Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, probably one of the least known things about the President's budget request over the year is that in June 2001 President Bush presented his defense budget to Congress and in it asked for the authority to conduct a round of base closures in 2003 called the Effective Facilities Initiative.

In September of that year, after the House had refused to act on it, the other body passed by a very small margin the authority for two rounds of base closure. Later, the House conferees worked that down to one round, but in the year 2005. But this May, knowing how close we were coming to it and the fact that our Nation was at war not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a much smaller war, but still a war, in Colombia, this body by almost a 100-vote margin voted to delay BRAC for 2 years. There were a lot of good reasons for that.

The President asked for this in June 2001. Our Nation was at peace. We had no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. We were talking about shrinking the military.

In this bill we are going to vote on shortly, we expand the ranks of the Army by 20,000. We expand the ranks of the Marine Corps by 2,000. Those are both good things.

The President is talking about bringing troops home from Korea and Europe. Where is he going to put them because, by the administration's own admission, they are not talking about closing one base or two bases, they are talking about closing 25 percent of all of the bases in America, not overseas. This base closure commission is about closing bases in America, not Europe or Korea. That is one base out of four.

What further complicates this and what I found interesting is, when I expressed my opposition to this and when I asked the different service secretaries who have come before the House Committee on Armed Services, who tell us repeatedly we have 25 percent overcapacity, name one base you would like to see closed, the Secretary of the Army would not name one base; the Secretary of the Navy could not name one base; the Secretary of the Air Force could not name one base. They cannot name one, yet they keep insisting that they want to close one base out of four.

Mr. Speaker, what happens when a base is closed? Number one, we lose that capability that the taxpayers have paid for forever. America is not getting less populated, it is more populated. It is not less crowded, it is more crowded. When you lose that land, you lose the ability to train there. Every single weapon we have requires more of a stand-off in order to train, not less. Things that used to shoot for yards now shoot for miles. Things that used to shoot for miles now shoot across a continent. We need more land to train. We are talking about bringing troops home, and yet they want to shut down bases.

And there are other unintended consequences. Half of our military retirees, those people who have given our Nation 20 years of their blood, sweat and tears, 20 years away from their families, over half of our Nation's military retirees intentionally chose to retire near a military facility so they could use the base hospital, because they were promised use of that base hospital for the rest of their lives.

They intentionally retired near a commissary because they were promised the use of the commissary for the rest of their life. You know what? They spent 20 years away from their families, being called chief or sergeant or colonel or captain, and they like going back to the base and being called chief or sergeant, colonel or captain.

When you close the base, you close the commissary. When you close the base, much more importantly, you close the base hospital. You have broken the promise of lifetime health care for these military retirees.

So why, when we are at war in Afghanistan, when we are in a war in Iraq? I happen to, unfortunately, have been on the same flight with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when those two young GI's came home in a coffin from Iraq. Why, when we are asking young Americans to enlist to serve because we want to give them good things?

This body is given the constitutional authority to provide for an Army or a Navy, turn around and give that authority to some handpicked bureaucrats who have already been told, close one base out of four.

In particular, to my friends from Florida, I come from hurricane country. I know what it is like to see houses destroyed. I know what it is like to go to funerals of people who have died in hurricanes. We got lucky this time in Mississippi. You did not. You have had four hurricanes this year.

Why would the President of the United States as Commander in Chief tell the people of Florida he is going to go there and close one base out of four knowing that their economy has already been devastated. Why would he tell his military retirees, who intentionally bought houses in Florida so they could use the hospital, so they could use the commissary: We are sorry. We are going to close the base. We are going to close the hospital. We will close the commissary. You are out of luck.

In a little while, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question, and it will be very sweet and simple. It will instruct the clerk to put back the language that passed this House by very close to 100 votes, including the vote by the chairman of this committee, that says we are going to delay BRAC. If we are growing the force, which we are, if we are bringing troops home from Europe, if we are bringing them home from Asia, we will need a place to put them. Let us not close bases now and not have a place for them.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to be against BRAC. The biggest of all is the false notion that it saves the taxpayers money. They predicted great savings. Let me tell you what they did. They shut down bases, and threw Americans out of work. They deprived military retirees of their basic health care. They deprived them of their commissary. But, most importantly of all, we did not sell the bases; we gave them away. Before we gave away bases, this Nation spent $13 billion, with a B, $13 billion cleaning up facilities just to give them away. And then you never get them back.

Go to Cecil Field in Florida. Right now, our Nation is spending tens of millions of dollars buying land in North Carolina. Why? So we can build a runway. What do we need a runway for? For the F-18s to land when they come off the ships. Why did we not send them to another base? Well, we had another base. It was called Cecil Field. It had three 8,000-foot runways. It had a fourth 10,000-foot runway. It had a hospital. It had a commissary. It had places for the troops to live. It had places for the family to live. It had mess halls. It had all the things that a base is supposed to have, but a previous round of BRAC shut it down. So when the F-18s need a place to land when they come off the carriers, we have got to go buy land to make up for what was already given away.

It is very rare in this body where we get a chance to prevent a long- term mistake. Another round of base closures is a long-term mistake. I am giving you the opportunity to do the right thing for your country. In a few minutes, I will offer that.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting my chairman on the very genteel way he is handling this. He has done a good job with the bill, with one glaring exception. And some mistakes are so bad that they cannot be retrieved, and we need to retrieve this now while we have a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to instruct the enrolling clerk to amend the conference report to reinsert language that was in the House-passed bill that would postpone the 2005 round of base closures and realignments until 2007.

As we know, this legislation was included in the original version of the defense authorization bill that passed in this House in May. However, it, like several other provisions, mysteriously disappeared when the bill was in conference.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many examples where good legislation and amendments that passed this House just seemed to vaporize behind closed doors. That is a bad way to do business. Tonight, we have a chance to stop that.

Let us do the right thing today. Let us reinsert the provision that passed by very close to 100 votes right now. I think the Members of this House must decide for themselves whether or not they want another round of base closures. As I have said before, when given the opportunity, the service secretaries could not name and would not name one single installation they want closed. Read the Constitution, article I, section 8 says that Congress shall provide for an Army and a Navy. Not the bureaucrats. We decide.

We are going to leave here and go beg for the opportunity to represent a sliver of America. We are going to beg for the opportunity to fulfill congressional obligations. How many of you are going to go out there and say, Please elect me congressman so I can let some bureaucrat make the tough decisions for me. I am not. I want to do my job. I do not trust bureaucrats with my job. I will not vote to allow a group of bureaucrats to shut down bases at a time when we are at war and we are getting ready to bring troops home and we are growing the Army and we are growing the Marines. This does not make sense.

So let me make it perfectly clear. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will not, will not stop consideration of this conference report. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote to reinsert the provision that passed this House by almost a 100-vote margin. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from delaying the closing of one base out of every four in America, one base out of every four. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We are all proud of the tremendous sacrifice our military members make for the defense of our country. Our 1.4 million active duty service members, and an additional 875,000 citizen soldiers--National Guardsmen and reservists--are serving the nation under the most arduous of conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe these Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines a tremendous debt of gratitude for the service they provide in our defense. Their sacrifice is an honor to our nation; it is our responsibility to provide for their readiness.

I would also like to take time to recognize the thousands of government service civilians and private individuals who support the readiness of our service members and our military. Their sacrifice is sometimes overlooked but their jobs are vital to the continued success of our armored forces in this time of war. We could not fight and win without them and I thank them for their dedicated service to our national defense.

This act provides for the immediate needs of our Armed Forces and we have proactively considered their future needs as well. In this global war, we must not lose sight of the challenges we face in maintaining our readiness in the future. Our military has been engaged in combat for nearly three years. The equipment

and weapons systems our service members fight with has taken a tremendous beating in the harsh conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan. As this conflict drags on we must remain steadfast in our resolution to fully man and equip our maintenance and support activities to deal with battle damaged and worn out vehicles and weapons systems while at the same time we begin to transform our forces to new weapons and mobility systems.

I am very pleased that we were able to eliminate the cap on the privatized housing program. I was a co-author of the original provisions to establish the privatized housing program in the 1996 Defense Authorization bill. This is a ``win-win'' program that builds quality family housing for our troops and their families much more quickly than we could through the regular family housing construction process. The Budget Committees put this program in grave jeopardy by refusing to include any way to eliminate the cap in the budget resolution, but I am proud that our committee, on a bipartisan basis, was able to save the program. If we had not found a way to eliminate the cap, new housing for almost 50,000 families over the next two years would have been delayed indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House did not stick to its position, validated by a bipartisan majority on the House floor, to delay BRAC for two years. The Army is in the midst of restructuring itself. We are bringing two divisions home from Europe. We are revising our warplans to support new strategies and are still reviewing the division of labor between our active duty forces and our reserve components. Last but not least, we are still at war in Iraq.

With this many unknowns, I think it is irresponsible to push forward with BRAC. The House position to delay it for two years was the more prudent and responsible approach, and I am sorely disappointed that this provision was dropped in conference.

Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to provide for the Readiness of our Armed Forces who so selflessly serve in the defense of our Nation. I commend our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and civilians and thank them for their service.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this act and I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed in the result of the conference report, whereby they caved into the Senate language on BRAC, when the House made a significant statement to delay BRAC for 2 years.

We passed that matter by nearly 100 votes in the full House. Yet the conference ignored that. I am deeply disappointed. Since we conceived BRAC in 1989, the United States has sent troops abroad 24 times . . . to nearly every continent on the planet.

Our interests in democracy, in protecting other democracies and allies, in our own self-defense, as in Afghanistan . . . or building democracies as in Iraq . . . are global. That means our military forces stand on the wall far and wide in a dangerous world . . . and our interests are everywhere danger can gather.

We are at war . . . and there is a lot of uncertainty over the resources we need. Congress cannot fly blind, we need to fully evaluate our global posture situation . . . and we must hear the analysis on that before we allow BRAC to proceed. The war in Iraq--and the war in Afghanistan--are not the only unknowns we face. As Chairman Hunter advocated and I supported--this bill increases our troop levels by 39,000.

We are also considering major movement of troops from South Korea and Europe back to the U.S. . . . So, where will we put them? You do not close major components of your military infrastructure while you are still unsure if you need it . . . and world events yet to happen over the next few years will dictate that need. The most-often heard arguments in favor of BRAC are that there is excess space we do not need, and it will save us money. I respectfully disagree with both prospects.

As for excess space . . . that could be a possibility in peacetime . . . maybe . . . but not now . . . not when the nation is at war. It's not entirely accurate to say we have excess space--does anybody know the current workload for our maintenance and repair? There is no excess space at the depot in my district. That will likely not change if the operations tempo continues at the present pace.

While I know we hear about cost savings associated with BRAC, I profoundly disagree with DoD estimates . . . mostly because they are not all-inclusive. For instance, in a recent GAO Report, the opening letter notes that DoD calculates net savings based on eliminating/ reducing personnel and base ops . . . and the cancellation of mil con projects. That's it. Really? So the math doesn't include the astronomical cost to clean up the surrounding environment? The cost of clean up continually streaks upward.

I suppose if you leave out all the costs, it would appear to save money. But Congress should insist the Pentagon include all those costs if we are serious about understanding any savings in this. A GAO report presented to my Readiness Subcommittee says: ``BRAC rounds have generated substantial net savings . . . for the Department. We have . . . viewed these savings estimates as imprecise for a variety of reasons, such as weaknesses in DOD's financial management systems that limit its ability to fully account for the costs of its operations; the fact that DOD's accounting systems . . . are oriented to tracking expenses and disbursements, not savings; the exclusion of BRAC-related costs incurred by other agencies; and inadequate periodic updating of the savings estimates that are developed.''

As a member of this Congress, I'm more interested in the savings TO THE TAXPAYER than to the Department. So while the math provided by the Pentagon certainly shows on paper what they think will be savings, that math is only as solid as ALL the information on which they base decisions.

Another consideration in this discussion is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has not nearly grown up into what it needs to be. It is a brand new, major reorganization of all the national assets that protect our families and the country. DHS may need to use some elements of the current military infrastructure as they determine future needs. It will be much harder to reacquire a property for the government if we dispose of it through BRAC.

At the end of the day, we'll be OK in this war--but we need ask the question: are we going to need additional training facilities? Training has been a concern in Iraq . . . we may need facilities a BRAC could close to use for training. When Congress designed a BRAC for 2005, we were at peace. Now we are at war, and near a BRAC that could very well dispose of military assets we will need again--either for a growing military or for DHS.

We didn't have to be tied to this schedule . . . we should not be sheep. This is the most bipartisan of matters. After many years in politics, I've discovered when friends on both sides disagree with you . . . you've hit the middle.

On another matter, I am pleased that the conference did restore funding for Military housing. The idea for public-private military housing was born in Kingsville Texas--after BRAC 95. The community wanted quality low-cost housing for area Naval bases. The idea was this: private developers would build quality homes for sailors and their families--and sailors would pay rent through their housing vouchers.

The program was so wildly successful; in 1996 Sec. Perry implemented it service-wide. The need is still enormous--service members and their families are still often in condemned or insufficient housing. It is a shame we had to beg and beg to get the conference to include this provision to keep our brave soldiers--and the families they leave to fight in wars beyond our shores--in housing that is not condemned.

I reluctantly signed the conference report, because it's too important not to. But I remain deeply offended that the House position on the matter of delaying BRAC was ignored by the conference.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 843, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to come with my partner, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and offer for the consideration of the Members the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in simple terms, a defense bill for the troops of the United States who are serving in dangerous theaters around the world and troops and Guard together numbering over 2.5 million personnel.

This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that is a joint effort, Democrats and Republicans have come together to put together this legislation, which I think is really a soldiers' bill, a people's bill, in large measure.

We have a 3.5 percent pay raise across the board. We have extension of new TRICARE benefits to Guard and Reserve. We have the new survivor's benefits, something we have never had before in our history, that allows a phasing out now of the offset that used to take place between a survivor of a military retiree, where they had to weigh that against their Social Security check. We have an increase in the receipt that disabled veterans will receive on the so-called concurrent receipt of their disability and their retired pay.

We have over $700 million worth of armor for Humvees and over $100 million worth of armor for trucks. We have a bill that has freed up the 24,000 housing units that were hanging in limbo for construction starts this year.

This bill, very simply, Mr. Speaker, is a great bill, and I hope that we can move the conference report through quickly for the consideration and approval of the Members and move it quickly to the President's desk.

I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for working in a bipartisan manner in putting this bill together, as well as all the Members and all our great subcommittee chairmen who did such a wonderful job, and our ranking members and membership of the full committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, we understand how important ferromanganese is for steel production in the U.S. We certainly do not intend to ask the Secretary to perform the impossible by forecasting the future with absolute certainty. We are just asking for his best judgment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who chairs a very important committee on readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities and oversees our special operators.

Mr. Speaker, I would answer the gentleman that this aircraft has proved to be a superb performer and lift. We are behind on air lift. We need more air lift, and it is the perfect candidate for this job of expanding our air lift to the point where we can project power around the world in the way that we have planned and are today somewhat deficient.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have had numerous conversations with high level Air Force officials on this matter, and we want them to know that the language that is in the subcommittee chairman's language, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), as well as in the Senate language in the bill passed in the other house is serious. This is a serious matter. And we hope that they will fully take it into consideration as they make decisions about how to move forward on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman who has the responsibility of overseeing this 2.5 million person force wearing the uniform of the United States, a gentleman who oversees all of our personnel operations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who oversees our strategic forces in the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. There is $100 million that authorizes SECDEF to procure 100 tankers on a multiyear basis.

Any support work, since we are not doing a lease, support work obviously is entirely appropriate that that be competed, and I know that there are organic depots, as well as private sector, that look forward to engaging in that.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, and the language that was in from the other body that had very large barriers to early production, that is, requiring that we go with the totally new production activity, that we not engage in a low-rate initial production, that LRIP be done away with, and a provision requiring bringing in outside competitors, which to me means bringing in a foreign bird which is manufactured by Airbus, all of that language was stricken. So what we are left with in this conference report is an authorization for the Secretary to utilize $100 million, which presently exists, for the multiyear procurement of 100 tanker aircraft.

Let me tell the gentleman, we need those tanker aircraft. The old Eisenhower aircraft are not going to last us much longer, and the projection of American air power requires that we have a fleet of new birds ready to carry American force projection around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate we follow this discussion with the gentleman who chairs the Subcommittee on Projection Forces, which oversees the projection of aerial forces as well as naval forces around the world. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) for his outstanding work and for going time and again to the war-fighting theaters in Afghanistan and Iraq, and all our Members who did that throughout the year to get information to help put this bill together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who was a very distinguished outside conferee from the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 20 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), a great member of the committee who is considered to be the godfather of the survivor benefit program that we have manifested in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), who has done great work on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr.

Cunningham), my seat mate from San Diego, the great Top Gun.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) in strong support of this Defense Authorization Act. More than anything, it is a bill for the troops at a time when we are at war, the war in Iraq and the war against the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Let me commend my chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for his leadership in bringing the bill to completion. It was a lot of difficult, hard work, late nights; but it got done, and we are here. And I also want to applaud all the Members, Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Armed Services, for their tireless effort on this bill.

I want to mention a couple of items of concern, however. The disappointments of course are in the process. I spoke strongly last May of our desire to delay the upcoming round of base closings; yet we were unable to obtain everything, and I am also disappointed with the conference outcome in the Colombia troop cap when our troops are so very thinly stretched across the globe.

But this very bill has at stake during wartime $446 in defense. It is very, very important that we pass this this evening. This is probably the best piece of legislation that we have had for the troops, their families, and for military retirees in a long, long time. And at the end of the day, those who wear uniforms and their families who support them so well will be the ones who benefit from our efforts.

It eliminates the cap on privatized housing for military families, something so many of us have been calling for. This program allows private contractors to build housing on or near military bases, who then recoup their investment through rental payments. That has been a long, involved effort. It also involves additional health benefits for our troops who serve us proudly and with so much distinction. We extend TRICARE benefits to the nonactive duty Reservists and Guard members who have been called and ordered to active duty on or after September 11, 2001.

We also provide for additional benefits for the survivors of those who have served. The bill eliminates the Social Security offset to survivor benefit payment plans, phasing it in over 4 years as opposed to what the Senate wanted to do. I have to give our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), special credit for his effort to have a discharge petition on this particular issue.

Finally, the conference report includes a series of provisions relating to Iraq that will require the administration to explain its policies and allow Congress to conduct better oversight of what is going on there. A strategic plan is required on the stabilization of Iraq. Policies and reports are required on the subjects of preventing the abuse of detainees in American custody and a new guidance mandated on the use of contractors for security functions. These are very, very important.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a very, very good bill. When we say we support the troops, when we put the bumper sticker on the back of our truck or car, this is saying it loudly and clearly: we support the troops to the tune of $446 billion. All that they need, all that we can do is in here.

I applaud members of the Committee on Armed Services; and I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). I think this is an excellent piece of legislation to move forward at this very, very dire and difficult junction in American history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Total Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), the distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).

(Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in yielding 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

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

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

The remarks of my friend from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is a distinguished war hero in his own right, cause me to wish to say a word or two about those who wear the uniform and about those who wore the uniform.

Mr. Speaker, every Sunday morning, I have the pleasure of being with a group of men from my hometown of Lexington, Missouri, most of whom are veterans of wars of yesteryear, heroes in their own right, Marines of Vietnam, Army, Navy, my friend Vic Cosner who saw the very worst of battles in Europe during the Second World War.

We owe it in this Congress under the Constitution that charges our committee and charges this body with raising and maintaining the military to produce and care for and train young men and young women who can take the place of those who so nobly served our country in the past. That is what we are doing today.

A special thanks to our chairman, Duncan Hunter, who worked tirelessly with us well into the evening to produce this bill and got it to the floor. A special thanks to every member of the Committee on Armed Services, Democrat and Republican, and the unsung heroes of all of this is the tireless effort of the staff of the Committee on Armed Services. We could not do it without them. We thank them so very much.

Mr. Speaker, I had a rare privilege 3 weeks ago of being able to address the new sailors who had just graduated, were graduating, from the Great Lakes Naval Training Station, Great Lakes, Illinois. Mark Kirk, our fellow Member of Congress, invited me for such an event. I spoke to them, and I thanked them, and I also read a letter to the graduates that my father had written his mother in 1918 from that very same Great Lakes before he proceeded on to serve aboard the USS Missouri of the day. I want everybody to know that those young sailors, men and women, stood so tall, and you could see the pride in their faces, but even more proud were the parents and the families, thousands of them, to see the some 900 brand new American sailors become part of the fleet.

So what we do in our own way here is to legally provide and maintain, but more than that, I think this effort and what we have done for those in uniform and the families, major steps to help them along the way. Cicero, the great Greek orator, said that gratitude was the greatest of all virtues. I hope that the efforts that we do today will show a bit of gratitude from this body to all of those young men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I congratulate him and my good friend, the chairman, and the great staff on both sides of the aisle for a great job on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, I rise in support of this bill. The chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), and I agreed on most of the issues that came before our subcommittee, but on those few issues that we did not agree on, the debate was always cordial and respectful. And I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Chairman Everett, for his leadership and for his friendship. I thank him so much for working to get this done.

In conference, our subcommittee had jurisdiction over legislation that will greatly improve the lives of tens of thousands of Cold War heroes and their families. In 2000, Congress enacted the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which set up two different programs, one administered by the Department of Labor and one by the Department of Energy. To eliminate many flaws in the DOE program, this conference report transfers the DOE program to the Department of Labor, establishes a clear compensation system, and ensures that workers will receive their medical benefits and compensation for lost wages by making it a mandatory spending program.

These workers may not have worn military uniforms, but they built the weapons that deterred the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, and they were literally poisoned while doing this. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers for working to fix these important programs.

I also want to speak to another very important issue to all of us that was handled by the Subcommittee on Military Readiness on which I also serve. Almost half of our military family housing units are rated today in very poor condition. Our conference report tackles this shameful problem by saving the military housing privatization initiative. This program was nearly killed by budget resolutions in both Chambers, which neglected to make budgetary headroom that needed to be lifted so that the statutory cap on spending would provide that growing room.

A number of us have been fighting to rescue this program all year long. I am proud to say we finally prevailed, and tonight the program is saved and military families will have their housing renovated and, in some cases, rebuilt. If we had not eliminated the limit, however, the privatization housing program would have reached the cap within a couple of months and our efforts to eliminate substandard military family housing, which we all very much care about within the United States, within the next 5 years would have been derailed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many, many items. I support most of it. And while I disagree with a few, the fact that we are finally and fairly compensating our sick Cold War workers and the fact we are rescuing the privatized housing program, and thus helping

50,000 military families over the next 2 years alone, makes this bill worth supporting.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I rise in support of this bill. Chairman Everett and I agreed on most of the issues that came before our subcommittee, but on those few issues where we did disagree, the debate was cordial and respectful. I thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Everett, for his leadership.

In conference, our subcommittee had jurisdiction over legislation that will greatly improve the lives of tends of thousands of Cold War heroes and their families. In 2000, Congress enacted the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which set up two different programs--one administered by the Department of Labor and one by the Department of Energy (DOE). The Labor program focused on DOE employees with three specific diseases: chronic beryllium disease, silicosis, or cancer caused by radiation. The DOE program was for workers who suffered from illnesses other than those three diseases. The DOE was charged with helping these workers recover lost wages through their state workers' compensation system.

By all accounts, the Labor Department has efficiently covered medical costs and provided compensation to those affected workers or their survivors under their charge. Unfortunately, the DOE program was conceptually flawed and wrought with incompetence and mismanagement. To date, 25,000 workers have filed claims with the DOE, but relatively few have had their claims processed--and even fewer have received any compensation.

To eliminate the many flaws in the DOE program, this conference report transfers the DOE program to the Department of Labor, establishes a clear compensation system, and ensures that workers will receive their medical benefits and compensation for lost wages by making it a mandatory spending program. These workers may not have worn military uniforms, but they built the weapons that deterred the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, and they were literally poisoned while doing so. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers for working to fix these programs.

I want to speak to another important program handled by the Readiness Subcommittee, on which I also serve. Almost half of our military family housing units are rated in poor condition. Our conference report tackles this shameful problem by saving the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). This program was nearly killed by budget resolutions in both chambers which neglected to make budgetary headroom needed to lift the statutory cap on spending. A number of us including Solomon Ortiz, Joel Hefley, Chet Edwards, and Ike Skelton, among others, have been fighting to rescue this program all year long. I am proud to say that we finally prevailed. If we had not eliminated the limit, the privatized housing program would have reached the cap within a month or two and our efforts to eliminate substandard military family housing in the United States within the next five years would have been derailed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many items. I support most, and I disagree with a few. But the fact that we are finally and fairly compensating our sick Cold War workers and the fact that we are rescuing the privatized housing program--helping 50,000 military families over the next two years alone--make this bill deserving of bipartisan support.