Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there are few among us who have given more of themselves to making the world a better place than Con Cassidy, who passed away last year on September 24, 2005. As we continue to mourn the passing of our dear friend Con, I want to take a few moments to remember his life and his work in the community he served so faithfully in so many different ways.

One of Con's greatest pleasures during his lifetime was helping those in need. He leaves behind an impressive list of accomplishments that most people can only dream of achieving in their lifetime. Con will be remembered for many reasons, not the least of which is his inspirational leadership that has had a profound effect on people trying to better their lives. Even with all of his work in public service and with community organizations, Con also endeared himself to many because of his generous spirit and wise counsel. Whether it was a local concern or just a relaxed visit with an old friend, Con's friends always knew they would find the support and guidance they were looking for in a chat with Con. While in his presence, you were immediately put at ease with his warm smile, his firm handshake, his reassuring voice and his admirable character.

We have all felt his loss in one way or another, however those individuals that have special needs due to unforeseen circumstances or serious illness are the ones that will suffer most from the loss of their friend, Con. Anyone who knew Con knew that he was a person who spent countless hours volunteering his time and energy to benefit individuals and organizations in need.

The Con Cassidy Foundation has been established by a group of his friends and family in his honor with the hope of continuing his tradition of giving. The ``Make a Wish Foundation'' will be the primary benefactor of proceeds raised and will be given in Con Cassidy's name. Con's legacy and his tradition of giving will endure in the wonderful work being done by the Foundation established in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, as the Con Cassidy Foundation gathers to honor his memory and life on June 22--the anniversary of his birthday--I ask my colleagues to join me in tribute for all he has done to strengthen our community and better the lives of others. Con Cassidy's life is truly an eloquent statement about what one committed citizen can do.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Last week, on Thursday, I chaired a hearing in my subcommittee looking at this very issue with helmets, and we have a dilemma right now, Mr. Chairman.

We have all of our Army being outfitted with modern helmets thanks to the good work of the appropriators. 500,000 of these helmets are on order and in place with cutting-edge technology inserts that the soldiers are very happy with. We have the Marines Special Ops units deployed with similar helmets with the inserts the Army is using.

But we have 20,000 marines in theater, and 6,000 of those marines have requested an updated insert that the marines are unwilling to provide. So we have a private nonprofit, headed by a former Navy surgeon, who has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy inserts to give to our soldiers in theater, including the 6,000 marines.

It is a very confusing issue. General Catto last week said, well, we are not going to stop them from using these inserts, but he won't order them for the rest of the marines. What this language does is it says complete this study within 60 days and buy immediately the helmets and the inserts, especially for the Marine Corps that the marines in theater are in fact requesting and using.

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

First of all, let me say there is a role for this Congress to play in defense, in spite of my colleague from Arizona. If it wasn't for this Congress, a decision made by the administration back in 1989, when they canceled the V-22 program, would have been left undone. This year, the Marine Corps will deploy the V-22 program.

In spite of the administration back then and Secretary Cheney canceling the program, we did the right thing for the Marines. Today, we are building 450 of these aircraft because this Congress knew what it was doing.

I would remind my colleague that it was in 1996 that this Congress passed a defense authorization bill requiring that we arm the Hellfire missile on the Predator system. The administration didn't want it back then. They knew better than we did. Thank goodness this Congress armed the Hellfire missile on the Predator. That was our decision, not the administration's.

If this Congressman would have come to me and asked me some questions, perhaps he would have been a bit more enlightened about what this is. This is not a subsidy program. This is a program to focus research and technology on the rotorcraft industry for our military and for other purposes.

If the gentleman would have come to me, he could have attended one of our four hearings. Now he speaks a good game here. Why weren't you at the hearings when we discussed rotorcraft over the past 2 years? We had two hearings this year. Why didn't you come and sit on those hearings and understand what the rotorcraft center was all about? Why didn't you talk to the American Helicopter Society, headed by Rhett Flater? More importantly, why didn't you talk to the Boeing folks? Maybe by then you would have realized that a portion of this money, and by the way none of it goes into my district, the money is funneled out to 21 other locations, including your district. The Boeing Company received a grant from this program in your district, which you weren't even aware of.

I will not yield because the gentleman has offered an amendment that he knows nothing about. I respect people of intelligence, who have integrity. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask me about this program. You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask about the briefing, about the four hearings, about the memorandum of understanding signed in 2004 by every major rotorcraft manufacturer in this Nation, including Sikorsky, Bell Textron, including Kaman Industries, including Boeing, including Georgia Tech, Penn State, and Maryland, all the major rotorcraft centers in this Nation.

You didn't have the courtesy to come and ask. You took a cheap shot. And you know what? Your cheap shot is just that. The amount of impact on my district is one job, one job at Penn State University. The money you just talked about flows into 21 other States, into universities and corporations doing research on rotorcraft technology.

Now, why is that important? Because the primary responsibility for rotorcraft research was NASA, but NASA has seen fit to move away from that. And as a member of the Science Committee, we have worked repeatedly to try to get NASA to take the responsibility mandated by the law. NASA used to fund $30 million a year in rotorcraft research. In the past 5 years, they have spent zero. So we took the initiative that the Army established.

And when the gentleman says on this floor, again ignorantly, that the military and the Pentagon don't support this, I would have said to him, why don't you go talk to the Army, because the Army has supported the Center For Rotorcraft Innovation repeatedly. The U.S. Army. Not the Russian Army, the U.S. Army. If you would have taken the time to go to the Army, you would have found those facts out.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I hate to be emotional in this debate; but doggone it, I am not going to let somebody stand up here in total and complete ignorance and spout off a bunch of gobbledygook about subsidizing the rotorcraft industry. That is not what this is about.

If you want to give the money back from your district, you go to Boeing and tell them to turn back the money they got from this research initiative. But don't stand up on the floor and make stupid allegations because you want a headline about cutting waste. This is not waste.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the memorandum of understanding, the list of all 21 centers that have received funding from this program, and the Center For Rotorcraft Innovation's outline.

Memorandum of Agreement

This MOA is between the Boeing Company, a Delaware

corporation having offices at Ridley Park, Pennsylvania,

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, a United Technologies Company,

having offices at Stratford, Connecticut, Bell Helicopter

Textron Inc, a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Textron having offices at Hurst Texas, the

Kaman Aerospace Corporation, having offices in Bloomfield,

CT, the Rotorcraft Industry Technology Association (RITA)

Inc., a Delaware corporation, Keystone Helicopter

Corporation, having offices in West Chester, PA, The

Pennsylvania State University, located at State College, PA,

The University of Maryland, located in College Park, MD, the

Georgia Tech Research Corporation, located in Atlanta, GA,

the Piasecki Aircraft Corporation having offices in

Essington, PA, Augusta Aerospace Corporation having offices

in Philadelphia, PA and the American Competitiveness

Institute, having offices in Philadelphia, PA, hereinafter

which may be referred to individually as ``party'' or

collectively as ``parties''.

Mr. Speaker, today, June 15, a celebration is being held in Aston, Pennsylvania, marking the delivery of the 28th and final M31 Marine Corps Expeditionary Arresting Gear System, MCEAGS, to the United States Marine Corps.

Initial production of the Expeditionary Arresting Gear started in March of 2002 and the final delivery of the one on June 15 will provide the Marine Corps full operational capability for the Expeditionary Arresting Gear. The M31 Arresting Gear is now employed worldwide, including operations in Iraq. The great news is that the contractor, Engineered Arresting Systems Corporation, ESCO, delivered all these systems on schedule and under cost.

The M31 program is unique and a great success story. Designed and developed under an integrated product team arrangement, the Marines, NAVAIR Lakehurst and the contractor have produced equipment that demonstrated meeting Marine Corps requirements at government test facilities. Additionally, ESCO is providing all spare parts and logistics support for the system. Best of all--it works. It works very well. ESCO, in conjunction with its teammates of the M31 Integrated Product Team from NAVAIR Expeditionary Airfield Support Team at Lakehurst, NJ have been providing full logistics to the fielded M31 systems for the past 4 years. This team's support includes full system supply support, depot maintenance, continuing, engineering support and configuration management. A 5-year indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract was put in place in December 2005 to provide the above support through December 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the other great story is the teamwork between ESCO and the Naval Air Systems Command Team. The support and dedication of personnel from both NAVAIR, Lakehurst, New Jersey and Patuxent River, Maryland cannot be overemphasized. Both the military and civilian government employees have played a very active and crucial role in the development, production, fielding and support of the M31 Expeditionary Arresting Gear System.

This program is a model program for the entire Department of Defense to emulate. Congratulations to ESCO and the Naval Air Systems Command for a job ``well done.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding me time.

I heard one of our colleagues on the other side say that we have two choices tonight: we could stay the course, or we can cut and run. Well, those are not the only choices we have. They were not the choices that we used in the 38 deployments in the 1990s when I supported our Democrat President when we sent troops to Somalia, Haiti, East Timor, Macedonia, Kosovo, Bosnia. You name it we were there.

The decision of when we left those countries was made by our military leaders. It was made by the generals and the commanders, not arm-chair politicians back here who try to do what was done by the Congress during the Vietnam War.

Believe me, I want our troops back home. But there is a process that we can use that I think is very logical. You know, when I have been to the theater, the generals talk about the way that they assess the capability and the readiness of the Iraqi brigades.

They categorize them into four levels. They know how to assess the readiness of the Iraqi brigades. They have perfected it. What we should be doing is what is already happening. We do not tie the removal of our troops to an artificial date. We tie it into the assessment that our generals make of the capability of the readiness of the Iraqi brigades.

Mr Speaker, this morning I went back to my district. I was at the Boeing plant where we rolled out the newest model of the CH-47F, the cutting-edge platform for our Army for the next 50 years. It is a great aircraft.

The speaker there, the keynote speaker for this rollout was an Army colonel. In fact, he was the airwing commander of the 101st Airborne Division. He oversees 167 aircraft in theater right now. He is home for two weeks of R&R. He oversees 3,200 of our troops that are on the cutting edge. He wants to be home with his family. He has been in the service 24 years. This was his second deployment. He is from Edgewater, Maryland; he is not my constituent.

And I said to Colonial Warren Phipps, Colonel, we are debating today in Congress whether or not we should set a date certain. What do you think? You are there. Is that the right thing for us to do? He said, With all due respect, sir, that is the worst thing that our Congress could do for my troops under my command.

That is the worst thing we can do, because it would telegraph and signal the enemy when they can plan their attacks, and when they can do harm to my colleagues.

Well, I will be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. I did not support artificial dates under President Clinton, and I do not support artificial dates under President Bush.

I want the ultimate decision of when the troops come home not to be done by us, but by the field generals in the command situation, command leadership in Iraq, who understand that the safety and security of the troops is their number one priority as well as ours.

What this young colonel said was, Congressman, we are making great success. Today the Iraqis are handling more and more of their own security. That should be the determining criteria on when our troops come home.

As this colonel sees with his own eyes that the Iraqis are engaged and are handling more and more of their own defense. He said, Today, Congressman, they are going out on their own missions. He said, when I have meetings and we are doing planning sessions, if I close my eyes, when I hear the Iraqis planning, it is just as though it were American generals planning for our operations.

He said, Now is not the time to cut and run. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and not cut and run.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 261 and 262, I was unavoidably detained giving a speech to a policy conference sponsored by Brookings Institute.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on 261 and ``aye'' on 262.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the following Memorial Day speech into the Record. It was made by Staff Sergeant Joseph M. Dimond. I am sure that you, and all who hear these words, will be moved by this unforgettable tribute to those who have fallen in the service of their country:

Memorial Day

Good morning and happy Memorial Day!

Memorial Day means many different things to many different

people. To some it means BBQ's and beer, to some its just

another long weekend to relax, to some it's the beginning of

summer, but to people like me, and I'm guessing people like

you since you are here, it means a lot more!

Since I was a boy, Memorial Day has always had a special

meaning to me. I remember at 8 and 9 years old following my

father, a Korean War Vet, around East Lansdowne and Upper

Darby while he and his fellow American Legion brothers fired

off 21 gun salutes at all the memorials. I would run around

collecting all the shells from the rifles and save them as my

own little memorial. Afterwards, we would put flags on the

graves of all the Veterans in Fernwood Cemetary. I'm not even

sure if I understood completely what we were honoring, I just

knew it was very important! I knew, that for some reason,

every time I heard TAPS or the National Anthem played, I

would get teary eyed, but I don't think I ever really grasped

the importance of it all.

Unfortunately, over the past year I had the chance to find

out first hand what it all meant, why I would cry, why I felt

the way I've been feeling for my entire life. I have

experienced many difficult times in my life, but nothing

could prepare me for the last year! You see, I was in charge

of security for the bomb squad for the entire city of

Fallujah. While over there, we dismantled 362 roadside

bombs and, unfortunately, got hit by some too.

One of the many downfalls of being with the bomb squad in

the most violent city in Iraq is that whenever an American or

Iraqi soldier is killed by a roadside bomb or suicide bomber,

we have to go and make sure all of the ordnance that is in

the vehicles when they blow up are stabilized, and removed

before the mortuary affairs people can come in and remove the

bodies, so long story short, we were forced to work around

the bodies of every ally killed by a bomb in Fallujah and the

surrounding area. While doing this, my team had to remain

calm, keep our heads and not get tied up in what we were

seeing, because the bomb squad was a huge target, and I

needed to do my best to keep them safe while they focused on

their jobs. We were successful most of the time, but did have

some bad luck too. Since October 15th, six of my very good

friends were killed on the streets of Fallujah, five of which

happened while I was there, all in separate incidents. One

happened a week after I left Iraq, while my friend John was

finishing his last week of a 9 month tour.

These men were all heroes! Whatever your politics, whether

you believe we should be in this war or not, whether you are

Republican or Democrat, we are all Americans! And I want to

make sure you all know this: every single soldier, sailor,

airman, and marine over there is there for you! They all feel

they are doing what they have to do to make life better for

you, our kids and me. I'm not a politician, and this isn't

the time or place for politics, but the #1 question I've been

asked in the past 2 months since I've been home is ``Do I

think we should be there?'' Well, my answer to that is very

simple, I don't know if we should have gone over there, but

I, like these men we honor today, was asked to go so I went.

I'm an enlisted man, and leave that to the people that sit

behind their desks and make the big decisions. What I do know

as a grunt on the ground, looking these people in the eye,

day after day, is that I've never seen or imagined the hate,

evil or torture that man is capable of until now! I also have

no doubt that these people that I was fighting hate you, they

hate all of us because we believe in a different God, they

hate us because we allow our daughters and sisters to walk

around malls in belly shirts, they hate us because we are

different from them, they hate us because we are free!

In an America filled with violent movies, video games and

violent everything else, we've all become a little

desensitized. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked

by naive people, ``How many people have you killed?'' Like it

is a cool thing or something. Only someone who hasn't seen or

done the things I have would ask such a question with a smile

on their face. And I try to be understanding of the fact that

they haven't seen it, but at the same time I feel a

responsibility to let them know that there is nothing cool

about people losing their lives. Whether they are wrong or

deserved it or not, there will be a family mourning,

somewhere.

More importantly I feel the responsibility to explain to

those people who may not know better, that regardless of what

Hollywood may want you to believe, there is no glory in a

twenty-something year old man dying violently in the dirt

thousands of miles away from his home, away from family, and

the people he loves. It is important to me that people

recognize and understand how devastating it is when an

American, a friend, dies in such a violent way. The hurt

and grief one feels when witnessing a twenty-year-old kid,

who you personally trained, die in a hellhole thousands of

miles away from his home is indescribable! Promising to

tell a man's unborn child that her daddy loved her while

he bleeds to death because it is too dangerous for a

helicopter to come into the city to medivac him is

something no human being should have to ever experience.

Listening to a friend ask as he is dying if you think God

will forgive him for all the things he had to do over here

is not glamorous in any way, shape or form.

But most importantly, I feel a responsibility to explain

that these men that we honor today were not looking for Glory

or medals or memorials! They were all just doing what they

felt was right, they were men doing the job that nobody

wants! Living in misery, so the people they love could live

in happiness! Dying horrible deaths, so the ones they love

can live on in peace! That is why they are heroes, and that

is why they deserve our thoughts, time and respect at least

for this one day of the year!

There is a saying in the war fighting community that says:

``We are the unwanted, doing the impossible, for the

ungrateful.'' Well, now that I'm moving on to the civilian

sector again, I'm here to say that not everyone is ungrateful

my brothers!

I've seen enough bloodshed for twenty lifetimes! And I pray

for peace just as every true warrior prays for peace!

For me, every day is Memorial Day, and it is because of men

like these:

Mark Adams, killed by a roadside bomb at age 24, on October

15th 2005.

Joel Dameron, killed by a roadside bomb at age 27 on 30 Oct

2005, his wife has since had their baby girl.

Michael Presley, killed by a suicide bomber at age 21 on

Dec 14th 2005.

Ryan McCurdey, killed at age 20 by a sniper while dragging

a wounded Marine to safety on 5 Jan 2006.

Nick Wilson, killed at age 25 by a secondary bomb while

dismantling another bomb on 12 Feb 2006. He had 4 days left

in the country.

John Fry, killed at age 28 by a roadside bomb on 8 March

2006,8 days after I left the country, and 6 before he was

leaving.

So, today, when you are barbequing or spending time

relaxing with your family, please take a minute and remember

these men who sacrificed so much, and remember their families

who are living without husbands, fathers, sons and brothers.

And if you see someone who doesn't take that time, remind

them of all that is done for them!

I'm not much of a speaker, and I'm not sure if I did these

men justice, but when I was asked to speak I felt like it was

the least I could do to remind people that these men aren't

just numbers to follow on the news, but men with families and

lives that they gave up for you and me. I have no doubt that

I will see these men's faces in my sleep every night, and

think of them at least once a day for the rest of my life.

I'm just asking you to take a moment out of one day a year to

remember them and the many other Americans that died before

them.

God Bless, and have a great Memorial Day!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the tragic and untimely passing of David P. Smith, a Delaware County Chamber of Commerce executive and a lifelong community activist, who leaves behind a legacy of service to his hometown--Media, Pennsylvania--where he was known as ``Mr. Media.''

Dave's untimely death is deeply felt by the entire Media community. In celebration of his life a tribute was held yesterday (June 6, 2006) at the Media Theater where his family and friends gathered to remember this remarkable man. Everyone shared words of praise, joyful memories, and personal stories I know will be told for many years to come. Everyone always marveled how Dave could be so active in so many business, political and community endeavors and still have so much time for his friends. Dave was successful in his professional life but, more importantly, in his personal friendships. He was always there for those who needed a kind word, and he always had a ready smile and warm greeting.

Dave lived life with a passion for everything he did, and he worked tirelessly for the betterment of his community. He was active with the Swarthmore Players Club, the Media Republicans, the Delaware County Press Club, the Brandywine Conservancy and the Middletown Business and Professional Association. He demonstrated, by example, the kind of work that can be achieved when one is committed, involved and enthusiastic about making his community a better place to live.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Delaware County said goodbye to a favorite son. I offer my condolences to his family, his friends and his beloved community. I know that while Dave is no longer with us, his legacy will continue for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is it

in order to ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes beyond what has been allotted?

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enlarge the debate for both sides by 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment out of a sense of frustration. I was the prime author of the missile defense legislation in 1998, with our friend John Spratt, that passed the House with a veto-proof margin calling for a moving forward on missile defense. At the time of that debate and leading the debate, I said to our colleagues, as I committed to the Russians, that we would do joint missile defense in cooperation so as not to create any feeling that we were trying to achieve a strategic advantage over them.

In fact, the weekend before the vote, I took Don Rumsfeld, Jim Woolsey and Bill Schneider to Moscow, along with several of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to reassure the Russians that this was not about scoring a strategic advantage.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, this administration cancelled the only remaining program with the Russians on missile defense. That program, entitled RAMOS, had been attempted to be cancelled back in the 1990s, and Senator Levin joined with us in blocking that cancellation. By canceling the RAMOS program, we have sent a terrible signal to the Russian military and to their government at a time when we need to reinforce strategic cooperation with Russia.

I would argue that there is no country that could assist us in dealing with both North Korea and Iran more than Russia at this point in time, but continuing to send mixed signals like the cancellation of our cooperation on missile defense is entirely taking us in the wrong direction.

Now, General Obering, who is in charge of our Missile Defense Agency,

agrees with me. In fact, he had negotiated a contract over a year ago with the Russian General Balyuevsky to gain joint cooperation on missile defense. It was the policy office of the Secretary of Defense that cancelled that contract that had been negotiated by General Obering. To me, that was absolutely outrageous and wrong, but yet, it has still not been corrected.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply designed to lay down a marker to this administration that we do have a need to work together with our Russian counterparts. They have assets that we can use. They have large, phased radar systems that can assist us in areas of the world that we cannot cover. They have the ability to provide targeting opportunities for us. They also have very sophisticated theater systems, including the S-400, the S-500 and the S-600, that we can work on jointly with them to learn the technologies and the techniques that the Russians have employed with their missile defense systems.

So, Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment as a signal from the Congress, hopefully with bipartisan support, to the Pentagon and to the White House to get back on track, to do what the Congress mandated when we passed the Missile Defense Act back in 1998, and to begin and renew our cooperation, as General Obering has called for, with the Russians on missile defense cooperation, both at the theater level and at the strategic level.

I would ask that our colleagues on the other side would see fit to join with us in having this amendment be included as a part of our defense authorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank our colleagues and particularly Mr. Taylor and the chairman and ranking member for this tribute to our good friend, Sonny Montgomery.

When I first came to Congress as a junior Member, it was Sonny Montgomery who kind of took the freshman Members under his wing from both parties and kind of taught us the ropes of how to work on the committee in a bipartisan manner.

Sonny Montgomery is, in fact, a statesman. He was the kind of leader on defense and security issues that everyone followed and rallied around.

Time and again, we had bills where leadership, under both Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, would want clean bills with no significant amendments. It was always Sonny Montgomery with his Guard and Reserve package that would ensure at least one amendment, and usually it was strong bipartisan votes because of his commitment, as Chairman Hunter has outlined, to our Guard and Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, Sonny Montgomery also was the individual who authored the Montgomery GI bill and is responsible for the education of our young people.

So many have used that bill to go on to school, and it has had such a positive impact on the men and women that have served this country that Sonny's name is known by people far and wide in this Nation, not just because of his commitment to the Guard and Reserve, but to the continuing educational needs of our young people.

I had the pleasure of accompanying Sonny on my first codel to North Korea. He led the delegation into South Korea. We drove up to the DMZ. Sonny led the official delegation to bring back the first remains of Americans from the Korean War. He handled that responsibility with a great deal of pride and responsibility, as Sonny Montgomery did on a continuing and frequent basis in representing this Nation and our President, in receiving the first remains of American prisoners that had been found by the North Korean Government.

I would just add my name to the list of all our colleagues who have such high regard for Sonny Montgomery. He is a statesman, and the gentleman has done a great job in making sure that this bill is a lasting legacy to Sonny Montgomery's leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairman and friend for yielding and thank the ranking member for his outstanding leadership, two great Americans.

You know, this city is filled with a rhetoric that we don't work well together, that we are at each other's throats, that we are partisan. This bill passed our committee with a vote of 61 to 1. This bill was done in a bipartisan way and has the support of members from both sides.

I am proud of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that my subcommittee, which has 28 members, for the 12th consecutive year had no votes, no votes or suggested votes that would split our party along or our committee along party lines. My good friend Neil Abercrombie, my ranking member, and I worked together. He had great ideas. I took his ideas and suggestions and made them a part of the bill.

I want to say to our colleagues in this body and our people around the country, the Congress is working, we are working well together. We are doing good things. Now some would say that we don't have the right thing in the Congress to change what the White House and the Pentagon gives us. Hogwash. That is our job. If we hadn't done our job, we would not have had the Predator armed. It was this Congress mandated back in 1996 that we arm the Predator. It was this Congress in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration didn't request increases for pay for the troops, that plussed up the funding for the pay for the troops.

It is our responsibility to make change, and we have done it. It was this committee that recommended we put the $25 billion up for the supplemental for the war. When the White House didn't want to do it, we led the effort, and everyone else followed.

Mr. Chairman, in this committee, in my mark we have increased $1.5 million for up-armoring Humvees. We have increased $200 million for tactical radios for the troops to use. We have increased to $69 million towards explosive jammers to allow our troops to be able to detonate these bombs before they are in the area or to make them not able to work.

We have increased technology that will reduce the weight of the equipment that our military officers and soldiers and officers have to wear when they are in combat situations in the theater of Iraq or in any place in the world.

This committee has also cut programs. There are some who say all we want to do is keep increasing defense spending. In my subcommittee alone, or our subcommittee, we cut $678 million from programs that we felt the contractors were requesting too many dollars or the services were not properly overseeing. We cut the Joint Strike Fighter Program, Future Combat Systems, even the Presidential helicopter, because as my friend pointed out, Mr. Abercrombie, we want the President to be flying in a safe platform when that helicopter is ready to go.

We took that money and we added $276 million for M1s and Bradley fighting vehicles; $408 million for an additional alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter to continue competition. We put hundreds of millions of dollars into our Guard and Reserve troops.

The role that this committee played is an unbelievable role. It is the legitimate role that was thought of in advance by our Founding Fathers when they designed our Constitution, that we just do not rubber-stamp what the White House and the Pentagon tell us.

Mr. Chairman, this committee went through dozens and dozens of hearings. This chairman has had more briefings for us. In fact, Members of Congress walk around with their eyes partly closed because he has us up at 8:00 in the morning attending briefings and our markups and hearings go until late at night. The involvement of both our members from the other side and our members from this side produces a cooperative spirit where the resultant product, I think, is outstanding.

There may be some disagreements on floor. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, I am so proud of the committee and the work that we did in delivering a 61-1 vote.

But it is not just about our troops. It is not just about giving them the best technology, the best training, the best equipment. We have also taken some bipartisan steps to increase the flexibility of using our cooperative threat reduction dollars, to go after those weapons of mass destruction, whether it is in North Korea or whether it is in Libya. In our bill in a joint bipartisan amendment with Mr. Spratt, we have put language in providing flexibility for up to $30 million to be used by the Pentagon to go into these areas without having to go back for a reprogram request to allow us to immediately take action against these deposits of WMD when we find them.

We have also put into place the Nuclear Strategy Forum. We happen to think there should be a national debate on what the use of nuclear weapons should be in the 21st century. Again with bipartisan support, we have put together a team of the best thinkers, the best academics in America, who in a bipartisan and nonpartisan way will hold meetings and hearings on what should be our nuclear posture. Should we in fact reduce our nuclear arsenal? Should we in fact look at testing? Should we in fact look to an alternative type of technology away from nuclear weapons totally?

That is a part of this bill. So it is not just about weapons systems. It is about a comprehensive approach that will allow us to maintain security and, in the end, avoid war, which is the ultimate objective I have as long as I am going to be a Member of this institution.

We also reauthorized the EMP Commission. I want to pay particular accolades to Roscoe Bartlett, our colleague, who has been out front on that issue for a decade warning us of the threat from the use of electromatic pulse. We have put into place a panel. That panel has now been reauthorized and are advising us on how we can protect America's infrastructure and weapons systems.

Mr. Chairman, there is a personal priority in this bill to me because I am also vice chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and I work on behalf of the Nation's firefighters.

You know our firefighters are our domestic defenders. Our soldiers are international defenders. Much of the technology we developed for the soldiers has direct application to our firefighters, our paramedics and our first responders, but we haven't done a good job in transferring that technology, whether it is thermal imagers or whether it is GPS capability. We need to give our first responders the same kind of protection that we give to our warfighters. In this bill, again with the cooperation of members on both sides, we put in a specific provision that focuses on the need to immediately transfer technology developed by our military people and put it into use for our domestic defenders.

I ask our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important domestic bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor of serving as the Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee and as the Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

I, first of all, want to thank my distinguished chairman for the leadership he continues to provide across the wide range of issues that come before our committee. And similarly, I would like to express my admiration for the ranking member, for the leadership and expertise he brings to the committee. To the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), my ranking member, I thank him. He is a great American and it is great to work with him.

We have a great committee. Yes, there are contentious issues, but they get debated, we vote, and then we move on. We address the vast majority of issues in a what is best for the troops and taxpayer, non- partisan way. I cannot tell the Members how proud I am to serve on this committee. Every day that I serve in this institution, I am happy that we work so well together. This committee, I think, sets the example for the entire Congress, demonstrating that we can all work together. I think the best evidence of that is, we again had a vote out of committee of 61 of the 62 members coming together. Where we had areas of disagreement, we have been able to work those out. This is a real credit and testimony to this Congress and those 62 members who are on this committee and to our Chairman.

Those of us in the Subcommittee have two priorities: to take care of the troops and to do our best to hold DOD accountable for its acquisition programs.

This committee did this year what we have done for the prior two years to support our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have held hearings at the subcommittee and full committee level, pushing the Pentagon's bureaucracy to get the best available equipment to our personnel as soon as it can be properly tested--body and vehicle armor; improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, night vision equipment, and so on. It was this committee that first called for additional funding to up-armor our Humvees and take care of the troops that were in harm's way. It was this committee that led the White House two years ago in getting that first $25 billion supplemental.

This bill makes big changes to programs and it makes seemingly small changes to programs that are yet very meaningful to the average soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. H.R. 5122 provides over $1.5 billion in additional funds to procure up-armor Humvees and body armor to protect our personnel. The bill provides over $200 million in additional funds to procure tactical handheld and small unit radios for ground forces, addressing urgent needs in Iraq. The bill also provides an additional $69.0 million to produce and deploy 10,000 man-portable improvised explosive device jammers that can address a full spectrum of threats in theater.

At the same time increased authorization is provided for small arms and small arms technologies. The basic infantryman or marine entering combat can be required to carry combat configured loads of ammunition and equipment, that combined, can exceed 90 pounds. The bill contains funding to advance technologies that can reduce this carrying load through advancements in lightweight components for existing small arms and caseless ammunition.

With our military personnel at risk each and every day, supporting those personnel by providing them the proper equipment is where our number one priority must continue to be. We cannot shortchange the current force for a promised future capability.

Our military is facing major financial challenges in upgrading tactical aircraft programs, shipbuilding programs, and space programs. And the Army in particular is facing a major budgetary challenge in trying to fund its Future Combat Systems Program--a $200 billion program; along with Modularity--a major restructuring and equipping of its combat brigade structure, a $52.5 billion program; and Reset, repairing and remanufacturing equipment returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a $72.3 billion program.

The bill is about balancing the health and capability of the current force with the needs of future military capability.

Our concern with several programs is one of excess R&D and procurement concurrency. We have cut $678 million from the Pentagon's request in programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Both the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35, and Presidential Helicopter Program, the VH-71, have been reduced by a total of $280 million because of our concerns that they are not meeting our ``fly before buy'' rule.

We make other changes that better balance current against promised future capabilities: $276 million has been added for M-1 tank and Bradley fighting vehicle upgrades. Instead of the Army paying $3 million per Bradley upgrade, if done at the minimum economic order quantity rate, the Army is paying $8 million per vehicle--2\1/2\ times what we should be paying. Instead of paying $5 million for an M-1 tank upgrade, the Army is paying $7.4 million a tank. Our $276 million recommended increase would fund the economic order quantity for each vehicle.

Finally, we seek to correct major last minute budget decisions by the Pentagon that seemingly make no sense whatsoever. An example is the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35. Congress has supported a competitive engine strategy for that program for the past ten years. The Pentagon proposes to terminate that program without having done any substantive analysis. It was a last minute decision to balance the books. We add back $408 million to maintain competition in the F-35 engine development program. The Subcommittee believes engine competition is an important ingredient in fielding an F-35 that is both capable and affordable.

In closing, I again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full committee and our subcommittee. This bill is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and the leaders for bringing this bill forward.

I just want to refresh the memories of my colleagues who say we should not take any action. It was in 1997 when we had evidence that Iran was getting cooperation on developing a missile system that we brought a bill before this body called the Iran Missile Sanctions Act. For my colleagues who were not here, 398 Members voted ``yes,'' 98 Senators voted ``yes,'' the White House opposed the bill, and President Clinton vetoed the bill that year because he said we did not need it.

Last summer, Iran paraded the Shabab III missile system down the streets of Tehran. It is completed. It is the most capable offensive system in the Middle East. We could have stopped it and we didn't.

Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years I have been feeding the CIA information about Iran's efforts to undermine Iraq, the Middle East, and to foment terrorism around the world. It got so uncomfortable that I had to write a book. Everything that I said that I gave to the CIA for the past 3 years is now true: the support for Bani Sadr, the efforts for taking two teams up into North Korea to acquire nuclear technology, the attempts to assassinate Mullah al-Sastani. All of those things are now verified, and all of them I told the CIA and they ignored.

We do need to be aggressive with Iran and we need an approach that does not call for war. I am not for war with Iran. The people of Iran are not our enemy. It is a young nation. The people there want to be back as friends with America and the West. We need to work with those Iranians in exile, and that is what this legislation calls for.

Madam Speaker, 2 months ago I was out in California where I spoke to the 13 largest Iranian radio and television stations that beamed by satellite into Iran. For 2 hours I spoke directly to the Iranian people by satellite, 12 million households. I came back 8 hours later and took calls from people inside of Iran.

Madam Speaker, 400 Iranians called through the satellite and through cell phones to issue their recommendations and their questions to me live.

Madam Speaker, only 1 of 400 supported the regime of Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khomeini, who really runs the government there. Every other caller said we need your help, we need to do what you did with Ukraine, you need to help us take back our government. You need to do what they did in Georgia, to have an internal revolution, to bring about change so we truly can be friends with the West. That is what this legislation calls for.

But there is one other point this legislation does not focus on that I feel strongly about, and this was mentioned by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). The closest nation to Iran is Russia, and what we have to do is renew our efforts diplomatically to have Russia play a significant role to peacefully convince the people of Iran to get their government to back off of this nasty rhetoric and of this effort to build up this offensive capability using WMD, including nuclear weapons. This is of vital urgency for us. This is the number-one threat we face in the world.

While this legislation may not be perfect, it certainly sends a signal that we are not going to do what we did back in 1997. We are not going to allow any administration to back us off from stopping the development of technology like the missile system that Iran currently possesses.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to rise to honor the founders and employees of the Container Research Corporation on the celebration of their 50th anniversary on this Saturday, April 29, 2006. The Container Research Corporation is located in the small town of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, in the 7th Congressional District that I represent.

The Container Research Corporation, CRC, was founded in 1956. At its helm were the young, innovative minds of Stan Rines, Sr. and Bill Swan, Sr., talented businessmen and engineers. Mr. Rines and Mr. Swan designed and patented modern high tech metal containers that replaced existing commercial and military wooden crates. I am pleased to report that Mr. Rines and Mr. Swan, now in their eighties, still own and manage the growing company, with 140 employees at three facilities.

The Container Research Corporation was an early pioneer of military packaging for large aircraft parts. Over their 50 years of service they have excelled in the research, design and manufacturing of aerospace maintenance platforms, storage and shipping containers to worldwide aerospace customers. CRC has produced containers for the Pershing Missiles, the Pickatinny Arsenal artillery shells, nuclear fuel rods, all styles of helicopter blades, jet engines and most recently the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet. They have partnered with such companies as Westinghouse, Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky and the U.S. military.

As the Vice-Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, I have seen first-hand the positive effects of the Container Research Corporation's incredible work ethic and upstanding patriotism. They have been a strong and consistent partner in strengthening not only our national economy, but our national defense and security as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have within my district one of the founding companies for modern aerospace storage and shipping containers. Our Nation owes Mr. Rines, Mr. Swan and all of the dedicated employees at the Container Research Corporation a huge debt of gratitude. We are certainly a safer country because of their efforts. I am proud to represent these fine men and women and honor them on their 50th Anniversary on the House Floor today.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special honor to recognize Matt Valenti, a student athlete from the University of Pennsylvania, who recently won the NCAA wrestling championship. Penn's sports history records need updating now to include Matt as one of only three wrestlers to have achieved this distinction as national champion. All three wrestlers are bound together by their high level of motivation and their devotion to the time-honored virtues of hard work and sacrifice.

We are all aware of the competitive nature and demanding rigors of this sport. Matt's achievements have set a new benchmark for excellence in this sport. The following statistics speak for themselves and place Matt in an elite category:

He won five consecutive matches against the nation's best

wrestlers in the 2006 NCAA Championships to win the national

title at 133 lbs.

He showed courage and determination in reversing and riding

Chris Fleeger of Purdue University to win the national final

3-2.

He accomplished his title by beating the tournament's

second and third-seeded wrestlers and a former national

runner-up.

He had two pins in five matches at the NCAA Championships.

He showed excellence and outstanding skill by being taken

down only once and reversed once in his five matches.

He became only the third national champion in the 102-year

history of Penn wrestling.

He led his team to score the most points in an NCAA

Championship in team history.

He is a two-time All-American, in 2004 and 2006.

On the day Matt won the NCAA Championship, the pressure on him was immense. The way he wrestled his way to the championship is a testament to his grace under pressure, his good sportsmanship, and most importantly, his example as a role model for youth that make him special to not only to wrestling fans in Pennsylvania, but to everyone who pursues the American dream.

Finally, I would be remiss, if I did not recognize the extraordinary effort and commitment of Head Coach Zeke Jones who inspires and motivates the true grit and discipline so necessary on the mats. His personal commitment to excellence has served the University of Pennsylvania well. We share his pride in Matt Valenti's tremendous success as NCAA Champion and look to Matt to take us to the 2008 Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank my distinguished friend and chairman, Mr. Davis, who is a cosponsor of this legislation, and my good friend and partner, the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for their leadership in bringing forth the resolution to pay proper tribute to the 1.1 million men and women across the country in 32,000 departments that protect our communities.

The Fire Service of America is older than America as a country. The fire service is in every community, both large and small. They are the backbone of our country, the heart and soul of the Nation. They are the people that make this country great.

Tonight, 2,500 of these brave leaders are assembled at the Washington Hilton, and they are looking forward to this recognition, which we will take to them as Mr. Hoyer and I travel to the Washington Hilton and pay our respects.

In addition, this resolution goes one step further. In recognizing a recent Federal court decision that junior firefighters are in fact fire fighters, this resolution is affirming the Court decision that a junior firefighter is in fact recognized when the States in this country allow junior firefighters to be so designated. This is an important piece of legislation.

In honor of one of my constituents, Christopher Kangas, I am happy to have this bill come up so that all of us can provide true support for all of those men and women, including those younger junior firefighters, who aspire to take over the protection of our towns and cities across America.

I thank my colleagues for their support.

Madam Speaker, 20 years ago the world witnessed one of the last crimes of the Soviet communist regime against its own people. The biggest nuclear catastrophe in human history was kept secret from Soviet civilians, who were exposed to massive amounts of radiation that exceeded the medically tolerable norm by 100 times.

On April 25-26, 1986, many firefighters sacrificed their lives to put out the huge fire caused by the explosion. Thirty-one died. Their heroism prevented a European Hiroshima.

In 1986, the Soviet Government let millions of people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia conduct their daily lives as usual--completely unprepared, unwarned, and unprotected. On May 1, 4 days after the catastrophe, citizens of Kiev, Minsk, Gomel, and dozens of other cities went outdoors celebrating Labor Day, an official holiday in the Soviet Union. Only days later the civilian population was gradually informed of the disaster's extent.

By that time, millions of people, including infants and children, had received high doses of radiation. Dozens were doomed to suffer painful deaths in the years to come. Thousands are still coping with health problems caused by exposure during those tragic days, including thyroid and breast cancer, and tumors. The ultimate prognosis for millions remains unclear.

20 years later, grave danger remains at Chernobyl. 200 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste in Reactor #4 remains separated from the outside world by a ``Shelter'' that was determined to be reliable only until 2006.

Today's occasion is an opportunity for all people of goodwill to commemorate Chernobyl

victims--both civilians, and the brave individuals who sacrificed their lives to save those exposed to radiation.

European nations and Japan should follow the U.S. example and live up to their pledge to contribute to creation of the Shelter-2. This barrier would be effective for another 100 years, and has been approved by the Ukrainian government and international experts. The cost is estimated to be $1 billion, which is a small price to pay given the price-tag in dollars and lives of another radiological disaster.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to rise to honor Dr. I. King Jordan upon his retirement as president of Gallaudet University on December 31, 2006. Dr. Jordan is a native of Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania, a small town near Philadelphia, in the 7th Congressional District which I represent.

Dr. Jordan made history in 1988 when he became the Nation's first deaf university president at the world's only liberal arts university for the deaf--Gallaudet University. He also claims the distinction as the first deaf president of any institution of higher education in the U.S. The important message that Dr. Jordan sent to the world upon his appointment in 1988 was that deaf children brought up in a world that too often tells them that they can't do, now see they can do anything and that the only limit to their achievements is their ability to dream.

The year 1988 was a pivotal one for the deaf and hard of hearing. The year began when the students and faculty of Gallaudet University protested the decision by the board of trustees to bypass two qualified deaf candidates for president and choose instead a hearing candidate. Called Deaf President Now (DPN), the week-long protest was a watershed event. Their persistent, but nonviolent demonstrations captured the hearts of the Nation and their victory resulted in the selection of Dr. Jordan--a selection which was applauded by hearing and nonhearing Americans alike.

Dr. Jordan was not only a strong advocate for the Gallaudet community, but for individuals with disabilities across this Nation. One of his many proud accomplishments is the work he did to assist with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which I supported. He was a leading witness in support of the ADA and delivered significant testimony not only in Congress, but across the country during the deliberations of this bill.

Dr. Jordan's presidency has paralleled a time of great accomplishments for deaf persons, and all individuals with disabilities. Their needs and abilities have come to the forefront of public debate. He is far more than a symbol of ability over disability, he is a sensitive and caring individual, and a strong and forceful leader.

Mr. Speaker, I wish Dr. Jordan and his wife, Linda, much happiness as they anticipate and begin a new chapter in their lives. I am proud to list Dr. I. King Jordan in the ``Who's Who of the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.'' His strong, forceful, compassionate leadership and service will be greatly missed.