Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for her question.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response to the gentlewoman's question, as Mr. Murtha suggested, we look for every way that we can to enhance the quality of life for the members of our military, to get as many pay increases and as many benefits as we can, because we recognize how important that these heroes are, these warriors are, to the security of our Nation.

I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this issue, but I would say Mr. Murtha and I have looked for every opportunity we can to make things better for those who serve in our military.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that, as he knows, this is something we had intended to do in the committee, and it is important that we do it at this point; so we accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, reluctantly, I might say, against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The

amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 73, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the original language I thought was extremely important at the time that it was adopted by the House. It was adopted as an amendment by Mr. Obey in 1997. But I believe that probably it has outlived its necessity.

I would say to the gentlewoman that we will agree to this amendment. However, I would like to advise her and the House that as we move to the conference on this bill, we are going to be extremely involved in determining that the protection of our technology will be very, very positive. This aircraft, this weapons system, has a lot of great technology that we have to protect. So we have to work out the proper language, and we will do that as we go through the conference.

We are willing to accept the amendment with that understanding.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that protecting this technology is extremely important to this chairman. This is a super aircraft. It is just an unbelievable weapons system. Mr. Murtha and I have both seen it fly, we have talked with the pilots who fly it, we have seen the systems that they use, and this gives us technology superiority in the air. Anyone that goes into

any kind of a battle will tell you that they want to make sure that those aircraft overhead belong to us and not to the other guys.

So we are going to be extremely careful before we allow this to happen, that the technology will be protected and that it will be available, the aircraft, the sales would only be available to those who are unquestionable supporters, and allies, of the United States.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman makes a very good point, and it has not fallen on deaf ears.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, all of us think that things that we say in this House are extremely important and to all of the Members in the House. But on occasion there are things that are said in this House that are heard by a lot of people not only in the House, not only in our districts, but in other parts of the world.

I understand Mr. King's amendment, and I understand how serious he considers this to be; but what I am worried about is this: if we strike this prohibition from this bill that was well thought out, what we are saying to the Iraqi people and what I am satisfied the propaganda machine of al Qaeda in Iraq are going to do is use this and say:

see there, we told you so. The Americans plan to occupy us for the rest of our lives.

We don't have any plan to do that, and we don't want the Iraqi people to think that we are going to do that, and we don't want the American people to think that we are going to be constantly occupying Iraq. I understand Mr. King's interest, and most of the time I agree with him, but in this case I can't agree with him because I just think it sends the wrong message not only to the people of Iraq, not only to the people of America, but to the people of other Muslim nations who might say, hey, are we next? Are we going to be occupied? Are we going to have American troops in our streets? We don't want that to happen. We don't want that message delivered across the oceans. I think that we have to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is well aware of the issue that the Castle amendment addresses. In fact, the subcommittee had scheduled a hearing to look into not only this issue, but a number of other acquisition issues where we believe that there can be some performance changes. Unfortunately, because of a heavy voting day on the floor, we had to postpone that hearing, which will be held sometime in July now.

In view of that, I want to say that I agree with what Mr. Castle is offering, and I am certainly prepared to accept his amendment. I think it is a good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding, and I would say to the gentleman, as you and I have discussed this many times, the importance of this capability cannot be overstressed. It is extremely important.

The gentleman has reminded me, and I remember very well, in Kosovo and Bosnia we had to bring the EA-6Bs from all over the world to concentrate on their mission there. So the additional capability, I think, is well-intended. I will be glad to work with the gentleman as we go to conference.

As you are well aware, our 302(b) allocation was $4 billion less than the President's request, and so we had to do some cutting. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things that we would have liked to have done that we just could not do. The money was not there, but the gentleman makes a very important point that this capability is extremely important, I think more so than most people realize, but as an officer who flew in those aircraft, you know an awful lot about this.

So I am with you. I want to do the best we can to enhance our capability. Thank you for bringing this issue to the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar all funds in this act for development, deployment, or operations

for the Defense Travel System. This would put us back to millions of individual transactions that would be almost totally unaccountable and which would have no proper oversight.

I admire the gentleman's goal in trying to come up with a system that is better than DTS, but I don't think he has done that. He has just done away with the DTS. We are attempting to get some integrated financial management at the Pentagon, and DTS is just one of the many programs that is trying to accomplish this integration. The program has some problems, but I don't think we ought to kill the effort and go back to ground zero and start all over again.

The prohibition on spending any money to develop, deploy or operate would bar the Department from even operating the current system and would also bar the Department from continuing any improvements to DTS. This would ultimately leave the Department's 3.5 million active duty military, reserve, and civilian employees without any travel system. DTS is currently the only system that can meet the full spectrum of cost, capability, security, and savings requirements, as well as the protection of personal information so important to the Defense Department and its global travelers.

Interrupting development of this important program would cause an enormous disruption, adversely affecting and, in some cases, seriously jeopardizing Defense Department mission requirements. I believe this amendment is well intended, but I believe that barring all funding would be a serious mistake, so I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

As usual, Mr. Markey is very persuasive, as he has been in the past. It is important that the United States Congress make it very clear to anyone who would listen that we do not intend to use torture and that we do not use torture or inhumane treatment.

As the gentleman suggested, the House agreed with the McCain amendment, and it was included in last year's legislation.

We believe that the Markey amendment basically restates existing law, and because of that we have no objection.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As Mr. Murtha has suggested, there is a lot that can't be said about this amendment and about this program. But what I would like to say is, let's don't tie our hands behind our back when we are fighting a vicious, cruel enemy.

Intelligence is extremely important in the war against terrorism. First of all, you don't have, in this particular war, you don't have an army against an army. You don't have a country against a country. You have terrorists attacking innocent people here in the United States on September 11, and leading up to September 11, and anywhere else in the world that they decide that they are going to attack.

One of the best defenses against these attacks is the ability to know where they might be or when they might strike or what the target might be. Don't deny the people on the front lines of this intelligence war and information war and the hot war, don't deny them every tool that they can possibly have.

As Mr. Murtha said, for those that have been briefed on this program on a regular basis, I am not aware of anyone who is concerned that the rights of Americans to their privacy have been violated. I certainly do not believe that the rights of Americans have been violated in this program. And so I think it is crucial to oppose this amendment; this is far beyond politics. It goes a lot deeper. This goes to the safety and the security of American people wherever they might be. And it is unfortunate that we can't reveal everything that is done, how it is done, where it is done, when it is done; but believe me, it is effective and the privacy of the American people have been protected.

Yes, of course I would yield.

Well, let me reclaim my time and suggest that if you want to rewrite FISA, you don't do it on the floor on an appropriations bill. You introduce a bill, or you go to the proper committee of proper jurisdiction. This is not something you do on the floor. This is serious. It is not something you do on the floor without any real hearings or consideration. If you want to change FISA, let the authorizing committee change it. They are the ones that have the jurisdiction.

I will.

I am not.

I will continue to yield in just a minute. On the legal aspects of this, I am going to Mr. Lungren. I think he is prepared, and he will probably get his own time, because I am limited to 2 minutes.

But in the minute I have left, I will yield to Mr. LaHood.

Mr. Chairman, I have yielded to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the other Members get their own time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for forging a strong bill to fund our Defense Department and DOD entities, and I applaud them for their hard work and dedication. As we consider this important bill today, I appreciate the opportunity to address a crucial issue.

At the outset, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Inslee for all of his leadership on this issue, which has been tremendous. We have been working side by side on this amendment today. I would also like to thank Mr. Flake that I have introduced legislation along with for his tremendous leadership. This amendment is, in fact, based on legislation that I have offered with Mr. Flake. I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for all of his leadership.

The bill that I introduced with Representative Flake several months ago was a bipartisan bill of five Democratic Members and five Republican Members, and addresses the NSA surveillance program that almost every Member of this body learned about in the morning newspaper.

This amendment recognizes two important principles: First, that the government must have all of the tools necessary and all of the authority required to pursue al Qaeda and other terrorists who would seek to harm our country. And second, this amendment recognizes that we are a Nation of laws.

While the President possesses the inherent authority to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy outside the country, Congress possesses the authority to regulate such surveillance within the United States, and, in fact, Congress has spoken in this area through Title III and through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

When Congress passed these statutes, it intended that they provide the sole authority for surveillance on American soil. Our amendment simply reinforces existing law that the government must obtain a court order when U.S. persons are targeted or surveillance occurs in the United States of America.

Recently when the Attorney General testified in the Judiciary Committee, I asked about the limiting principle of the NSA program; was it restricted only to international calls; what if the administration decided tomorrow it had the inherent authority to tap purely domestic calls between two Americans, did it feel it could do so without court order; and the Attorney General said that he would not rule it out. He would not rule out having the pure authority without going to court to tap the calls between two Americans on American soil.

So what is the limiting principle if this program can change from day to day without the input of Congress? The only limiting principle is the good faith of the executive, which, when the executive shows it is infallible, might be a sufficient limiting principle, but the executive is no more infallible than we are here in Congress, and so we have a role to play.

In enacting FISA, Congress specifically sought to balance our national security interests with legitimate civil liberty concerns. In so doing, Congress expressly permitted surveillance without court order for 15 days after the declaration of a war.

Additionally, Congress provided the authority to engage in electronic surveillance for up to 72 hours without court order.

Furthermore, after the September 11 attacks, the administration came to Congress and asked us to modify FISA to respond to the new challenges in the war on terror, and Congress responded by making those changes.

Electronic surveillance of al Qaeda operatives and others seeking to harm our country must continue; it simply can and should comply with the law.

We stand ready to work with the administration if further statutory revisions to FISA or other authorities are required to meet the new challenges in the war on terrorism. Until then, we must restore the rule of law. I urge the House to do so today.

I know my colleagues Mr. Sherman, Mr. Inslee, and Mr. Van Hollen will want to strike the last word to speak on this as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. The amendment says that there is a prohibition on using funds to fund this program unless it meets the requirements of FISA. Any part of the program that does meet the requirements of FISA, meet the existing law passed by the Congress, could continue to be funded. Those parts that don't meet the requirements of FISA, the administration will have to go back.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your thoughts and I appreciate your yielding. And we are up against a vicious enemy, and we ought to have every power of intelligence and every tool in the tool box and I completely agree with that. I think we can do that within the laws that the Congress has passed. And the gravamen of my concern is something that took place in the Senate, when one of our GOP colleagues asked the administration, during the debate over the PATRIOT reauthorization, which I supported, do we need to change FISA. We were making modest changes to FISA, and the Republican Senator said, Do we need to do something larger? And the administration response was no, that FISA is operating just fine as it is.

Now, if there are changes that need to be made, there is a 72-hour after-the-fact authorization. If that window is too short, it can be lengthened. If there are other problems, they be changed. And all that can be changed without disclosing to the public the nature of the program itself.

I haven't been briefed on it. I am not one of the lucky few, or maybe I am lucky. But it concerns me when the administration says we don't need to change existing law, when I think we can retain all of these tools, but the Congress can play its role in making sure that these programs are authorized by law, that they are not being conducted extralegally.

Will the gentleman yield so I can respond to the question?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Very quickly, the only thing the amendment provides is that surveillance on American soil cannot be funded if it is not in compliance with FISA. So if you are in compliance, if this program complies with FISA, it could go on.

Just to address the chairman's point, and this is on the same point you are making, too, which is we should not be debating this on the House floor, that you should introduce the bill, and it should be heard in committee. Mr. Chairman, we have introduced the bill. I along with Mr. Flake, Mr. Inglis, Mr. Leach, and others have introduced the bill. We have not been able to get a hearing in committee, and so the only opportunity for us to raise this issue is on the House floor

That is absolutely right. The only thing that the amendment does is it says that when you are surveilling people on our home soil here in the United States of America, it has to be authorized by FISA. If it is not authorized by FISA, if it is outside of FISA, you cannot use the funds in this bill.

The gentleman from Illinois says, ``Trust us. There are some of us that know the program, trust us. We can't disclose information about the program here on the House floor.'' I am not asking anyone to disclose information about the program on the House floor. The only question raised by this amendment is are we funding programs that are in contravention of existing law, FISA.

I think you are exactly right about my colleague from California's argument, which is basically the President has the inherent authority to do anything he wants when he wants, surveil who he wants when he wants, how he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

In fact, this is why I made the point. When the Attorney General testified in committee, he said he believed, as evidently my colleague from California does, the President has the inherent authority to tap calls between two Americans on American soil, that he wouldn't rule that out.

Well, I am not satisfied by an argument that says, trust us. We are from the government.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to get to one question that has I think not been answered to the opposition to this amendment. And that is, the suggestion is by those who know the program better than I do that parts of it don't meet the requirements of FISA. And my question is, Why can't this program be authorized by law? Why can't we change the law to authorize it?

Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania.

As indicated, I have an amendment that I was prepared to offer that asks for the same increase, 2.7 percent, that the Federal employees were getting for military personnel, which is now at 2.2 percent for the military.

One of the few issues on which all Members of Congress agree is that our military personnel are cherished defenders of our Nation, that we value them highly, that we are proud of them. Every day they stand between the status quo and an ideal for a better future and put their lives on the line to realize this goal.

The current pay increase for military personnel in this appropriations bill is 2.2 percent. This is a total of $84.9 billion for military personnel accounts, which is $1.9 billion greater than in fiscal year 2006, but it is $1.2 billion less than necessary, I believe, to help us get to 2.7 percent.

We just passed the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriation bill, which provided a 2.7 percent pay increase for civilian Federal workers, as well as targeted pay increases for a variety of enlisted personnel and officer grades. We need to make the strong statement that we value our Armed Forces just as much as we do our civilian public servants. My amendment simply increases military personnel pay by 2.7 percent over fiscal year 2006.

Every day we are reminded of the sacrifice our children and our neighbors are making. Over 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq, and over 19,000 have been injured. Several years ago military personnel were paid 13 percent less than comparable civilian pay. This gap, however, has narrowed within the past few years to 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2005. And it is my goal to ensure that we will continue to narrow even more in the coming years.

According to the fiscal year 2006 pay charts, after 4 months of service, newly enlisted individuals earn less than $2,000 per month even if they have completed ROTC courses or 2-year or 4-year college programs. Mr. Chairman, I know we can do better.

I want to thank both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young of Florida for being steadfast warriors on the battlefield of benefits for our military and for increasing the benefits to their families and to them. I would hope with the increases in experience and education and commission that we are seeing in our young military that we will close the civilian gap so that our young military, our reservists, National Guard, and others will not suffer this, if you will, incompatibility with their needs.

Finally, a May 2004 survey of reservists from the Department of Defense found that 51 percent reported an earning loss, including 44 percent who reported a drop of 10 percent or more, and 21 percent reported an income loss of 20 percent or more. Although this may be due to differences in taxes and other factors, we need to make sure that those in Active Duty are not punished for serving. I hope, as we move through this process, the voices that will be heard will be Members like the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, that we must do more for our young men and women on the frontlines, our reservists, and our National Guard.

I ask the gentlemen here today with me do they share my concerns to increase the salaries? And as well, I would hope that they would work with all of us to find a way to properly compensate and reward our brave men and women in uniform wherever they might be.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is an amendment that I would have offered, and I am delighted to not have to be able to offer it. And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and thank the gentleman from Florida. And in noting all of their work, we have worked together, and I am very appreciative and hopeful that we will be able to work together on this increase in salaries and compensation for our brave men and women.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

In the best of all worlds, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the point of order could be waived; but at the same time as I discuss this amendment, I will acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee.

Living near a veterans hospital, having the pleasure of having represented the veterans hospital in Houston, Texas, and living in the State of Texas and recognizing the facilities that we have dealing with the rehabilitation of injured persons including injured soldiers, I would say that this is one of the more important funding areas that this bill has an ability to address. Why? Because we realize that some 19,000 of the U.S. military and the number is growing have been injured.

As we know, both Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha have steadily provided insight as they visited the troops in many of our military hospitals, including Bethesda and Walter Reed; and as I have had the opportunity to visit those hospitals, as well as the veterans hospital in Houston, the Michael DeBakey Hospital, which I had the pleasure of naming in honor of Dr. Michael DeBakey, one of the world's renowned heart surgeons, but also a veteran of World War II.

This idea of funding more prosthetics research is recognizing the cherished defenders of our Nation. It is giving them a second chance at life. This amendment would add additional funding of $4 million in that area. We know that every day they stand between the status quo and an ideal for a better future.

Might I just say that we have seen some of the more heinous injuries coming from the IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars. Bulletproof Kevlar vests protect soldiers' bodies, but not their limbs.

I am exhilarated that the rate of death is the lowest of any war we have fought in our history, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in that. Yet we must continue the responsibility of rehabilitation.

The good news is that prosthetic research by the military has generated their finest quality of prosthetic limbs, and we have seen and I have seen young men and women experience the joy of being able to walk again or to use their arms again. They, of course, must now readjust to life at home, they must relearn how to move, how to eat, how to walk, how to go grocery shopping, how to cook and how to adapt to the rest of their lives.

The importance of prosthetic research is increasing in light of the ongoing hostilities in Iraq and the growing sophistication of the improvised explosive devices used against our troops.

I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital, we met a number of wounded soldiers, many of whom were badly scarred physically, and needed to have the knowledge that the prosthetic devices would be available for them.

So this amendment is simple. It attempts to place special emphasis on work that is ongoing and the importance of continuing both the research and the funding regarding prosthetic research. This will help the encreased utilization of prosthetics for our soldiers. Someone out there is listening, I hope, in order to know that we are concerned about the many issues that impacts these soldiers' lives; and one of those issues is to have the opportunity to walk again.

Point of Order

I would. I would like to yield to the distinguished ranking member to ask about his belief and concern about the importance of prosthetic research funding and continue to have the opportunity to work with him and Mr. Young on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I will take the time to discuss the point of order and not discuss it, simply to say this amendment's intention was to further highlight both the work already done by the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, but also to express the need in my particular locality in Houston, Texas, where a number of these veterans are coming back needing prosthetics.

Let me thank the ranking member and the chairman for the work already done and ask at this time, as the moneys will be continue to be emphasized and the need already known, I will look forward to working with both of them as these funds continue to increase to help the need that is existing for those needing prosthetics coming back from the front line.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second, transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age; third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year.

Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50 billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion, the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the administration requested.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our continued support.

No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges. However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes significant progress in all these areas.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may.

I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9 percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the gross national product.

I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best service as reasonably priced as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I too have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is even harder during a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect. That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in funding our troops in the field today.

Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. The debate here and potentially the outcome confirm a very important point: We do not suffer in this country from a problem of the Presidential usurpation of power. We suffer from congressional dereliction of duty. It is not a case of the President overreaching. It is a case of us ducking and dodging and letting him do all the tough issues.

This amendment is a very simple one. Now, Members have said on the other side, I heard the gentleman from Kansas say, why don't you bring in a bill? Two reasons: First of all, if we brought in a bill, it would never see the light of day. How can a majority party which has specialized in strangling legislation at its birth complain when we don't think that is a good way to debate important issues?

But there is another reason. This is one that can sustain a veto. The Supreme Court has made it very clear: It will not referee disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The only way you can put some restraint on a President who is acting without restraint is by an amendment that says there are limits on what he can do with the money.

Now, we have heard selected quotations from John Jay. Poor old John Jay hasn't been mentioned in years. I am glad his spirit has been invoked. But nobody much cares about John Jay most of the time.

We have had some Supreme Court cases cited. Youngstown Sheet and Tube against Sawyer, which restricted the President in a time of war, was not mentioned.

Let's be very clear: History does not dictate the answer. This calls on every Member of this House to say what kind of Constitution do you want? Do you want one in which the President can have unchecked executive power, not just in time of war, but any time?

We are in what the President now says is a war against terrorism that is unlikely to have an end. So we are not talking about temporary wartime powers. We are talking about what kind of Constitution do you want?

We have a President who has asserted his right to do whatever he thinks necessary to protect the country, including, remember, arresting American citizens and having them incarcerated indefinitely with no chance to present a case. The Supreme Court said, whoa, that goes a little too far. But this is what the President has asserted with regard to FISA.

One gentleman said, well, remember what Griffin Bell said. I will be honest with you, I have found that as a general principle, ignoring Griffin Bell is a good idea. I have always done that in important cases. But what Griffin Bell said or didn't say doesn't tell us.

And this is the question, not what John Jay said or this one said, because you can quote each other to death. What kind of Constitution do you want? Do you want one where the President of the United States without any check can do what he thinks best? Because, by the way, the courts won't be involved here, because they can avoid a court decision by never prosecuting based on this evidence.

So the only potential check here is if we say no. Yes, you can wiretap, as long as you can get a warrant. And getting warrants under FISA is not hard. But we do not like the principle of an unchecked Presidential power.

I will yield to my friend from California if he will begin by answering this question: Conservatives tell me they like to be textual with regard to the Constitution. Would he cite for me, I thought maybe the Constitution got changed while I wasn't looking, so I went and read article II, it took about a minute and a half, it is a pretty small article. I am glad to see the President can get paid. It is right there in the Constitution.

But would he cite for me the text of the Constitution, article II, which empowers the President to do this, even if Congress tells him not to?

I will just add this. With regard to Youngstown Sheet and Tube, as I recall the analysis, it was there are three situations. I will ask for additional time, because I would like to have a colloquy. The President acting alone, the President acting with Congress, and the President acting in contradiction to what Congress has said.

The analysis has always been acting with Congress, the President is at the peak of his powers. Acting alone, it is unclear. Acting in contravention to what Congress has said, he is at his weakest. Here, since we have FISA, this is in contravention to what Congress has told him to do.

So I would now yield to the gentleman. Would he begin just by citing the parts of the Constitution that are relevant, and then, obviously, he is free to say what he wishes.

Please read it. I would ask the gentleman literally to please read it, because I think it doesn't say what he says it says. Please read it.

I would ask, would a page bring me the Constitution while we are talking?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I take back my time. So the gentleman then agrees with this point. There is nothing inappropriate about this amendment. So while he believes the President is within his power to do this, does the gentleman agree that if this amendment is adopted by a majority, the President would be bound by it?

So that if he can find, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate that. I take back my time. The gentleman knows the rules. The gentleman knows the rules. He may not know the Constitution, but he knows the rules. I take back my time just to say, so we understand----

Let us have the common ground. The question here, and I think I will accept this, we are not debating constitutionality here; we are debating what public policy ought to be. The gentleman from California agrees it is appropriate for us to consider it and agrees that, if it passes, the President is bound by it.

Now, I would yield to the gentleman. Are there other places the President can then find this money? Is that what the gentleman is saying? If the President were to be bound by this, would the gentleman suggest the President could then do this anyway in some other fashion? I would yield to him.

We are beyond that. Look, I do not think the Constitution, I will be honest with you, I think people decide and then they pick the----

I just want to say, stop hiding behind varying degrees of constitutional interpretation. By hiding behind them, I mean this: I don't think that people sat and said, oh, geez this is what John Jay told me and this is what I am bound by. I think we are talking here about what we think public policy ought to be. Should the President or should not the President have to get a warrant through FISA? That is the text of this amendment. Let us debate the public policy.

I yield first to the gentleman from Washington.

Let me just say this. Here is the constitutional text that my friend from California invoked, and pretty accurately. Good memory the gentleman has. Article II, section 1: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, period.

Now, he says that gives him the power. This is circular. Why does the President have the power? Because he has the executive power. But we are precisely here defining for ourselves, as Americans today, what the executive power is and has meant to be. All this says is that he has the executive power. Does the executive power mean he can lock somebody up without a trial as he has said it does? Does the executive power mean he can ignore an act of Congress and wiretap when he wants to? That is the question. Saying that the executive power is vested in him simply is a way of putting the question. The question is, What is the executive power?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I will answer the gentleman's question: because the President and his supporters do not want to concede that there is any limit on his power even if he could get this done through FISA, and that is the----

I ask for an additional minute.