Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Lance Bret Taylor of Spring Valley, California. On April 6, 2005, Lance was traveling on a CH-47 Chinook helicopter when it crashed in the desert of Afghanistan, killing all eighteen Americans on board.

With the brave military personnel aboard that aircraft, there were three civilians, all noncombatants. Working for Halliburton subsidiary KBR, Lance was responsible for providing U.S. and coalition forces operating in Afghanistan with vital logistics and life support services.

A specialist in vector control who was returning to the U.S. base in Bagram from a mission, Lance was, like many Americans, proudly serving his country in other ways besides wearing a uniform. While Lance recognized the dangers inherent to working in a war zone, he was driven by a desire to help improve the lives of others.

Lance leaves behind his loving mother Lori, brother Kevin, his beautiful wife Deborah, a ten-year-old daughter, four stepchildren, and a baby granddaughter. He will continue to be remembered and loved by all those who knew him--not just today, but for as long as the U.S. defends the ideas of democracy and liberty throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the members of Lance's bereaved family and loved ones. Lance's dedication and service represents the best America has to offer and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor eight brothers who have distinguished service records worthy of commendation. Although men in the same families have served side by side and generation after generation throughout our nation's history, few families can claim the level of service that is shared by the Castro family. Together, the Castro brothers' military service totals 172 years, an average of nearly 22 years each.

As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I want to thank the Castro brothers for their distinguished leadership, dedication and service to their country, community and fellow veterans. My fellow colleagues, I ask that you join me in recognizing: Master Sergeant Abe Castro, Sergeant First Class Carlos Castro, Sergeant Jose Castro, Sergeant Juan Castro, Sergeant Erasmo Castro, Captain Julio Castro, Master Sergeant Basilio Castro, and Sergeant Arthur Castro. While each of the Castro brothers served our nation with honor and distinction, I would like to pay particular attention to the service of Abe and Jose Castro. As a rifleman in World War II and Korea, Abe was wounded a total of five times, received four Purple Hearts, two Combat Infantry Badges, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and seven battle stars. His brother Jose, who served in the Korean War, was wounded 3 times in combat, and recommended for the Bronze and Silver Stars.

During this time of conflict, patriotism runs high and many Americans ask what they can do for their country. The Castro brothers, like those on guard today, have made the bold and courageous decision to dedicate a part of their lives to making our nation and the world a safer place for all. They responded to our nation's call by voluntarily offering their service and contributing their very best.

In his first inaugural message as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, ``freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.'' We will continue to rely on individuals and families, like the Castros, that are willing to uphold the tradition of military service and put their nation before themselves.

Family means many things to different people. To the Castro brothers, family means military service. It is a real pleasure for me--both professionally and personally--to recognize and pay tribute to these brothers and their distinguished service records.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Retired Master Sergeant John Irvin Rowland of Montross, Va., who died on March 6th at the Virginia Veterans Care Center in Roanoke at the age of 87. John's daughter, Michelle served on my staff and Michelle often spoke of her father and his commitment to his country.

Sgt. Rowland was born September 1, 1917 in Fayette, Alabama and spent most of his childhood in Westbrook, Texas. After graduating from Westbrook High School in 1934, he worked the oil fields of Western Texas for Standard Oil.

John Rowland enlisted in the Army in 1940 and served with the 36th ID, 142nd Infantry, Antitank Company (the T-Patchers) until June 1945. In World War II, he fought with allied forces in the Italian/Southern France campaigns and was awarded his first Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for injuries he received while fighting in France. While in Germany, his unit liberated German concentration camps Dachau, Hurlach and Landsberg, and captured Nazi Luftwaffe Commander and war criminal, Hermann Goering. At the end of the war, he returned to Texas and continued working for Standard Oil.

But when his country needed him again, John re-enlisted in the Army and earned his second Bronze Star fighting in Korea. Following his training at the Intelligence School at Fort Hollabird in 1951, he served as a special agent in the Army Intelligence Corps in both Okinawa and then Berlin. He was one of the first Americans to observe East German activity as they began construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961. In Berlin, he met Ingrid Anna Zilenski and the two were married on December 30, 1962 and shortly thereafter retired from the Army and returned to Monahans, Texas.

After his discharge, he attended electrician training at the National Technical School in Los Angeles. In 1964, John took a job with the Social Security Administration in San Francisco and then for the Department of Defense in Philadelphia. He would eventually retire in 1984 from the DoD Logistics Agency where he inspected security systems for DoD contractors.

In all of his 40 years of service to our country, Sgt. John Rowland exemplified the virtues of honor, dignity, and leadership. He is being buried today at Arlington National Cemetery and I join the Rowland family in mourning Sgt. Rowland's passing.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

We started this fence about 20 years ago. We started it by building the first

steel fence across that 14-mile segment between the coastal hills of San Diego County and the Pacific Ocean. We did that because drug trucks were running that border at the rate of about 300 per month.

We had about 10 people being murdered each year, along with numerous robberies and rapes, to such a high degree that the best-selling book, ``Lines and Shadows'' by Joseph Wambaugh, was written depicting this ``no man's land,'' where nobody wanted to be after dark. So we built that first line, which was the steel fence right on the border.

We then built the second fence, that is, the second tier of the so- called triple fence, after we passed a law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And it was President Clinton who signed the bill waiving the Endangered Species Act and waiving NEPA because he thought it was so important that we have security at this, the most porous smugglers' corridor in the United States of America.

Now, I can just tell you, as a guy who has worked on this thing from the start, my staff went out and found those 79,000 steel landing mats to build this fence. If the extremists had discovered this fence before we got the first 12 miles built, that would not be built. We stopped those 300 drug trucks a month, stopped them dead. We eliminated the 10 murders a year, mostly of undocumented workers. We eliminated the hundreds of rapes of the people who were coming through there because we built that fence.

If the extremists had had their way, they would have gone to a sympathetic Federal court, tied us up in lawsuits and we would not have had the fence.

The Secretary of the Navy has written us a letter saying that completion of this project will enhance the security of our naval installations by reducing the potential threat environment created by an unsecured border. A few miles north of this gap in the fence is the biggest naval installation on the West Coast. Through this gap have come and been apprehended people from nations that sponsor terrorists, nations like North Korea, nations like Syria.

This is a security issue. And for people to say this is an environmental issue, this is the state of play right now, all these trails you see have been hammered into that ecosystem by the smugglers. None of my colleagues have been out there trying to stop them. They have hammered these trails by the hundreds into the ecosystem, hammered it into the marshlands and the estuary lands.

Good biologists say it will take hundreds of years for these areas to be restored, not by actions of the Border Patrol or by our security apparatus, but by the smugglers who come across this particular gap in the fence.

We need to secure this gap. The Secretary of the Navy recognizes that, President Clinton recognized that and gave an unprecedented waiver. We need to complete the border fence.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that, if passed, will once and for all protect our unborn children from harm. Over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children--born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, ``If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants'' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.'' Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.

The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.

This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any State or Federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the distinguished way in which he has conducted the debate and also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for sponsoring this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let us make this clear. This is not about some social issue. The real impetus for this barring of the American military from our college campuses is because of the left-wing core of administrators and professors who do not like this country. And we could substitute another protest issue for them in this thing and it would not make a bit of difference.

These are the same people who in many cases had protests in favor of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Many of them protested our involvement in El Salvador, protested our bringing democracy to Nicaragua, protested our participation in the first Desert Storm in the early 1990s, and in this recent bringing of freedom to Iraq. They protested all those things. They hate all things military.

And the interesting aspect of this debate is that these same left- wing professors and administrators profess to let young people make up their own minds. Free thinking is theoretically their trademark. Let us have some free thinking. Let us allow the military to be on the campuses. Let us allow the students to have access to their information, and let us let them make up their own minds. There is no draft here. This is a volunteer military. They do not have to join the military. But the idea that the left-wing professors and administrators have to protect the students from that very military that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) so eloquently described as the protectors of all of our freedoms including their freedoms to have academic freedoms, to protest and to speak freely, the idea that these students have to be shielded from the guarantors of our freedoms is nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am submitting the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for printing in the Congressional Record.

These rules were adopted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at a public meeting of the full committee, with a quorum being present.

Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Armed Services

rule 1. application of house rules

The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of

the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in

these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so

far as applicable.

rule 2. full committee meeting date

(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,

and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of

the Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the

``Chairman''), or by written request of members of the

Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives.

(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed

with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a

written request of a majority of the members of the

Committee.

rule 3. subcommittee meeting dates

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters

referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the

Committee and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A

subcommittee chairman shall set meeting dates after

consultation with the Chairman, the other subcommittee

chairmen, and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee

with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of

committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever

possible.

rule 4. subcommittees

Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating

to Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of

Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be

organized to consist of six standing subcommittees with the

following jurisdictions:

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and

Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and

lift programs, special operations and information technology

accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible

for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National

Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and

ammunition programs.

Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training,

logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition,

the subcommittee will be responsible for all military

construction, installations and family housing issues,

including the base closure process.

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and

Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and

counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the

subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations

Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,

information technology and programs, force protection policy

and oversight, and related intelligence support.

Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel

policy, reserve component integration and employment issues,

military health care, military education and POW/MIA issues.

In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale,

Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except

deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile

defense and Department of Energy national security programs

(except non-proliferation programs).

Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps

programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations

and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and

related systems, and strategic lift programs.

rule 5. committee panels

(a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee

consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and

take testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the

jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to

the Committee.

(b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for

more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the

expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman.

(c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative

jurisdiction.

rule 6. reference and consideration of legislation

(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters

to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.

(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup

only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or

subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of those

present and voting.

(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a

quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a

subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter

referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered

by the Committee.

(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not

be considered by the Committee until after the intervention

of three calendar days from the time the report is approved

by the subcommittee and available to the members of the

Committee, except that this rule may be waived by a majority

vote of a quorum of the Committee.

rule 7. public announcement of hearings and meetings

Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee or of

any subcommittee or panel shall make public announcement of

the date, place, and subject matter of any committee or

subcommittee hearing at least one week before the

commencement of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the

Committee or of any subcommittee or panel, with the

concurrence of the respective ranking minority member of the

Committee, subcommittee or panel, determines that there is

good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee,

subcommittee or panel so determines by majority vote, a

quorum being present for the transaction of business, such

chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible

date. Any announcement made under this rule shall be promptly

published in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the

committee scheduling service of the House Information

Resources, and promptly posted to the internet web page

maintained by the Committee.

rule 8. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings

Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

rule 9. meetings and hearings open to the public

(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of

business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by

the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public

except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session

and with a majority being present, determines by record vote

that all or part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting

on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure

of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered

would endanger the national security, would compromise

sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any

law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding

the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of

those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two

members of the Committee or subcommittee, may vote to close a

hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether

testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the

national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement

information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of

Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive

session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session,

a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present.

(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee

that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to

defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted

by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness

would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or

incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of

(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or

testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a

majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no

fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the

Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may

tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. A majority

of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two

members of the Committee or subcommittee, may also vote to

close the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of

discussing whether evidence or testimony to be received would

tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The

Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such

testimony in open session only if the Committee or

subcommittee, a majority being present, determines that such

evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade or

incriminate any person.

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of

the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by

letter to the Chairman, a member of that member's personal

staff with Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings

of the Committee, or that member's subcommittee(s) (excluding

briefings or meetings held under the provisions of committee

rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the provisions of

rule 9(a) above for national security purposes for the taking

of testimony. The attendance of such a staff member at such

hearings is subject to the approval of the Committee or

subcommittee as dictated by national security requirements at

that time. The attainment of any required security clearances

is the responsibility of individual members of the Committee.

(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or

Resident Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory

attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee,

unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote

authorize the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a

particular series of hearings on a particular article of

legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to

close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident

Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this rule

for closing hearings to the public.

(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same

procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five

additional consecutive days of hearings.

rule 10. quorum

(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving

evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.

(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or

subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,

with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of

the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:

(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;

(2) Closing committee or subcommittee meetings and hearings

to the public;

(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;

(4) Authorizing the use of executive session material; and

(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to close

to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would

tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.

(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the

House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee

is actually present.

rule 11. the five-minute rule

(a) The time any one member may address the Committee or

subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration

shall not exceed five minutes and then only when the member

has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman,

as appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded

by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall be

recognized for not to exceed five minutes to address the

Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the

member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The

five-minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee or subcommittee.

(b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or

subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be

recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as

appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving

subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the ranking

minority member will take precedence upon their arrival. In

recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion,

the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the

majority to minority members present and shall establish the

order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not

to disadvantage the members of either party.

(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in

or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, or

panel hearings and meetings.

rule 12. power to sit and act; subpoena power

(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions

and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee are

authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this

paragraph):

(1) to sit and act at such times and places within the

United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed,

or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and

(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the attendance

and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such

books, records, correspondence, memorandums, papers and

documents, including, but not limited to, those in electronic

form, as it considers necessary.

(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the

Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the

full Committee Chairman, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the

conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations or

activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members

voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being

present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the

Chairman, or by any member designated by the Chairman.

(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued

by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph

(a)(2) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the

House of Representatives.

rule 13. witness statements

(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to

the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the

Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of

presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the

Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance of

presentation. A copy of any such prepared statement shall

also be submitted to the Committee in electronic form. If a

prepared statement contains national security information

bearing a classification of secret or higher, the statement

shall be made available in the Committee rooms to all members

of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance

of presentation; however,

no such statement shall be removed from the Committee

offices. The requirement of this rule may be waived by a

majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a quorum

being present.

(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each

witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee

in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of

the proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at

such appearance to a brief summary of his or her argument.

rule 14. administering oaths to witnesses

(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,

may administer oaths to any witness.

(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following

oath:

``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you

will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the

matters now under consideration will be the truth, the whole

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?''

rule 15. questioning of witnesses

(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a

subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may

put questions to the witness only when recognized by the

Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that

purpose.

(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire

shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each

witness or panel of witnesses until such time as each member

has had an opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel

of witnesses; thereafter, additional rounds for questioning

witnesses by members are discretionary with the Chairman or

subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.

(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or

subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that

may be before the Committee or subcommittee for

consideration.

rule 16. publication of committee hearings and markups

The transcripts of those hearings and mark-ups conducted by

the Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the

Chairman to be officially published will be published in

verbatim form, with the material requested for the record

inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the

record, as appropriate. Any requests to correct any errors,

other than those in transcription, or disputed errors in

transcription, will be appended to the record, and the

appropriate place where the change is requested will be

footnoted.

rule 17. voting and rollcalls

(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,

division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.

(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-

fifth of those members present.

(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a

subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be

cast by proxy.

(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in

attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or

conference committee meeting during that time, the necessary

absence of that member shall be so noted in the record vote

record, upon timely notification to the Chairman by that

member.

rule 18. committee reports

(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by

the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely

notice of intention to file supplemental, minority,

additional or dissenting views, that member shall be entitled

to not less than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in

session on such days) in which to file such views, in writing

and signed by that member, with the staff director of the

Committee. All such views so filed by one or more members of

the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part

of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that

measure or matter.

(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report

any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the

measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and

against, the names of those voting for and against, and a

brief description of the question, shall be included in the

committee report on the measure or matter.

rule 19. points of order

No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure

reported by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground

that hearings on such measure were not conducted in

accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Committee;

except that a point of order on that ground may be made by

any member of the Committee or subcommittee which reported

the measure if, in the Committee or subcommittee, such point

of order was (a) timely made and (b) improperly overruled or

not properly considered.

rule 20. public inspection of committee rollcalls

The result of each record vote in any meeting of the

Committee shall be made available by the Committee for

inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices

of the Committee. Information so available for public

inspection shall include a description of the amendment,

motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each

member voting for and each member voting against such

amendment, motion, order, or proposition and the names of

those members present but not voting.

rule 21. protection of national security information

(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security

information bearing a classification of secret or higher

which has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee

shall be deemed to have been received in executive session

and shall be given appropriate safekeeping.

(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval

of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as

in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized

disclosure of any national security information received

classified as secret or higher. Such procedures shall,

however, ensure access to this information by any member of

the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner of the House of Representatives who has

requested the opportunity to review such material.

rule 22. committee staffing

The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,

and any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to

the rules of the House of Representatives,

rule 23. committee records

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the ranking

minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee

for a determination on the written request of any member of

the Committee.

rule 24. hearing procedures

Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Background

As the lead House conferee on those matters before the

conference involving support and execution of defense

intelligence activities, I find it necessary to offer

amplifying remarks on the intent of House conferees on these

critical areas of interest. It is unfortunate that the

conference leadership saw fit to reduce the customary

statement of managers to the most cursory and minimalist of

documents. With all the new organizational structures and

revamped relationships required by this legislation, it is

particularly critical that clear legislative intent be

established to guide the executive branch in implementing and

executing this legislation for decades to come.

Thus, the following remarks represent my attempt to provide

such clarifying intent for selected provisions of the

conference report on S. 2845 that was approved by the House

of Representatives on December 7, 2004.

House Armed Services Committee Consideration of Intelligence Reform

During the late summer and early fall of this year, the

House Armed Services Committee held a series of hearings on

the recommendations contained in the 9/11 Commission Report

prior to marking up H.R. 10, the House version of this

intelligence reform legislation. The Committee on Armed

Services' markup of H.R. 10 was limited to Title 1, the

National Security Intelligence Improvement Act of 2004, which

addresses the core issue of the commission report, namely the

organization of the intelligence community. Thus, during the

conference between the Senate and the House, I, as Chairman

of the Committee on Armed Services, focused primarily on

Title I provisions and the potential effect of these

statutory changes on the ability of the Secretary of Defense

to ensure that troops in combat have the intelligence support

they need.

Since a large proportion of the funding and personnel

involved in the national intelligence mission reside in the

Department of Defense and exist in large measure to support

troops in combat, the committee was concerned that the

reorganization of the intelligence community does not in any

way deprive combatant commanders of needed full spectrum

intelligence. It was clear as we conducted our deliberations

on this matter that the 9/11 Commission found no fault with

the operation of the DOD elements of the intelligence

community and did not intend to affect the ability of these

agencies to support the combatant commanders. It was also

clear in my deliberations with fellow conferees in both the

Senate and House of Representatives that the conferees had no

intent to negatively affect these delicate relationships. In

other words, all conferees believe that the Secretary of

Defense should continue to be able to manage the elements of

the intelligence community resident in DOD to provide all

necessary support to commanders in the field. So that

there is no misunderstanding of that intent, I have

prepared a description of how DOD intelligence support

operates today, accompanied by a description of how the

conferees intend for the new Director of National

Intelligence (DNI) to implement his new authorities with

respect to DOD.

Department of Defense Support of National Intelligence Mission

The Department of Defense operates the majority of the

nation's national intelligence apparatus through the National

Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the

National Geospatial-intelligence Agency, and the Defense

Intelligence Agency. These agencies support the intelligence

requirements of both the Director of Central Intelligence

(DCI) and the Secretary of Defense under a well established

partnership arrangement. That partnership works effectively

today and was effective before September 11, 2001, according

to testimony before the committee by the leadership of the 9-

11 Commission.

The reason for this complicated arrangement is that our

nation's intelligence assets are a unique and valuable

instrument of national security policy that must serve

multiple purposes. We do not have two separate intelligence

systems. Today, the same national capability and the same

satellites that inform the President and senior policymakers

are also used by front line military forces to carry out

their mission. The use of expensive, complex systems for

multiple purposes is both efficient and synergistic to

effective intelligence analysis. Our tactical successes in

both Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously providing

strategic intelligence to national policy makers, demonstrate

the flexibility and effectiveness of the current intelligence

sharing structure.

This integration of national and tactical intelligence and

the sharing of information to users up and down the command

chain is a proven strategy that the House Armed Services

Committee has been developing for well over a decade.

Therefore, the suggestion that national and tactical

intelligence operations and assets can be surgically split

into separate organizations (and budgets) fails to understand

the negative impact such a step would have on how we operate

and perform on today's modern battlefield. Consequently, the

budget authorities assigned to the newly created Director of

National Intelligence (DNI) under H.R. 10 were carefully

crafted to preserve the ability of the Secretary of Defense

to rely on these agencies to supply critical military

intelligence to combatant commanders, yet enable the DNI to

effectively perform his national intelligence mission.

The system works today because of the delicately balanced

partnership that exists between the DCI and the Secretary of

Defense. Thus, as we codify this new organizational concept

that creates a Director of National Intelligence to manage

the community, the conferees sought to protect this critical

partnership to ensure that we do not weaken those parts of

the intelligence system that work well and are critical to

the life and death of our men and women in uniform.

Conferees' Intent

H.R. 10 was crafted in such a way that the prerogatives of

senior cabinet officials were preserved and the delicate

balance described above was maintained, while the Senate bill

provided the DNI with more unilateral authority to manage the

intelligence community. As would be expected, the conference

agreement resulted in compromises that shifted the balance

somewhat. In particular, in an effort to bridge the

differences between the two bills, House conferees agreed to

alternative language formulations on a broad range of issues,

including those related to budget authority, budget

reprogramming authority, and personnel transfer authority.

Budget Execution

First, the new section 1011 provides the DNI with authority

to determine the budgets for national intelligence programs

operated by the elements of the intelligence community,

including the four major national intelligence agencies that

are part of the Department of Defense. The conferees clearly

intend that the DNI will rely heavily on the recommendations

of the Secretary of Defense in the development and management

of the appropriations of any Department of Defense element of

the intelligence community, and will not involve himself

unnecessarily in the budget details of DOD agencies. Clearly,

section 1018 of the conference agreement preserves the

authority of the Secretary of Defense to operate his

department, including and especially in regard to budgetary

matters affecting his agencies. In section 1011, the

conferees intended to provide the DNI with broad oversight of

national intelligence budgetary matters to be able to assure

that national intelligence strategic objectives and programs

are adequately supported. Again, the conferees did not intend

for the DNI to become routinely involved in internal

execution of DOD intelligence programs.

Classification of Budget Intelligence Topline

The Senate bill contained a budget execution mechanism that

would have resulted in the declassification of the total

funding level provided to the intelligence community, known

as the topline. The conferees agreed that topline number

should remain classified, and deliberately designed the

budget execution authorities in section 1011 to achieve that

objective. This was an important negotiating point in

conference discussions, and there should be no confusion over

the intent of the conferees to preserve the secrecy of the

total funding allocated to the intelligence activities of the

United States.

Budget Reprogramming

Similarly, the conference agreement, also in section 1011,

provides the DNI with greater reprogramming authority than is

found in H.R. 10. H.R. 10, as passed by the House, provides

the DNI with unilateral reprogramming authority within the

National Intelligence Program for up to $100 million annually

per department for ``unforeseen requirements.'' Even though

the conferees agreed in the final conference report to allow

the DNI to reprogram within the national intelligence program

up to $150 million for any purpose that ``increases

efficiency,'' it is the firm expectation of the conferees

that any large reprogramming should only be made to meet

unforeseen requirements and that every effort should be

made to execute such reprogrammings with collaboration and

concurrence of the affected agency and department heads.

As a matter of policy, the appropriate process for

efficiency adjustments to an agency's programs is the

regular budget process and not reprogramming actions.

While the conference agreement provides the DNI with this

reprogramming tool, the conferees expect that use of this

authority would be exceedingly rare and in times of real

emergency.

Personnel Transfers

Section 1011 also provides the DNI with unilateral

authority to transfer personnel out of elements of the

intelligence community under limited circumstances. Under the

conference agreement, the DNI has the authority to create a

new national intelligence center for any reasonable purpose

and may transfer up to 100 personnel from anywhere within the

intelligence community to the new center, without the

concurrence of the head of the agency to which the personnel

are assigned. The conferees expect that the DNI will use this

authority sparingly and as a last resort. The conferees

believe that any emergent need that mandates the creation of

a new national intelligence center will be managed in a

collegial fashion in any administration, with the DNI and

agency heads involved able to jointly determine the

appropriate staffing support for the new center. Further, the

conferees expect the DNI to develop working agreements with

all appropriate Congressional committees of oversight over

agencies and departments within the National Intelligence

Program to establish necessary notification procedures

similar to those utilized for prior approval reprogramming of

appropriations.

Personnel Management

A significant proportion of the personnel working in the

intelligence community are assigned to the Department of

Defense, and military personnel are a large part of that

workforce. The conferees agree that the DNI should have a

role in the management and professional development of

civilian personnel assigned to the disparate parts of the

intelligence community, but do not intend that the DNI have

the same authority over military personnel. Military

personnel are subject to the personnel management provisions

found in title 10, United States Code, and are promoted to

senior grades based on meeting statutory requirements for

joint service. The conferees agree that it would be

inappropriate for military personnel to be managed by both

the DNI and the Secretary of Defense, and intend that the

personnel management authorities found in section 1011 of the

conference report apply principally to civilian personnel.

Acquisition Authority

The conferees intend that the provision that provides the

DNI with joint milestone decision acquisition authority over

defense programs contained in the national intelligence

program will be used in a spirit of cooperation with the

Secretary of Defense, with each official giving due weight to

the needs of the other as new national intelligence programs

are procured. In no way do the conferees intend for the

DNI to have veto power over DOD programs. The Secretary of

Defense retains the authority and responsibility to

develop and field intelligence assets that will support

the troops in combat. The conferees expect that the

Secretary will work with the DNI to develop and field

systems that can reasonably accommodate both the DNI's

national intelligence needs as well as combatant commander

requirements, and expect the DNI to fully support the

needs of the Secretary and the combatant commanders.

DNI Control over Military Programs

To ensure that combatant commander requirements were

satisfied, H.R. 10 excluded from DNI controls all military

intelligence programs within the Joint Military Intelligence

Program (JMIP) and the Tactical Intelligence and Related

Activities (TIARA) program. The Senate bill provided the DNI

with partial control over JMIP programs, including non-

national, or military programs. The Senate receded from its

provision that would provide the DNI control over non-

national JMIP programs, and the conference report provides

that the Secretary of Defense will exclusively manage and

execute JMIP programs.

The conference agreement also goes beyond H.R. 10 in regard

to the intelligence tasking authority of the DNI. National

intelligence assets provide real time, life and death

information to our troops in combat, and must be available to

the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders when

needed. There is broad agreement among conferees that the

needs of troops engaged with the enemy shall always take

priority in tasking national intelligence assets. I only very

reluctantly agreed to this language based on assurances of

all the conferees and senior administration officials that

the combatant commanders and engaged troops would never be

denied the intelligence support they need, notwithstanding

the statutory authority of the DNI to direct the assets

elsewhere. Furthermore, combatant commanders need

intelligence on a continuous basis, not only when engaged in

combat operations. The conferees expect that combatant

commander requirements will continue to enjoy a high priority

for collection and analysis, in times of peace as well as

time of war.

Authority of Director of National Counter Terrorism Center

Section 1021 of the conference agreement, like H.R. 10,

provides the Director of the National Counter Terrorism

Center with the authority to conduct ``strategic operational

planning'' of the nation's counter terrorism operations.

Unlike H.R. 10, the conference agreement defines strategic

operational planning with a specificity that could be

misinterpreted in a manner that suggests the conferees

intended for the NCTC director to become involved in tasking

internal elements of agencies to perform such missions. To

the contrary, the conferees have included specific language

stating that the director may not direct the execution of

counterterrorism missions and have included section 1018,

which clearly preserves the prerogatives of the chain of

command in operational matters. Some managers in the other

body have made contradictory statements concerning the role

of the NCTC in strategic operational planning. On the one

hand, it is suggested that the NCTC would operate much like

the Joint Staff, planning broad missions but not becoming

immersed in the details. This first interpretation is in

fact what the conferees intended. On the other, it has

been suggested that strategic operational planning would

involve the NCTC in selecting specific mission objectives,

and possibly directly tasking subordinate elements of the

Department of Defense and other agencies. This sort of

activity was decidedly not contemplated by the conferees,

and was one reason why House conferees insisted on the

inclusion of section 1018 preserving the chain of command.

In no case may the NCTC directly task an internal element

of the Department of Defense outside the statutory chain

of command. The use of military force to achieve national

objectives is the statutory responsibility of the

Secretary of Defense, and the conferees intend that

Secretary will be fully and authoritatively involved in

any instance where the NCTC or any other outside agency

proposes to employ the assets of the Department of

Defense.

Chain of Command Protection

As noted above, the conferees included, with the

President's full support, section 1018 that reaffirms the

sanctity of the chain of command. The chain of command, by

operation of title 10, United States Code, runs

from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the

combatant commander involved. There must be no confusion

about who is in charge in the execution of military

operations. The conference report provides the DNI with a

broad coordinating and integrating role to ensure that the

nation does not endure another intelligence failure, but the

conferees have not bestowed upon the DNI the authority to

independently direct and manage elements of the intelligence

community that are part of other government departments, such

as Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and most critically,

Defense.

It has been suggested by managers in the other body that

section 1018 does not authorize the President or department

heads to override the DNI's authority contained in this

legislation. That assertion is plainly wrong. The original

language that the other body suggested for inclusion in the

conference report would have made the DNI's authority in this

legislation exempt from existing statutory language

concerning the chain of command, such as sections 113(b) and

162(b) of title 10, United States Code. However, that

language was not accepted by the conferees. The language of

section 1018 that was finally agreed to specifically protects

the military chain of command. Assertions that the President

and the Secretary of Defense have no authority to override

the DNI with regard to commanding and controlling all

elements of the Department of Defense are not correct.

Further, it is important to note that the President has

consistently upheld this principle by endorsing the necessity

of a clear ``preservation of authorities'' provision in this

legislation. As stated in his letter to the conferees of

December 6, 2004,

``Accordingly, in developing implementing guidelines and

regulations for this bill, it is my intention to ensure that

the principles of unity of command and authority are fully

protected. It remains essential to preserve in the heads of

the executive departments the unity of authority over and

accountability for the performance of those departments. In

particular, as we continue to prosecute the global war on

terrorism, the integrity of the military chain of command

must continue to be respected and in no way abrogated.''

It is critical that there be no ambiguity about the intent

of Congress as this legislation is implemented, and I will be

particularly diligent in my oversight role to ensure that the

intelligence needs of the Department of Defense are fully met

as the various complex new relationships provided by this

legislation are implemented in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Rita Thompson upon her retirement from the House Armed Services Committee after 30 years of loyal and dedicated service to the United States Congress.

Rita grew up in southwestern Virginia and before coming to work for Congress, she worked for the Department of the Army in the Pentagon for 5\1/2\ years.

Rita began her career on Capitol Hill in January 1974 with the House Armed Services

Committee. During her years on the committee she has worked on the Personnel Subcommittee, and directly with the General Counsel and the Staff Director. For the past 20 years she has held the position of Professional Staff Member and served as the committee's senior administrator, managing a multi million-dollar annual budget, and organizing Congressional travel, among many other duties. As a result of her position and responsibilities, Rita has regularly interacted not only with Members of Congress, but also with Senators, foreign dignitaries, and high ranking military officials.

Rita's committee service has spanned six presidents, seven committee chairmen, and seven staff directors. I speak for myself, past chairmen and ranking minority members, and any and everyone who has had the privilege of working with Rita, in thanking her for her tireless work and dedication to the House Armed Services Committee.

Rita's charm has always been a trademark of her personality. In a place where many people come and go, Rita has been a symbol of commitment and dedication from which many of us could learn. I congratulate her on her retirement and thank her for over three decades of honorable service to this Congress and her country. On behalf of the House Armed Services Committee and the United States Congress, I wish you the best of luck as you begin this new chapter of your life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, for the House, walking through this conference report has been largely a defensive action, if you will, a holding action; and I want to compliment all of the great Members of the House who managed to hold off what initially was a political stampede that would have passed a piece of legislation that would have accrued to the detriment of the people who wear the uniform of the United States and, I think, to our intelligence apparatus.

We had to walk back things like opening up the top line, the classified top line to the world, letting our adversaries know how much we spend on intelligence. We had to walk back this idea that somehow we were going to send the money for the combat support agencies around the Department of Defense, not allow the Department of Defense to have a normal working relationship with its own combat support agencies. In fact, it took a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, to the conferees to say the House position is the right position, to back off some of those who were stampeding in the wrong direction. Ultimately, we had to address this most important issue: chain of command.

Now, interestingly, before this bill was brought up on the other side of the Hill, on the Senate side, the President sent a strong message saying we must have chain-of-command language to make sure that there is no confusion about lines of execution. The authors of the bill on the other side did not put that language in. My counterpart, Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then saying that he was afraid that this bill did violate and intrude on the chain of command, offered an amendment to establish what the administration wanted, to establish strong chain-of-command language that would ensure that a battlefield commander would have all the assets in his area of operation for his combatant commands. Senator Warner's language was rejected by the leadership of this bill on the Senate side.

As we got into the conference, the administration sent another message. They said, you know, you forgot something. You forgot the chain-of-command language. Once again, it was not included. When it finally was included, it was accompanied by weasel words which basically invalidated the entire section. On several occasions the conferees on the other side changed the weasel words, but they still had a provision which basically violated the entire section, or invalidated the entire section, and left us with nothing.

So, in the end, 17 days ago when we were asked in the Republican conference what we thought about this bill, I and many other people had to speak up and point out that this very important chain of command was not protected in the conference report and needed to be protected.

In the end, on Saturday night, we sent to Senator Collins' staff a chain-of-command provision to respect and not abrogate the chain of command, citing the statutes that are relevant, to Senator Collins through her chief of staff. He said she would get back Monday morning. She did get back and approved that section. And we said that when I saw that in writing in an amendment to the conference report, I would then support the conference. We have gotten that today, and I have signed the conference report.

This bill, now, with these changes, including classifying the top line, walking back this wild attempt to remove the Department of Defense from its own budget flow to its combat support agencies and, finally, this attempt to keep the chain of command in a position where it was questionable; having walked back all of those attempts to change this bill in a manner that would accrue to the detriment of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and moving instead to a situation in which they are protected, with a solid insulation in the chain of command so a combat commander in Afghanistan or Iraq can now count on being able to use all of his assets in that theater to protect his troops and perform his mission; having done that, this bill, in my estimation, is now acceptable, and I am supporting this bill. I am going to vote for this bill.

I agree fully with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and others who think that the driver's license issue is of great importance. It is of great importance. We need to get that issue up and through as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent, Intelligence Specialist Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephanie A. Storch. Senior Chief Storch is retiring after twenty-one years of dedicated service to the nation.

Senior Chief Storch began her career in 1983 as a Mess Specialist. During her initial assignment to Naval Radio Receiving Facility (NRRF) Kami Seya, Japan, her professionalism was first recognized when she was selected a 1985 Junior Sailor of the Quarter. In 1986 she joined the Intelligence field and reported to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron THREE (VQ-3), Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii.

Senior Chief Storch served throughout the Pacific Theater and the Middle East in a career that focused on Intelligence training and Naval Special Warfare operations. Her leadership and academic accolades are numerous from her 1993 Navy League Woman of the Year selection to the distinction of graduating in the top 1 percent of her Berlitz Language School Arabic class. Senior Chief Storch's Special Operations and Training expertise merged in March 2000, when she was assigned to Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command as the Force Intelligence Specialist for Naval Special Warfare.

Senior Chief Storch culminates her service at the Joint Intelligence Training Activity Pacific (JITAP) where she is the Asymmetric Warfare Branch Head and Senior Enlisted Advisor. She is an Intelligence professional and leader who always put the welfare of her sailors first. Senior Chief Storch's performance reflects greatly on herself, the United States Navy, and our country. I extend my deepest appreciation to Intelligence Specialist Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephanie A. Storch for her 21 years of dedicated military service and wish her and her family all the best in the years to follow. I am glad to hear that upon retirement, Senior Chief Storch and her family, CWO3 Ernest J. Storch, USN and two sons, Adam and Daniel will continue to make San Diego County their home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry Jackson, my friend and fellow paratrooper in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, who passed away last month due to cancer at the young age of 66. Henry was the consummate soldier and retired from the United States Army after achieving the rank of E-7. Even after retirement, he continued to serve his country, working as a civilian security officer on the Naval base near his home in New Orleans.

He was immensely proud of his family and had five sons who followed his footsteps by serving in the military. Henry died with dignity in the Veterans Hospital on July 6, 2004. He leaves behind a beautiful family as well as his legacy that will help keep our country strong.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 842) requesting return of official papers on S. 1301, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is the last piece of the border fence. We have 14 miles of the most extensive smugglers' corridor in the United States. That is where more smugglers move cocaine, undocumented workers and potentially terrorists through this corridor that lies between San Diego and Tijuana.

In a bill signed by President Clinton, in fact giving the Attorney General the right to waive the Endangered Species Act, it was considered to be so important. We have built now of this 14-mile stretch, 11 miles. Only 3 miles remain. The Secretary of the Navy has sent us a letter saying that there are security reasons to have that last piece of the border fence constructed.

Let me just tell you what is happening in the 6 years that these slow-roll negotiations have gone on and on and on, and the California Coastal Commission and other agencies never go along with this thing. While that has happened, we have had North Koreans coming in the smugglers' corridor, as documented by the Border Patrol. We have had Iraqis coming in through that corridor. We have had Iranians coming in through that corridor.

If you want to come in as a terrorist into the United States, do not come in through LAX. Come in on the land border between Mexico and the U.S. If you come through the gap in the fence that we are talking about, you are right there at one of the most sophisticated American naval bases in the world.

We need to build this fence. It is in line with national security, in line with President Clinton's law. Let us get it done.