership and vision.

Madam Speaker, let me take this moment to recognize the exemplary and extended service of Bob and Rosalee Welling, who will receive the Distinguished Service Award from the University of Central Missouri.

Bob received his juris doctorate from St. Louis University School of Law. Following law school he spent 2 years in the United States Army and then moved to Warrensburg, MO, to begin a 50-year career in law. In 1985, Bob received the Missouri Bar President's Award.

Bob served as president of the Missouri State Board of Education and as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of State Boards of Education. He was a former chair on the board's Governmental Affairs Committee and was a mentor in the association. Bob has also presided as chair of the Regional Council for Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, MO.

Currently, Bob is a member of Children's Mercy Hospital Planned Gift Council and board member of its nonprofit subsidiary, Family Health Partners. He is also serving as a gubernatorial appointee to the Missouri Military Preparedness and Enhancement Commission.

Rosalee graduated from the University of Central Missouri with a bachelor's degree in education and a master's degree in speech pathology and audiology. Following graduate school, she served as a physical education and health teacher in the Raytown School District and then as a speech pathologist at the Children's Therapy Center. She then joined the University of Central Missouri and taught until her retirement in 2002.

While at the university, she served for 13 years as director of the Early Childhood Communication Special Education Preschool, spent 6 years as the coordinator of Clinical Services in the Welch-Schmidt Center for Communication Disorders, and was guest lecturer in the Department of Phonetics at the University of Helsinki, Finland.

Today, Rosalee is director emeriti of the University of Central Missouri Alumni Association Board and the Foundation Board. She also serves as a tutor in the Johnson County Adult Literacy Program.

The Wellings are known in the State of Missouri for their outstanding civic involvement and volunteer service. I trust that Members of the House will join me in wishing Bob and Rosalee Welling and their family the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Congress and the President have come together to find common ground on the fiscal year 2008 budget. It is often said that politics is the art of compromise, and the bill we are considering today--H.R. 2764--represents a compromise position that allows the Congressional majority to advance some of its priorities while adhering to the President's overall budgetary constraints.

H.R. 2764 funds a number of programs that are important to the American people, including investments in education, life-saving medical research, law enforcement, border security, veterans' health care, and energy independence initiatives.

H.R. 2764 is especially good for rural America. The bill rejects deep cuts that were proposed by the President in rural health care, housing, economic development, Internet access, and law enforcement programs. At the same time, the bill nearly doubles funds available for renewable energy loans and grants in rural areas, commits significant resources to fix aging bridges, and adds $1 million to the President's request for rural drinking water and waste water infrastructure projects. Additionally, the measure slashes funding for the Administration's efforts to create a National Animal Identification Program, reducing it by $23 million.

H.R. 2764 also extends through December 31, 2007, most of the agricultural disaster assistance programs included as part of the emergency supplemental spending bill signed into law earlier this year. These programs allow many American farmers to recoup some losses associated with drought and other natural disasters in 2005, 2006, or in the first two months of 2007. Between February and December of this year, Missouri farmers have seen their fair share of damaging weather events. I am pleased that Congress is extending disaster programs that may be beneficial to qualifying Show-Me State producers.

The measure also funds U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, while I would have preferred to send the President war funding legislation that sets a goal of redeploying most American troops from Iraq by next Christmas, H.R. 2764 will provide our service men and women with the resources they need to do their jobs while serving in harm's way and will alleviate any need by the Administration to reallocate funds from domestic military operations.

H.R. 2764 represents a compromise bill that is in the best interest of our Nation. I am pleased to support its passage and urge the President to sign it into law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me just mention a few high points.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 860, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War--President Truman recommended to Congress that the

War and Navy Departments be unified in a new Department of

National Defense. In his statement to Congress, Truman

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

from the costly and dangerous experience of this war is that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Army and the Navy reach a compromise on the problem of

unification.

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

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

was the establishment of a unified Department of Defense.

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

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

the newly created Air Force within the unified National

Military Establishment. However, bickering between the

services continued, especially over issues that the Executive

Order had failed to address specifically. Many of these

issues concerned the functions of the Navy. The Army regarded

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

operations on land; similarly, the Air Force viewed Naval

Aviation as an infringement on its jurisdiction over air

operations.

In an effort to resolve these conflicts, Secretary of

Defense James Forrestal summoned the Joint Chiefs of Staff to

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

suggestions made by Forrestal, the Joint Chiefs drafted a

directive entitled ``Functions of the Armed Forces and the

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

Agreement.'' Forrestal submitted this proposal to the

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

issued Executive Order 9950, revoking his earlier executive

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

issue the new directive that same day.

With modifications, the Key West Agreement continues to

govern responsibilities within the armed forces to this day.

In contrast to the broad language of the earlier executive

order, Forrestal's directive specified the primary and

secondary responsibilities of each branch of the service. In

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

establish a strategic air component, but would be permitted

to have aircraft carriers and use its aircraft against inland

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

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

The Air Force would retain primary responsibility for

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

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

would be limited in size to four divisions, and would

cooperate with the Army in planning amphibious operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman from Alabama yield, please?

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

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

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

It appears we have no additional speakers except myself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 269) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, let me take this moment to recognize the career of Sam Licklider. Sam Licklider has served as the senior vice president of governmental affairs for the Missouri Association of Realtors for 40 years.

Mr. Licklider joined the Missouri Association of Realtors in 1968 after graduating from Westminster College in Fulton, MO. As the organization's head of legislative affairs, Mr. Licklider spends his time fighting for realtor issues at the Missouri capitol. He is widely regarded as being one of the Missouri Association of Realtors' biggest assets.

Sam Licklider and his wife, Jane, currently reside in Jefferson City. They have two children and four grandchildren. I trust that Members of the House will join me in wishing Sam Licklider and his family the best of luck in the days ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the people of rural Missouri and those who live throughout the United States are eager for Congress to enact energy policies that help alleviate record high oil prices, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, promote homegrown energy sources, and preserve the environment for future generations. The comprehensive energy bill we are considering today, the Energy Independence and Security Act, would address the peoples' concerns in these areas. After careful consideration, I have concluded the measure is good for rural Missouri and for the security of our Nation. I will lend my support to it.

Our Nation cannot afford to ignore the impact high energy prices are having on individuals, on families, and on the economy at large. Oil and fuel prices have been at record levels for weeks. Rural Missouri families and farmers, who rely heavily on transportation to go about their daily lives, are particularly hard hit by high fuel costs. They have been allocating larger portions of their income to fill their gas tanks and to heat their homes. Meanwhile, America's top five oil companies have been collecting record profits and refusing to invest those profits in new oil refining capabilities.

Enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act would be welcome news to Missouri motorists. For the first time since 1975, this legislation would raise fuel efficiency standards for the cars and trucks sold in our country. Further, it would ensure that automakers continue producing trucks driven by many rural Americans by adjusting the fuel efficiency requirements for these particular vehicles.

Improved fuel efficiency is long overdue. Over time, this added efficiency would reduce by half the amount of oil America imports from foreign sources, reduce hazardous vehicle emissions, preserve our environment, and eventually yield fewer trips to the gas station for hard working Americans. I am pleased that the automobile industry and conservationists support this fuel efficiency standard.

Important to Missouri farmers is the robust renewable fuels standard included in the Energy Independence and Security Act. In the Show-Me State and throughout America's heartland, ethanol and biodiesel production facilities dot the countryside. They have fostered economic development in areas of the country that have struggled to produce jobs. Many of these facilities are owned by farmers who have committed their financial resources and ingenuity toward advancing America's energy independence, improving farm incomes, and boosting the economic well-being of small towns.

The 2005 Energy Bill included a strong renewable fuels standard for ethanol made from corn. Since passage of that legislation, ethanol production has dramatically increased, corn yields have set records, and ethanol's farmer-investors have reaped economic gains. Because of the overwhelming success of ethanol and the demand for corn, the price per bushel of corn has risen. Combined with widespread drought that has impacted much of the Midwest and Great Plains States over the past several years, killing or damaging grazing pastureland, high corn prices have raised concerns about ethanol with some livestock producers.

This year's energy bill would build upon the successful renewable fuels standard established in 2005 by allowing for a strong corn ethanol mandate, while also phasing in ethanol made from sources other than corn to help assuage the concerns of some U.S. livestock producers. The bill also would create a minimum use requirement for biodiesel made from soybeans and other sources.

While I will support the Energy Independence and Security Act, the bill is not perfect. I am concerned that investor-owned utility firms in Missouri and elsewhere may not be able to sufficiently produce electricity from renewable sources within the time mandated by the legislation. I am hopeful that the Energy and Commerce Committee will sit down with investor-owned utility firms to iron out any glitches that may arise in this particular area.

Taken as a whole, the Energy Independence and Security Act would be good for rural Missouri and for our country. I will vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, December 10, 2007, at 3 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

As my friend, Mr. Hunter, the gentleman from California knows, both the House version of the Defense Authorization Act and the Senate version authorized supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say ``authorized.''

The Armed Services Committee has collectively supported authorizing this funding to ensure the continued relevance of the committee and to make sure that the specific purposes for which the President has requested funds are actually related to the wars.

In both the House and Senate versions of the bill, we have authorized this funding in a way that provides maximum flexibility for the leadership as well as for the appropriators. While we authorize funding, as my friend from California knows, nothing can happen without further action on an appropriations bill, and it is those appropriations bills that have served as the vehicles for the Iraq debate.

The House recently passed a bridge supplemental fund that would change our policy in Iraq. We may very well have similar debates in the future, and I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be forthcoming with their suggestions on how to address the strategic risk we incur by pursuing the President's failed policy. In the Defense Authorization Act, our committee, I expect, will act in conference to ensure that those debates can occur and that the House can work its will on future appropriations bills to restrain the President's Iraq war policy.

We all acknowledge that our troops have done a great job in Iraq. We owe them our thanks, our gratitude and our congratulations for their work as well as for their sacrifices. Their sweat and their blood have helped to reduce the level of violence in Iraq from the horrific levels of late 2006 and early 2007.

The original purpose of this surge was to reduce violence to provide the Iraqis with a chance for political reconciliation. Violence is down. It is time for the Iraqis to step up and take the hard steps toward reconciliation that will finish the job our wonderful troops have started. Yet they have refused to do this.

In response to this refusal, the House recently voted to begin to redeploy most of our troops out of Iraq and to change the nature of our involvement there. This policy is supported by a large majority of the American people who do not believe that we should continue to police a civil war when the Iraqis themselves refuse to take the hard steps to bring it to an end.

Well, we are not having the Iraq debate on the defense authorization bill. The supplemental authorization is intended to set the stage for that debate. That is an appropriations bill as all of us know. That is why the House and the Senate versions of the Defense Authorization Act, which is before us, included a supplemental authorization and why I suspect that the conference will do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi, let me point out the fact that both in the House version of the defense authorization bill as well as the Senate version of the bill there is positive reference to the threat of a failed state in Iraq. That is fully recognized in both pieces of legislation, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments thereon and hopefully correct and parallel language could be adopted in that regard.

I now, Madam Speaker, yield 5 minutes to my friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Seapower (Mr. Taylor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), who is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a very distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

The motion to instruct by my friend Mr. Hunter from California is in two parts. Both of these sections make reference to issues that are spelled out in both the House and Senate versions and consequently should be acceptable. I would hope that the conferees would be in line with accepting both of those issues.

I would like to take just a moment, Madam Speaker, however, to say a word about those wonderful troops who we, through this authorization, support. They are the best in the world. They and their families have been tasked to do monumental work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, and to say we are proud of them is an understatement. General Petraeus is the right man for the job in his great efforts in Iraq.

That is why in this bill we authorize a 3\1/2\ percent pay raise for our troops; that is why we made significant changes to address the problems unearthed by the Walter Reed situation regarding our wounded warriors; that is why we put $1 billion in strategic readiness funds to deal with the critical readiness shortfall. And this is a major challenge for us. The reforms for Iraq and Afghanistan contracting are spelled out in this bill. There is additional money for the MRAP vehicles; there is $980 million for our National Guard equipment; prohibition on TRICARE fee increases; taking steps to minimize the inequities for survivors and to step forward on the survivor benefit plan offset.

So all of these are major issues within the realm of the two bills, and hopefully the conferees would be able to make significant progress on each of those.

I am proud of the work we have done. I am proud of the Armed Services Committee. I think it is the most bipartisan committee in Congress. Special thanks to the gentleman from California who has worked with us these many years to the end of positive help for the American in uniform.

So with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to express my support for H.R. 3998, which includes a piece of legislation entitled the ``Harry S. Truman Birthplace Study Act,'' which I introduced on July 31, 2007. That particular bill would direct the Interior Secretary to study the feasibility of adding the Harry S. Truman Birthplace State Historic Site in Lamar, MO, to our system of National Parks.

I was honored to introduce this legislation on behalf of the people of Lamar, a community located in Southwestern Missouri that has done much groundwork for the inclusion of the State Historic Site in our Federal system. The bill would further honor the 33rd President of the United States and Missouri's favorite son, President Harry S. Truman.

On May 8, 1884, Harry Truman was born in a downstairs bedroom of a small frame house in Lamar, MO. The Truman birthplace, which the family occupied until Harry was 11 months old, was built between 1880 and 1882. In 1959, the United Auto Workers donated the home to the State of Missouri, after buying it some years earlier to preserve its rich cultural significance. Since its addition to the Missouri State Parks System, much work has been done to maintain the dignity and historical relevance of the residence, and many Americans make their way through the site each year.

When the Mayor of Lamar, Keith Divine, wrote to me earlier this year asking me to introduce legislation to begin the process of including President Truman's birthplace in our National Park System, I was honored to oblige. In my view and in the view of the local community, doing so would add perhaps the most critical piece of Harry Truman's life, the place of his birth, to the current group of national historic sites that honor the legacy of our 33rd President. And, doing so would foster economic development in Lamar and in Barton County.

As a matter of record, let me share with you briefly my personal connection with President Truman and with the legislation creating the original Harry S. Truman National Historic Site in Independence, MO.

I came to personally know President Truman through my father, Ike Skelton, Sr., who developed a friendship with him some 78 years ago at the dedication of the Pioneer Mother Statue--the Madonna of the Trail-- located in my hometown of Lexington, MO. At that time, Harry Truman was a county commissioner in neighboring Jackson County and my father was a well-known lawyer and Democrat. Through the years, I developed my own friendship with this genuinely nice person we call the ``Man from Independence.''

He was a son of rural Missouri whose handshake was firm, whose honesty and personal integrity were never questioned, and whose devotion to his beloved wife, Bess, to his daughter Margaret Truman Daniel, and to his friends was enduring. He led our country through some difficult periods and made courageous, principled decisions during his presidency.

In the past, Congress has honored President Truman by designating sites in Missouri important to his life as part of America's National Park System. In 1982 and 1983, I worked with the late Senator Tom Eagleton and former Senator Jack Danforth to pass legislation designating the home of Harry and Bess Truman in Independence, MO, as the Harry S. Truman National Historic Site. The site, which consisted at that time of President and Mrs. Truman's home at 219 N. Delaware Street, was willed to the Archivist of the United States when Mrs. Truman passed away in October 1982.

Because the National Park Service, rather than the Archivist, has the Federal responsibility of administering national historic sites, the property and its historic contents became stuck in limbo, with only minimal protection and threatened by possible vandalism, theft, or fire. At that time, there was an urgent need to protect this important property, so I requested the Secretary of the Interior to exercise his authority to designate and administer President Truman's home as a national historic site. The Department refused, and I quickly introduced legislation to establish the site. My bill passed the House on December 13, 1982, but the Senate failed to act on it before the end of the session.

Fortunately, the Interior Secretary came to his senses and signed a secretarial order designating the home as a national historic site. In 1983, however, I wrote legislation to codify the Secretary's directive. In May 1983, Congress unanimously approved and President Ronald Reagan signed into law my bill that created the Harry S. Truman National Historic Site in Independence.

Since that time, Congress has authorized the National Park Service to add other historically significant Truman family sites to the Federal property--in 1989, additional family homes near 219 Delaware Street and in 1993, the Truman Farm Home near Grandview, MO.

So, here we are on December 4, 2007, considering my legislation to direct the Interior Secretary to study whether it is feasible to include another important historic site--President Truman's birthplace--to our National Park System.

As someone who cherishes the life and legacy of Harry Truman, I am hopeful this bill will become law and that the National Park Service's study will proceed quickly and will yield favorable results.

Over the years, Lamar, the State of Missouri, and the University of Missouri Extension have put into place a development plan for the Harry S. Truman Birthplace State Historic Site. If approved, I am confident the Federal study will look favorably upon the community's work and will take into consideration the positive economic impact for the Lamar and Barton County area, which has experienced considerable economic hardship in recent months because a major employer, O'Sullivan Industries, closed its doors.

I urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 3998 today.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, our purpose is to defend America and American interests, American citizens. And this bill is a good bill. I speak for this rule. I speak for it because this is a balanced rule. On the one hand, it helps protect Americans; on the other hand, it is a balance in favor of the Constitution. We have to keep, of course, those two goals in mind, but keeping in mind the fact that we need good intelligence, and this is a means and the law to allow us to get good intelligence and protect America and American interests.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of this resolution.

It's very important that we take a good look at where we are in the country of Iraq. It's important that we take a good look at the status of the United States military forces, in particular our Army, which is being stretched and strained nearly beyond recognition.

You can't help but have a great deal of pride in the young men and young women in doing the duty upon which they have been called. But it is important for us to turn the reins, give the baton over to the Iraqi forces, to the Iraqi Government. We cannot hold their hand there forever. It is important that we redeploy our forces in a responsible and reasonable manner so that their readiness is assured in case of some future challenge.