Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I support the attempt to block this sale. This sale involves a strategic asset and, more importantly, a strategic lever for Communist China. Our policy for the last many years has been to deter the Chinese government in Beijing from ever coming into the position where they thought they had enough leverage over the U.S. to cross the Straits of Taiwan. This would be a major lever that would accumulate to the Chinese Communist government on top of the Sovereign class missile cruisers that they have acquired, on top of the MiG fighter production that they have acquired, on top of the other acquisitions of major U.S. economic interests.

I hope everyone votes against this, votes to block this important transfer of a strategic asset to, and make no mistake about it, the communist government, not a private entity, but the communist government of China.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Joan and William F. Inman of EI Cajon, California. On June 25, 2005, Joan and William will celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary.

Bill and Joan met in 1952, married on June 25, 1955, and their first daughter JoAnn was born the following year. As Bill went on to graduate from Pennsylvania State University in 1958, the couple decided to pursue the promise of employment and a chance for a new life together in San Diego, California. Over the next few years, Bill and Joan were blessed with a son, William F. Jr. and two more daughters, JoRae and Jodi.

While raising his family and beginning a career as a materials engineer at Rohr Industries, Bill continued his education at San Diego State College. During this time, Joan continued her service as a full time mother and worked as an emergency room and maternity ward nurse at Grossmont Hospital. Both Bill and Joan retired with more than 75 years of service to their community and nation.

Bill and Joan now fill their time with friends and family, enjoying golf and being a vital part of the lives of their four grandsons, Jeb, Jayme, Jonathan and Willie. Throughout their lives, Joan and Bill have faced life's challenges with a positive attitude and determined spirits, and have raised their children to do likewise. I wish Joan and Bill many more years of happiness together and in anticipation of their fiftieth anniversary, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to this milestone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to the life and career of Wally A. ``Preacher'' Hebert. Wally is holder of 4 pitching records for the San Diego Padres and on June 25, 2005, he will be inducted into the Pacific Coast League San Diego Padres Hall of Fame.

Born in Lake George, Louisiana in 1907, Wally's talents and interests were evident at a very early age. Aside from gardening, hunting, and fishing as a child, he became an expert golfer, playing close to par with a 2 iron and a putter. He enjoyed athletics and when it came to football and baseball, Wally excelled over his peers.

At Lake Charles High School, Wally was an all-state football star and had been offered a scholarship at Louisiana State University when he caught the eye of a major league baseball scout. In his first professional game in Springfield, Missouri, he got off the train from Louisiana, went to the ballpark, and pitched a 22 inning complete game victory.

In 1931, Preacher, as he was also known, was called up to spring training for the St. Louis Browns and remained with the team throughout the rest of that season. As a lefthander, he began to attract attention with a variety of curve balls at various speeds and arm motions. His first major league appearance came that year against the New York Yankees where he faced Babe Ruth with the bases loaded and one out. The Babe hit into an inning-ending double play.

That season, Preacher won six games and was the only pitcher in the major leagues to beat the New York Yankees and the world champion Philadelphia Athletics twice in one season. His finest game that year included 8 shut out innings against the Yankees--striking out Lou Gehrig and Ruth three times. Unfortunately, St. Louis lost the game by one run after Preacher exited the game.

Over the next two seasons in St. Louis, Preacher pitched in relief, battling a shoulder injury. He was then sold to the Hollywood Stars which after one season, moved to San Diego and began playing at Lane Field. During seven seasons with the San Diego Padres, Preacher delighted fans with a dominating presence and pinpoint control.

While with the Padres, Wally and his bride Bobbie moved out to California where they

had their first two children, Hillene and Linda. Of all their children, Hillene had the ability to do what the opposition could rarely accomplish; knocking her father out of a game. Preacher was pitching when Hillene's birth was announced, at which point he collapsed on the mound.

His finest season as a Padre came in 1942 when he established records for most complete games pitched, batters faced, and innings pitched. During this season, Preacher finished every game he started.

In 1943, Preacher was traded to the Pittsburgh Pirates and at the end of the season, he faced a turning point in his career. While his arm was as strong as ever, his oldest daughter was beginning first grade and America's involvement in World War II made domestic travel difficult. When Bobbie indicated that the family would not be traveling to Pittsburgh that season, Wally chose his family and his beloved Louisiana over baseball. He turned down a contract worth $10,000 to earn 35 cents per hour in a wartime synthetic rubber factory.

After settling in Westlake, Louisiana, Wally and Bobbie had three sons and he resumed his life of hunting, fishing, and gardening while working in a nearby Firestone factory. He devoted himself to his family after his retirement from Firestone in 1965 and remained active as an outdoorsman until his death in 1999.

Today, Wally is survived by his beloved Bobbie, five children, numerous grandchildren. The legacy of Wally ``Preacher'' Hebert will long be remembered throughout the San Diego community and I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to his life and long list of accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor members of the Charlie Rangers, Company C of the 75th Infantry. The Charlie Rangers are celebrating a reunion in D.C. and will gather later today at the Vietnam Memorial. As a member of the Charlie Rangers 75th Infantry who served with these fine and extraordinary men, and as a guy who did nothing special myself in Vietnam, I can attest that the men of Charlie Rangers are very special Americans.

Company C came into being after the Army realized the need for special capability elite forces. Rather than create an entirely new unit designation, the Department of the Army designated the 75th Infantry as the successor of the legendary 5307 Composite Unit which served with distinction during WWII. The Charlie Rangers built on the formidable legacy of Merrill's Marauders by providing reconnaissance, surveillance, target acquisition and special type combat missions.

True to its motto of Sua Sponte, or Of Their Own Accord, Company C Rangers during their service in the Vietnam War, penetrated behind enemy lines without cover. Acting by themselves, Charlie Rangers slogged through

enemy positions gathering critical and valuable information on major infiltration routes.

The Rangers operated in vast, inhospitable terrains throughout Vietnam. Their prowess, coupled with boat patrols, night ambushes, and stay-behind infiltration techniques were instrumental in thwarting members of the Viet Cong and NVA. According to historical accounts, This company, comprised of merely several hundred men, was able to keep vast numbers of North Vietnamese Army troops occupied, thereby potentially saving numerous American troops.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this incredible company, the Charlie Rangers, and I am honored to have been able to serve in a small way alongside such professional and selfless soldiers. I know my colleagues join me in applauding them for a job well done and share my wishes for a memorable reunion.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his kind words. It is appropriate that I follow the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri and his remarks, because he talked about Goldwater-Nichols, and Goldwater-Nichols did drive jointness in the military.

Another thing that Goldwater-Nichols did, and it was primarily as a result of the debacle in Lebanon with the marines, is to drive what was known as the chain of command rule, meaning that when you had a combatant commander, formerly known as a CINC, that combatant commander was in charge of everything in that warfighting theater, whether it was a rivet joint aircraft or a soldier or a marine, special operator, or a tactical intelligence gatherer in that area. That was a major issue that we had to work on, and we had to build a seam and a protection for the chain of command and, at the same time, afford to the national intelligence gatherers the resources and the opportunity to carry out their mission.

I think that the bill, the 9/11 bill did a pretty good job of that, and I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from California (Ranking Member Harman) for their participation in working that. My good colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I really look forward to Mr. Negroponte getting off to the right start. He is a guy with a lot of good judgment, great experience in very difficult and inconvenient and dangerous missions, in my estimation, and I think that is probably a requisite for this job.

I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) also, because there were a couple of provisions in this bill that we thought had a chain of command problem, and he looked at those and worked on them and took them out in the rule, and I want to let

him know I appreciate that. That was important to us. We are working together, and we both want to see this new apparatus, this intelligence apparatus that has to work so well with the defense apparatus moving off to a good new start in this war against terror.

So my thanks to the chairman and thanks to the ranking member. We have a lot of work to do, but we have a good bill here, and I hope every Member supports it.

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

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to add my words of thanks and praise to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his great leadership in making our Nation's defense strong and secure and extend that praise also to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who does such a wonderful job on this Defense Subcommittee.

I rise for the purpose now of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, regarding the penetrator study for Hard and Deeply Buried Target defeat authorized in the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization bill passed by the House last month.

Mr. Chairman, during hearings and briefings in support of the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the House Committee on Armed Services heard from General Cartwright, Commander United States Strategic Command, and Secretary Rumsfeld, on the importance

of exploring all options for holding Hard and Deeply Buried Targets at risk. The United States currently does not have any viable options to put at risk many of these targets which may contain chemical, biological, nuclear, or command and control capabilities. And, very simply, the people who would pull the trigger on a military operation are typically those, the leadership people, who would go to the bunkers. And it is very important to deter those people, and sometimes that means having the ability to reach them with a deep bunker penetrator.

Both General Cartwright and Secretary Rumsfeld felt that it was important to explore all options, conventional as well as nuclear, against these targets that pose a threat to our national security.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with that. As the gentleman knows, the House Committee on Armed Services mark recommended in the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1815, authorized $4 million within the Department of Defense for research into various options of penetrators that could hold Hard and Deeply Buried Targets at risk.

The fiscal year 2006 budget requested funds for only a nuclear penetrator option under the Department of Energy. In order to explore all options and specifically to include conventional in addition to nuclear options, the defense authorization bill moves this penetrator study from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense, broadens its scope to include both the conventional and nuclear penetrator options, and authorizes $4 million for the study.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman and thank the ranking member for their commitment to work with us on this matter and all matters of national security and we appreciate their dedication.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to section 9012 as it is currently written and a number of other members of the Committee on Armed Services are opposed to them as well, and you will hear from them in the ensuing minutes here.

We were informed that we had the right to assert that this was, in fact, authorizing on an appropriations bill and to ask the Committee on Rules, which we initially did, to not protect this provision and allow it to be stricken. But I was informed by the chairman of the full committee that this was an important issue for members of the minority on the Committee on Appropriations, and they wanted to have a discussion. And our Members agreed with that. So I think we will have a full discussion of this issue.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will require the Defense Department to provide Congress with recommendations on maintaining a climate of religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy. The amendment also expresses a sense of Congress that personal expressions of faith, that is, all faiths, are welcome in the United States military.

My objection to section 9012 is that the section concludes based on newspaper accounts that officers assigned to duty at the U.S. Air Force Academy and others in the chain of command are engaged in ``abusive and coercive religious proselytizing'' based on reports.

Mr. Chairman, Members may have read press accounts regarding issues of religious freedom and tolerance at the Air Force Academy.

What may not be known is that many of the allegations reported by the press were first discovered by the air force through internal surveys. In response, the Academy superintendent has been quite open that there have been instances where respect for others has been lacking. He also suggested that Academy practices and processes may also have contributed to the appearance of a lack of respect for members of minority religious traditions.

Overall, the Air Force has taken aggressive action on these important issues of religious freedom and tolerant at the Academy, and the Secretary to the Air Force detailed those actions to me in a June 7 letter which I would like to submit for the Record at this point.

Secretary of the Air Force,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2005.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The media contains a steady flow of

stories decrying religious intolerance at the United States

Air Force Academy (USAFA). In late Spring 2004, the

Superintendent of the Academy, Lt Gen John Rosa, detected

religious tolerance concerns through surveys he initiated. He

subsequently brought the issue--and the corrective measures

he was taking--to the attention of the Academy's Board of

Visitors and the Air Force leadership. Together, we have been

addressing the issue openly for the past several months.

As of today, the Academy's Board of Visitors has looked at

this situation during three separate meetings. They will do

so again this summer. In addition to the Board's inquiries, I

have deployed four separate teams from the Pentagon to

address one or another aspect of the Academy climate for

religious tolerance. The first team, led by the Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Equal Opportunity, visited the

Academy last fall and assisted Lt Gen Rosa in scoping the

problem and designing a campaign to correct the situation.

The second visited USAFA last month and is led by Deputy

Chief of Staff for Personnel, Lt Gen Roger Brady. This team

is in the final stages of assessment of the Academy climate,

leadership practices, and the corrective actions that should

be initiated. Specific allegations of improper conduct

against the Commandant of Cadets, Brig Gen John Weida, are

being separately examined by the Office of the Air Force

Inspector General. Last week, the DoD Inspector General

began--at my request--an inquiry to determine whether Air

Force reassignment of Chaplain (Capt) Melinda Morton was

handled properly. Please note that the visit to the Academy

in July 2004 by a group of Yale Divinity School students and

an Associate Professor of Counseling was not part of our

assessment or corrective measures, and did not focus on the

religious tolerance issue. Nevertheless, we have reviewed and

considered the submission of that group in connection with

our on-going reviews. Finally, this week, a group from the

National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces (NCMAF)

is also visiting USAFA at my request to provide an external

look by a private organization of religious leaders who

understand the military in a pluralistic society, and who

represent their faith group communities to the military.

Thus far, results indicate--and the Academy Superintendent

continues to openly acknowledge--there have been instances

where

respect has been lacking. Academy practices and processes may

also have contributed to the appearance of a lack of respect

for members of minority religious traditions. The multiple

reviews I have asked for, together with aggressive leadership

action, will help us correct Academy climate and culture.

Recently, the Air Force Chief of Staff, General John

Jumper, in a written communication, reminded all Air Force

commanders of their responsibilities for establishing a

climate and culture that promotes respect for individual

beliefs. This message reemphasized the importance of respect

and its role as the foundation of our core values. In

constructing his message, General Jumper used the lessons we

have already learned from our work with the Academy

leadership team. As our work at USAFA progresses, we will

continue to incorporate lessons learned into actions that

will help us reinforce the culture of respect throughout the

Air Force.

Air Force and Academy leadership are deeply engaged in the

question of respect for individual beliefs. As this work

progresses, our work--and critics of that work--will generate

news stories. I ask that you reserve your opinions on this

matter until I can get to ground truth through the objective

processes now on going. The Inspectors General and Lt Gen

Brady's team, including consideration of the NCMAF external

assessment, will report back to me within the next few weeks.

These results will provide a factual basis for deciding what

further actions may need to be taken. Completing these

reviews quickly and consulting with the Secretary of Defense,

Congress and the Academy Board of Visitors regarding next

steps is my highest priority.

Sincerely,

Michael L. Dominguez,

Acting Secretary of the Air Force.

Based on cadet surveys administered in late spring 2004 suggesting religious tolerance concerns, the Air Force Academy superintendent took a number of corrective actions, including a training and education program for cadets and faculty to develop respect for the diversity of faiths represented at the Academy.

He brought the issues to the attention of the Academy's Board of Visitors, and accordingly, the Air Force leadership continues to work with the board to address these issues.

He sent a team led by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for equal opportunity to the Academy in the fall of 2004 to design a campaign to assist Academy leadership in addressing the issues.

Last month, the Air Force deputy chief of staff took another team to the Academy to assess Academy climate, leadership practices and corrective actions that should be taken.

The facts are, and I could go down through the office of the Inspector General, DOD Inspector General, at the request of the Secretary of the Air Force, is conducting a review of the reassignment of Academy chaplain, Captain Melinda Morton.

A group from the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces visited the Academy last week to provide an external look by a private organization of religious leaders, and Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on.

My point is this, there are a number of reviews that are ongoing right now at the Academy, and in this letter that Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary Michael Dominguez, sent to me, I think the crux of our amendment is laid out and I think justifies. He talks about the work that is ongoing to make sure that the Academy has religious freedom and religious tolerance. He says, As this work progresses, and I am quoting the Secretary, our work and critics of that work will generate news stories. It was a news story that generated this base provision that is in the bill. I ask that you reserve your opinions on this matter until I can get to ground truth through the objective processes now ongoing.

That is what he asks for. He has got lots of reviews, and what we say is, we reestablish, revalidate that there should be both freedom of religion and religious tolerance, and we set a date for a report to come back after the reviews are done, for the Secretary of the Air Force to report back to us with the reviews and with recommendations.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I cannot forget the last time we landed in Bailad, Iraq, and I was with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and we had a couple of mortar rounds come into the base. The CO said, Quick, get into this building, and we hustled into the nearest building. It turned out to be 400 GIs who were undertaking a religious service. I do not know if it was official or unofficial. I do know they had quite a service going, and we, Congressmen, were forced to actually go to church I guess because those mortar rounds were coming in. We could not leave until it was over.

The word ``proselytizing'' could possibly be applied to what they were doing in that battleground in Iraq. I have always thought that when I argue religion I am making reasoned judgments and the other guy is proselytizing, and the problem is with that word. With establishing that as a standard, that people in uniform have to adhere to, the average person in uniform is going to say, what does proselytizing mean? Am I proselytizing, and if they are not sure whether or not their statement is proselytizing, you know what they are going to do? They are not going to say anything, and we are going to put a chill on what we have heretofore for our entire history welcomed, and that is, expression of religious views by our uniformed personnel.

I would hope that Members and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in the spirit of this debate would accept this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am looking at the text of the Obey amendment, and it is essentially a restatement of the base language. It has the same problem that I spoke about earlier, and that is this: the Secretary of the Air Force is undergoing a number of reviews. He is investigating this situation, but as he says, he has not gotten to ground truth on this thing yet. Yet this amendment is the judge, jury and executioner of the persons who are reported. I am looking at these last three words that say we should not have any inappropriate proselytizing that may have occurred. What we have is a newspaper story.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said we are angry because this has come up. That is not so. We were offered under the Army provision in our conference that this provision not be protected and simply strike it on the floor. I was advised that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wanted to have a full discussion on this, and I said let us do it. So that is why we are doing this.

The reason we did not act on this is laid out and validated by the Secretary of the Air Force's letter where he says: ``As this work progresses, I ask you to reserve your opinions on this matter until I can get to ground truth through the objective processes now ongoing.''

If something is this serious, and I have never seen any statement by the Secretary of the Air Force that said abusive and coercive proselytizing has occurred, but that is the language that the gentleman has in his bill. So we have a difference of opinion on this.

I think we should wait until the reports come in, until the DOD IG comes back with his report on the captain that the gentleman has referred to, and until, in the words of the Secretary of the Air Force, we get to ground truth. And we require in my amendment a report back to Congress within 90 days on the findings that the Secretary of the Air Force comes to and recommendations for action.

Let me say one other thing. The gentleman said he is not accusing anybody of proselytizing. I am reading his plan. It says: ``The Secretary of the Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain of command at the Air Force Academy.''

That is a heck of a strong dose of preventive maintenance. The gentleman's position, what he has read in the Los Angeles Times is good enough for him, and it is now time for us to take remedial action even before the Secretary of the Air Force comes back with his recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I would just respond, that is not the Secretary of the Air Force; and if the gentleman is holding this up as something that justifies a condemnatory statement by the United States House of Representatives, then it has to be something that is representative of the actions of the officials of the Air Force Academy; and no one has used language as strong as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) who states, and I am going to state this one more time because we keep moving off it, the gentleman's statement is that ``SEC Air Force shall develop a plan to ensure that Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive and religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain of command.'' The amendment does not even say ``some Air Force officials.'' He is holding that out as representative of what is going on in the chain of command in the academy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for the spirit in which this debate is conducted. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I do have similar expression in welcoming religious expression at the academy. Where we do differ is that in our amendment we do not prejudge that officials are abusively proselytizing; and with the IG report coming in from DOD, not just the Air Force, but the IG report coming in from DOD and the Air Force IG report coming in, I think we need to get those reports and then take congressional action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to a leading San Diego citizen who, on this day, is celebrating his 90th birthday. Walter J. Zable, the founder of Cubic Corporation, has served as the chairman, president and CEO of the corporation for five decades.

Walt Zable formed Cubic in 1951 with just one product and plenty of grit and determination. Today, Cubic Corporation is a $722 million company that employs 1,200 in the San Diego area and nearly 6,000 employees worldwide.

Prior to forming Cubic in 1951, Mr. Zable was project supervisor in charge of electronics for the Atlas and Terrier missiles, and the microwave and antenna development sections at General Dynamics Convair. His background includes engineering and management posts

with Sperry Gyroscope Company, where he directed development of fire control, guidance, communications, and command and control systems. He also held key technical, scientific and administrative positions with Federal Telecommunications Laboratories of ITT, Flight Research Company, and Newport News Shipyard and Drydock Company.

Before launching his engineering career, Mr. Zable was a professional football player for the Richmond Arrows and the New York Giants. He went on to receive numerous sports honors, including the 1962 SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Silver Anniversary All-American Team and induction into William and Mary's Hall of Fame in 1969. In 1971, he established the Walter J. Zable/San Diego Chapter of the National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame (NFFCHF) to help preserve the genuine sportsmanship and integrity exhibited in high school and college football.

He credits the Boston school system for his success in business, because ``if it weren't for athletics during the depression years, it would have been difficult to go to college,'' said Mr. Zable, who received a full football scholarship from the College of William and Mary. Today, he's still dedicated to helping other young student- athletes realize their dreams and reach their full academic and athletic potential through the NFFCHF local chapter, which is among more than 100 chapters in the country.

Recognized as Cubic's largest and most visible community relations project, the Walter J. Zable/San Diego Chapter has helped further the careers of the hundreds of honorees, including sports giants such as former San Diego Charger Junior Seau and Mark Malone, a sports broadcaster and former Pittsburgh Stealers quarterback. In 1987, the NCAA acknowledged his contribution to athletics by naming Walter Zable a winner of the Teddy Roosevelt Award, its most prestigious honor. Other winners of this award have included President George Bush, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senator Leverett Saltonstall.

In addition to his work in helping young student-athletes, Walter Zable and his company give generously to charitable causes, most of them benefiting children. He has also set up a $10 million endowment that will become effective for the College of William and Mary upon the deaths of Walter and his wife, Betty.

Walter Zable is a humble man who eschews the limelight and would rather see the focus be on his company and its hardworking employees. However, I think even he would be willing to make an exception for this special recognition for reaching his 90th birthday. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Walter J. Zable on attaining this significant milestone and wish him many more years in the company of his loving wife and family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Robert Rangel, the staff director for the House Armed Services Committee, for his 18 years of loyal and dedicated commitment to the Committee and to the United States Congress.

Robert graduated from the University of Kentucky and immediately went to work for Representative Larry J. Hopkins in Lexington, Kentucky. He then moved to Washington, D.C. to be a Rep. Hopkin's Senior Legislative Assistant.

In 1987, Robert joined the House Armed Services Committee as a Professional Staff Member responsible for intelligence, defense, acquisition and counter-drug policy. He also served as the lead writer of the committee's after-action report on Operation Desert Storm. By 1994, Robert assumed the role of Deputy Staff Director and was responsible for the daily operations of the committee and staff. In 2000, he was appointed Staff Director for the Committee under former Chairman Floyd Spence.

Robert is a respected leader who shepherds the annual defense authorization act through the Congressional process and ultimately into public law. As such, he is a constant and trusted advisor to the Chairman, ranking member, staff, and the committee as a whole. Through his 18 years of steadfast service, Robert has bestowed onto the committee an extensive knowledge of national security issues & policy and was able to provide a clear understanding of legislative procedure. I speak for myself, past chairman, ranking minority members, and any and everyone who has had the privilege of working with Robert, in thanking him for his tireless work and dedication to the House Armed Services Committee.

On behalf of the Committee and the United States Congress, I wish him, his wife Joy, and two boys Alex and John, the best of luck as he leaves the Committee and begins a new chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me time and the Committee on Rules for their hard work on this bill, on the many amendments that they reviewed, took testimony on, and for their shaping of this package which will move the defense bill onto the floor here momentarily and allow us to do what it takes to make sure that the men and women of the Armed Forces, who are fighting in the war against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters around the world, will have the tools to get the job done.

Now, we have two considerations here. One consideration is to make sure that Members get their amendments heard and have their voices heard. The other consideration is to make sure we get a bill. And sometimes one of those considerations overbalances the other.

The worst thing that could happen is not to move this bill expeditiously through the House, move it quickly to conference, and provide the leadership not only for the base bill this year, but for the $49 billion that we have bolted onto the base package that, at the end of this fiscal year, will give our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan the force protection, the armor, the pay, the troop levels and all the other things that we need to carry out this mission.

So this is a crucial and critical bill, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the expeditious fashion that the committee has moved in.

This bill provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops. We have increased pay 25 percent over the last 4 years. It provides many, many personnel benefits. It provides an expansion of family housing. It provides additional bonus flexibility for the services to continue to attract and recruit Americans to come into the armed services. And it gives our people additional warfighting capability, additional sensors, additional armor, additional munitions and weapons, all the tools that they need to get the job done.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have put in some very important limitations on the costs of weapons systems. We see weapons systems costs going through the roof. We see a DDX program that now says it is going to cost $3 billion a ship. In a very businesslike way, we have analyzed these costs and the increases, and we have put in limitations and mechanisms that will allow us to control these costs. If we do not start bringing down the costs per ship, per aircraft, per big unit, we are not going to have enough of these systems to provide the coverage we need around the world.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most important of bills. It is a bill that goes to the very heart of our freedom, and that is the equipping and projection of our Armed Forces. I thank the Committee on Rules for doing a great job in packaging this bill in a way that we can move it expeditiously across the floor.

I thank the gentleman for his great work and his great work as a former member of the Committee on Armed Services, who is going to be coming back to see us and who sits in with us regularly.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 293, I am providing the requisite notice and request that the following amendments as printed in House Report 109-96 be considered out of order: Goode No. 20, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia No. 24, Davis of California No. 12, Hunter No. 1, Stearns No. 6, Bradley of New Hampshire No. 29, Woolsey No. 26.

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

This year, the Committee on Armed Services has put together a bill that is a true example of bipartisan cooperation, providing the men and women of the armed services with the best equipment, best training, and a benefit package that is worthy of their service and their sacrifice.

The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2006 provides $441 billion for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The bill was voted out of committee by a vote of 61 to 1 and contains significant improvements in areas of military personnel, acquisition reform, responsible defense procurement strategies, and addresses a need for continuity in funding for our ongoing efforts in the global war on terror.

But before I get into any details, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who has been my partner on this committee, for all the great work that he has done. I would also like to praise our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. This bill is a culmination of their many hearings and oversight reviews.

Almost every member of this full committee has been to the war fighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan and gathered firsthand important information that has ultimately been reflected in this bill that we have put together. I want to thank all the members of the committee and all our great leaders on both the Democrat and Republican side, the chairmen of the subcommittees and the ranking members, for their work.

This year, Mr. Chairman, we have made taking care of our troops, both now and in the future, one of our top priorities. We can do all of these things in developing great weapons systems and facilities, but the only thing that really is important, the element that drives the security apparatus of the United States, is people. It is the men and women in uniform. To recognize these sacrifices, the committee has included a number of very well-deserved changes in our MILPER system, and it starts with this 3.1 percent pay raise across the board.

Incidentally, that pulls down this difference in pay on the outside in the domestic world and military pay. There has always been a differential. If you were a military technician in a certain area, you have historically made less money than your counterpart in the private world.

But we have pulled down that differential now to a very low rate, which is now about 4.6 percent. We have increased, in fact, military pay 25 percent over the last 4 years, and that has been the result of the great work of members of our committee, Mr. Chairman.

We have also increased the death gratuity to $100,000, and understanding that there is no way we can repay those who have lost their loved ones, this helps to bridge those very difficult times when that man or woman does not come back from the warfighting theaters.

We also provide additional increases in end strength. With this bill we have completed our end strength increase plan of 30,000 more soldiers for the Army and 4,000 for the Marine Corps.

But we also realize that there are a lot of other things we need to do, especially in the warfighting theaters. We have increased by $572 million our inventory of Humvees, $183 million for counter-rocket and mortar systems. Those are the systems that can take down those mortars and rockets that

are coming into the fire bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, inflicting in some cases egregious wounds on our personnel.

And we have put in an additional $45 million for these jamming devices to jam improvised explosive devices that the insurgents are using in the warfighting theaters. That is a place where the insurgents can stand back 300 or 400 yards from a roadway, wait for that Marine or Army convoy to line up on a lamppost, and by using a low-power device like a garage door opener, detonate an improvised explosive device, which may be an artillery shell next to that road, hurting the Americans. Jamming that capability, defeating that capability, is an important thing, and we have put a lot of money into that, Mr. Chairman.

These are a couple of examples I wanted to go over.

But I wanted to go to another area that is very important for our Nation's future and the future of our defense apparatus. We are paying a ton of money now for single systems. The future combat system for the Army is now projected to cost almost twice what we originally projected. The cost of the new destroyer, the DD(X), is going to be, according to projections, well over $3 billion.

So we see these escalating prices threatening our ability to buy enough systems, enough trucks, tanks, ships, planes, to provide the coverage that we need in power projection around the world. We are putting some very important disciplines into the acquisition process to make it more difficult for the private sector to increase these prices dramatically and for this combination of our own bureaucracy and the private sector to inadvertently allow their program costs to rise. So we are working to instill some fiscal discipline, Mr. Chairman, and that is manifested in this particular mark.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that we have extraordinary people in the warfighting theaters today. These young men and women went in initially thinking they would see poison gas on the battlefield. They did not see that poison gas, but they have come up against things like IEDs, new ways of attacking that we did not anticipate, and that will continue to evolve as the insurgents search for new ways to attack Americans. And we have to have the flexibility and the agility to provide new systems and new types of operations to counter what we are going to see not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the world in this global war against terrorism.

So we have given the tools to our troops today, and this is just part of the process, but we have initiated, with this bill, giving to our troops the tools that they need to get the job done. It has been a bipartisan effort, and the gentleman from Missouri has been a real partner in putting this bill together.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who is the vice chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, and who has done a great job in putting his package together in terms of modernizing our forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, and oversees those wonderful people in our Special Operations Command.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who chairs the Subcommittee on Readiness and does a wonderful job making sure our men and women have the facilities that they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who does such an able job of presiding over the Subcommittee on Military Personnel and who takes care of all of our folks in uniform, men and women, active, Guard, and Reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman who chairs the Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the previous speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who worked very hard on putting together the compromise amendment on women in combat.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I want to say, we all know one thing in this House Chamber, those who know the record of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), he is the finest border patrol chief probably in the history of our country. He has done a wonderful job.

We are on opposite sides of this vote. I think the gentleman pointed out very clearly one reason we can be on opposite sides of this vote, and that is, this is a permission which, arguably, the President already has. It is not a mandate; it is a permission. I would contemplate this would only be used in extraordinary circumstances.

Nonetheless, it is a resource that the Department of Homeland Security should have at their disposal should they need it for some exigency in the future.

I want to support the Goode amendment, as I have historically. I thank Members on both sides for a very high-level debate.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 13 offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and amendment No. 28 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and printed in House Report 109-96 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concern. I look forward to working with her to prevent unnecessary closures or transfers not just at West Point but also at DDESS across the country. I agree it is important to provide such benefits for our military personnel to not only recruit the best for our military but to provide the safety, security, and necessary programs to the DDESS students and their parents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), who has exhibited enormous concern and support for our men and women in uniform.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, she is a valued member of the committee, and let her know I support her amendment very strongly. I think it is an excellent partnership, and one that has taken place for many, many years. We hope at some point to have a Shining Sea Scout March from the shores of California all the way out to A.P. Hill, almost to the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a manager's amendment which has several components. One component is cruise missile funding for the supersonic cruise missile; another is a USS Oklahoma memorial; another is veterans' preference. But the heart of this manager's amendment is the amendment on women in combat, and that is not women in uniform as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) likes to describe it, but women in combat and the exclusion from direct ground combat in the United States Department of Defense.

Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear to everyone, because clarity is what we all want, there is presently a policy, a DOD policy, put forth by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, that has been adhered to, that continues the American policy and tradition of not having women in direct ground combat. That means manning machine guns, assaulting enemy positions at close range with rifle and bayonet, with tanks, with Bradley fighting vehicles, engaging in firefights; in short, doing all the things that we know now that we have elements of the Marine Special Operations and Army doing in the war against terror.

Now, the committee in asking, in inquiring of the Army as to what their position was on this as they go into the development of the new Army, it became clear that they were not sure.

There were three separate briefing teams sent to the Hill, each of whom had a different position within 3 days as to exactly what the policy would be of excluding women from direct ground combat. As a result of that, we had a provision in the bill that would statutorily take the Army policy, the present policy, and Xerox it, exactly the same policy, but would make it law.

We have had a number of people who have expressed concern about that. We have had also a number of people who want to make sure we maintain that policy and, as a result of that, we have, I think, an excellent compromise, an excellent provision in the bill which says this: if DOD wants to change the existing policy that excludes women from direct ground combat, they have to give Congress 60 continuous legislative days' notice.

Now, what that means is we have now injected ourselves, as we should, being people who under the Constitution have the obligation of regulating the Armed Forces, we have injected ourselves into any change of this long-standing DOD policy. We will have 60 legislative days, continuous legislative days, in which we can change that policy. We direct the Secretary of Defense to come back to us and tell us how he is going to implement that policy and specifically how he is going to reshape the Army and the Army modularity and comply with that 1994 policy which excludes women from direct ground combat.

This is an excellent provision, Mr. Chairman. And for all the women out there who are concerned about the possibility of being moved into direct ground combat, certainly we make it very clear they will not be, by action of the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, we live sometimes in a fantasy world here in Washington, D.C. Let me take us to the real world. The real world in direct ground combat is what you saw in Fallujah, where people were assaulting heavily fortified areas, very close range, fierce firefights, rocket-propelled grenades, machine gun fire, and in the end, 78 dead Marines, KIA.

I have here an article: ``War Makes Recruiting Women Tough.'' Reading from the Columbia State Journal: ``As the Iraq war wears on and casualties mount, young women are marching away from the Army.'' This is the real world, not the fantasy world the gentlewoman speaks about. ``The number of women in Army recruiting classes has dropped 20 percent in the last 5 years. Why the drop? `It's the war,' Army spokesman Douglas Smith said, adding `recruiting of women has slipped, despite larger signing bonuses and an increase in the number of recruiters.' ''

The facts are that 90 percent of the women polled who are in the Army do not want to go in direct ground combat. There may be people here in Washington, D.C. who want to send young women into direct ground combat, but the vast majority of those in the military do not want that. And the real reassurance to American moms and dads sitting around the breakfast table talking to their youngsters about joining the military is that they will not be sent into direct ground combat. And if a proposal is made to change that, then the U.S. Congress, under its obligation, will have a requirement to review that policy and act before it becomes the new policy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there are 2,800 job opportunities open to women in the military. This provision, very appropriately, injects Congress into the policy role of making the determination, if it should ever be proposed by DOD to move women into direct ground combat. That injects Congress into that policy role.

And if anybody makes that profound determination, it has to be Congress. I hope it is never made, but certainly we should not stand by and have such a profound decision made without the U.S. Congress weighing in. This guarantees our participation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 16 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and printed in House Report 109-96 be modified in the form I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, we are gathering our speakers, and I would hope my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) would be able to lead off with his speakers, so I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to thank the gentleman for his amendment.

There is nothing more important for our returning Guardsmen and Reservists than to know that they have a good job, and the idea of directing some of this money, the massive amount is $441 billion, that we pass in this bill goes to not only pay for people, but also to pay for the products that are used in the defense apparatus; to make sure that that is, as much as possible, those products are made by Americans. And made by Americans who are serving this flag should be a priority for our country.

So I can assure the gentleman, we will be happy to continue to work on this as it moves through the process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), in a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleague, I think he has brought a great idea forward. We have military bases around the country that serve not only the active duty folks, but also retired folks and disabled folks; and it seems absolutely appropriate that we make sure that those golf courses, all of which have electric golf carts, have some specialty carts to accommodate those who need them. So I will work with the gentleman, and let us see if we can make sure that there are enough carts available at all the courses to accommodate all the folks that need them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the translator provision that would give some accommodation to those folks who have served our U.S. military in those warfighting theaters, and I just wanted to give some credit for the originator of this proposal. It was a Marine captain in Fallujah who talked about the service of these translators, how much they risk, the exposure that they take, and the dedication that they have to America and to our cause. So it was that recommendation that found its way back to the floor of the House, and I am glad that we are passing it.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken in favor of this provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding because he mentioned our great colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley); and I know this is a matter of heartfelt importance to him and to his constituents, and to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and to all the Members who have bases in their districts that have been targeted.

I have had bases removed from our defense complex in San Diego. I know what it means and how difficult it is, and I can just say that those constituents have had no finer representation than the people who are fighting for them right now. I understand this is a very difficult process. It is a tough one.

We do have another, through this summer, the opportunity for communities to make their case with their congressional leadership to the base closing commission, which reports on September 5; and that is the course that all Members will have to take.

It is a tough, tough call. I join with my friend from Colorado in his analysis of this particular situation. I think the horse is out of the stable at this point, and we need to move ahead with the process; but I want to thank everyone who is involved in this debate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Make no mistake about it. This amendment is a message-sender. It is a message-sender to people like Al Sadr who are considering even now continuing to foment rebellion against the elected government in Iraq. It is a message-sender to Zarqawi and his followers, who think that perhaps the United States does not have the stomach to continue to oppose them. It is a message-sender to our troops, who might, in seeing if this amendment should pass, feel that the resolve of the American people is fading away.

This is precisely the kind of a message we do not want to send to friend and foe alike, and certainly not to the 140,000 Americans serving presently in Iraq, who feel that the country is strongly behind them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran of Desert Storm and the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz).

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

Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, we have an exit strategy, and that exit strategy is a free Iraq and a free government in Iraq and a military which is strong enough to protect that government. And that is the military that we are standing up right now, and that is the mission, and that is the timetable. And I would hope that the gentlewoman's amendment would be defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, this place and our accomplishments all depend on great staff people. And that is what we had in Mr. Robert Rangel, who has been the staff director over these last several terms on the Committee on Armed Services. He was a staff leader for some 18 years, heading up our great bipartisan staff, and he is now leaving.

I thought of all of the great descriptions of people who serve this Nation in uniform, that adherence to duty and honor and country, and I think those are the metrics by which Mr. Rangel has worked to serve our interests and serve the interests of the people of this country and to serve the interests of the people who wear the uniform of the United States.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, my good colleague from Mississippi has spoken of our great Guardsmen and Reservists a number of times in his very eloquent statement and talked about their deployment, their imminent deployment, or the deployment they are involved in right now or the one they are returning from in Afghanistan, Iraq, or other places around the world.

We, in fact, do provide TRICARE. It is medical care for every one of them and every one of their dependents, for 90 days before mobilization and 180 days after mobilization.

So this body, starting with the Committee on Armed Services and then the full House, moving and working with the Senate and with the President, have done that. Now, let me just tell you, there is a major problem from my perspective and I have looked at this during the last session and you have a major, major problem, because all of these people have jobs, they have employers who are carrying health care in the private sector right now. If you give an opportunity to employers, to the private sector, to terminate the health care that they are providing right now to their employees, once they understand that the government will pick up that health care pursuant to that status in the Guard, across the board, you are going to see that 18 percent of Guardsmen who right now do not have that health care, you are going to see that number go way up in the private sector and you are going to see, very simply, a large displacement of that burden from the private sector on to the DOD budget.

That gets to another responsibility that everyone here has. We have a responsibility to replace those 18-year-old helicopters. We have a responsibility to replace those jet aircraft that average now in the Navy about 17\1/2\ years old. We have a responsibility to replace those tanks, those trucks, those ships. If we take that $5.8 billion that this will amount to over 5 years, much of which will be the shifting of this burden from the private sector to DOD, we may think we have served that Guardsman very well in one way, but we will disserve him in another way because he will not have the best equipment.

Let me get to the issue at hand. We have a $500 billion bill which provides the tools to get the job done in this war against terror. The war really started when Todd Beamer, when that United flight was over Pennsylvania and he took on the terrorists and the last words we heard from him were, Let's roll. Let's roll echoed across the mountains of Afghanistan, through those dark canyons and those caves, across the sands of Iraq; and right now it is being carried in units like the 10th Mountain Division, the First Marine Division out to the western AO in Iraq, the First Armored Division in Baghdad, and all those great Guardsmen and Reservists who are fighting in this war against terror. We have provided in this bill the tools to get the job done.

Let us pass this bill. Let's roll.

Mr. Speaker, let me extend my thanks, and I know on the other side of the aisle the leadership and membership extend their thanks, to all of our great staff people who did such a wonderful job putting this bill together and bringing it to the House floor. We appreciate them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1815, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and the table of contents, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, and that the Clerk be authorized to make the additional technical corrections which are at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1815.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy regarding critical funding that still must be realized in this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for all his great work on this very difficult bill. We know that homeland security is an issue that is at the forefront of all Americans' minds with a lot of competing priorities. I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has worked hard to accommodate all of these competing programs. We appreciate that he still has a lot of

work to do, and we appreciate all the great work he did in the past in building that border fence that is presently in the number one smugglers corridor in America between California and Mexico.

And as the chairman knows, we have been constructing that border barrier for a number of years. In fact, I remember the days when a number of border patrolmen held a big sign up saying ``Thank you, Hal Rogers'' for the work that he has done. That fence has been a huge success in stopping drug smuggling, alien smuggling, lawlessness and the murders in that section of the border.

Unfortunately, the fence remains incomplete. And recently we provided the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with the authority passed by the full House to expeditiously construct border barriers, and I am specifically interested in that 3\1/2\ miles that remain on the San Diego border fence project.

Unfortunately, the construction account in this bill is insufficient to meet the needs of that nationally critical project, and each day that we delay this project becomes more expensive, and with every day that we delay we know that people are crossing in this section of the border, many of whom have criminal records, and we are further mindful of the intelligence reports that have indicated that terrorists are seeking to use this section of the border for access into the U.S.

Mr. Chairman, we understand that the chairman's bill provides $93 million for Customs and Border Protection construction. Can we agree to work with him to ensure that adequate funding is dedicated to this project in fiscal year 2006?

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his response.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very important member of our delegation and a real advocate for this border fence and border security.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his work for border security and for our country.