Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4939 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 725, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald, regarding funding for election activities under FEMA;

An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding limitations on foreign media;

An amendment by Mr. Hinchey, regarding funding for contracts using other than competitive procedures;

An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding funding for flood control programs;

An amendment by Mr. Melancon, regarding agriculture disaster relief for Louisiana;

An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding funding for HUD and FEMA disaster relief;

An amendment by Mr. Jefferson, regarding increased funding for HUD;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding increased funding for rental housing under HUD;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to strike certain Secretarial authorities to waive low- and moderate-income requirements;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding limiting certain funds on gulf coast elections;

An amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, regarding approval of disaster loans;

An amendment by Mr. Paul, regarding funding for the State of Texas;

An amendment by Mr. Tierney, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway, to strike section 3010;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway, regarding LIHEAP funding and ANWR and OCS drilling;

An amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, regarding demonstrations within cemeteries;

An amendment by Mr. Nadler, regarding ocean shipping containers;

An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding deadlines for SBA loans;

An amendment by Ms. Velazquez, regarding SBA loan rates;

An amendment by Mr. Hall, regarding child care subsidies;

An amendment by Ms. DeLauro to repeal avian flu liability provisions;

An amendment by Mr. Berry of Arkansas, regarding the enrollment period for Medicare benefits;

An amendment by Ms. Kaptur, regarding establishment of a House Select Committee;

An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding FEMA termination of housing activities;

An amendment by Mr. DeFazio, regarding limitation on funds with an exception for constitutional activities;

An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding funding for pandemic flu;

An amendment by Mr. Reyes, regarding the Veterans Administration;

An amendment by Mr. Gingrey, to strike funding for the Historic Preservation Fund;

An amendment by Mr. Westmoreland, to strike section 3006;

An amendment by Ms. Foxx, to strike funding for the Broadcasting Board of Governors;

An amendment by Mr. Flake, to strike section 3007;

An amendment by Mr. Inslee, regarding FISA;

An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, to strike certain language regarding HUD funding distribution;

An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding HUD funding distribution among the States;

An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas;

An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding additional funding for Texas offset by State Department and FEMA disaster relief funds;

An amendment by Mr. Brady of Texas, regarding redirection of HUD funding for educational costs in Texas;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, regarding educational and cultural exchange programs;

An amendment by Mr. Waxman, regarding DOD contracts, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer, eliminating funding in title II, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Obey, regarding availability of certain LIHEAP funds, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding funding for Homeland Security, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes (and which shall be in order at any point in the reading);

An amendment by Ms. Lee, regarding Iraq, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for VA offset from FEMA disaster relief;

An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding defense programs offset from FEMA disaster relief;

An amendment by Mr. Jindal, regarding funding for military construction offset by FEMA disaster relief;

An amendment by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, regarding military construction.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

The amendment seeks to add $430 million for armoring levees in addition to the $170 million already contained in the bill. The supplemental bill before us provides the request of $170 million to armor the most critical portions of the hurricane protection system that are judged by the Corps of Engineers to be the most critical to providing near-term protection to the citizens of New Orleans.

The funding, as provided, is not geographically specific and can be used across the entire hurricane protection system to armor the areas identified by the Corps as the most vital. This funding is sufficient to address the most essential armoring requirements as identified by the Corps of Engineers.

According to the Corps, only 16 percent of the requested $170 million can be expended in 2006. Given that the Corps will only be able to expend a very limited amount of the $170 million this fiscal year, the provision of additional funding will not result in more near-term protection for the region.

Activities that occur predominately in fiscal year 2007 and beyond do not qualify for emergency funding in this supplemental. They should be addressed in the regular order of our fiscal year 2007 energy and water bill.

The amendment also seeks to add an additional $35 million to accelerate the study phase of the Morganza to the Gulf project. I would like to point out that the study was funded at $11 million in 2006 through both the regular bill and the supplemental funding. The study is ongoing, and it is funded for activities through this fiscal year.

The construction activities require additional authorization. This study does not rise to the level of an emergency. I urge my colleagues to work

with me to pursue this in regular order.

I must mention to my colleague that I have these kind of problems in northern California, that I can similarly put in this emergency supplemental. But, frankly, they are more logical for regular order.

So, with that, I would ask my colleague to consider withdrawing his amendment. Failing that, I am afraid I must oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I must say to the gentleman that I do have similar questions that are very much like this in northern California, critical circumstances; and it just is not appropriate in the portion of this emergency bill. Because of that, I would have to oppose the gentleman's request.

On the amendment that we are considering, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

It has been withdrawn.

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

Madam Chairman, let me express my appreciation to the gentleman for his cooperation.

In the meantime, I must make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Madam Chairman, because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) is so cooperative and such a great friend, I hate to have to exercise my procedural responsibilities here, but, Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides appropriations for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program, and thereby violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:

``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Madam Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

This amendment states a legislative condition, and I am asking for a ruling of the Chair.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I must say that the gentleman came over to this side to chat with me about this circumstance a while ago, and as I was listening, people keep buzzing other things in my ear. I thought he was making jest about the gentleman from Michigan, but he was talking about another gentleman who thinks he is more Irish than we are who may be elsewhere.

In the meantime, I told the gentleman that my mother's name is O'Farrell, and I am as disconcerted as he is. So I must say to the gentleman that I truly am sorry that you and I are not there together.

If the gentleman will yield, I am happy to do that, but also, if you wanted to take up the other amendment, I would be glad to stand in for the other gentleman who is not here.

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

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

Madam Chairman, the Air Force and the Navy together requested $55.9 million for base exchange projects at Keesler Air Force base, and the Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport in Mississippi. The request for Keesler was $40 million. The request for two projects at Gulfport, $15.9 million. The committee has not included funding for these facilities. Base exchanges, including construction, are typically resourced through non appropriated funds. The exchanges use their sales revenue to fund their operations as well as their capital costs.

Congress provided $3.8 million to construct a temporary exchange at Keesler in December in the December supplemental. But now we are being asked to build a permanent facility at over 10 times that cost.

The committee is concerned about setting a precedent for using military construction funds for exchanges. We have been told that the Army and Air Force Exchange Service has a $251 million capital budget for Fiscal Year 2006, and the Navy Exchange has a capital budget of $68 million. We believe that they should first look to their capital budgets to prioritize and fund these projects.

The committee is also concerned about the exchanges policy of self insuring these facilities. This means that when a disaster happens, like Hurricane Katrina, a fire and so forth, the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill. That is why we had directed the Department of Defense to take a hard look at the possibility of privately insuring these facilities. We don't tell AAFES or NEX what to do with their non appropriated funds. But we are concerned about them passing on these risks and costs to taxpayers. The committee will continue to take a look at this issue as we go into conference with the Senate. But at this point, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment. I very much appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and would appreciate his further cooperation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chairman, let me say how much I appreciate the cooperation of Mr. Conaway this evening. He has been helpful at every end of our business. But in the meantime, I have this responsibility that causes me to make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law.

In this case, this amendment imposes additional duties.

So, Madam Chairman, I ask for a ruling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the consideration of H.R. 4939, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, today we turn our attention to the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental, addressing the global war on terror and the gulf coast disaster assistance.

The committee-recommended funding levels is $91.833 billion, which is $400 million below the President's request.

The bill provides for $67.6 billion in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The supplemental fully funds the administration's request of $4.85 billion to train and equip security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The bill earmarks, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the bill earmarks $850 billion over the President's request to upgrade Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. The committee is also earmaking, I repeat, Mr. Chairman, earmarking an additional $480 million over the request for newer, self-up-armored Humvees, for a total of $890 million of earmarks.

The committee has fully funded the President's request to procure and develop countermeasures to prevent IED attacks on our troops. The bill also includes the enhanced $400,000 life insurance benefit for servicemembers and $100,000 death gratuity for combat-related fatalities.

The committee did not fund $1 billion of the request for various construction projects related to security training activities in the region because they were poorly defined and not well justified.

The committee did provide a five-fold increase for the Department of Defense Inspector General to monitor war expenditures.

Under title II, the supplemental provides $19.1 billion for hurricane-related disaster assistance, including $9.55 billion for FEMA's disaster relief fund. The bill also provides $4.2 billion for HUD community development block grants to address long-term recovery and restoration of devastated areas.

The bill also provides the requested amount of $1.46 billion for various flood control projects and levee repairs by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

This legislation also requires FEMA to provide better reporting on the expenditure of disaster funds and provides funding for the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute fraud cases.

Like most Members of the House, I have heard from many of my constituents expressing strong concerns about the possibility of foreign-owned companies managing U.S. ports. As a result of those concerns, the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly, and in a bipartisan fashion, adopted an amendment that prohibits the company, Dubai Ports World, owned by one of the governing bodies of the United Arab Emirates, from taking over the operation of any port facility in the United States.

It was not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to have the committee rewrite the Defense Production Act or change the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the CFIUS process. Those are very complex policy decisions which rest primarily with the Financial Services Committee. Additionally, the Homeland Security Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on International Relations have a great deal of interest in this matter.

The straightforward amendment adopted in our committee was crafted to block only the Dubai Ports World deal. This is a national security issue. This is a national security bill. Our goal is to ensure that security of our ports is in America's hands.

During our debate, Mr. Chairman, on the supplemental, I fully expect an amendment to strike this language from the bill. This striking amendment, which will likely fail on a broad bipartisan basis, gives our Members the opportunity to voice their strong opposition to the port deal. It will also send a strong and unmistakable message that the Congress and the American people stand united on the critical national security issue that involves the ports.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on the passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my mentor, the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who now chairs the Subcommittee on National Security.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all

points of order against provisions in H.R. 4939 be waived.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4939 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 725, that the following amendments may be offered at any point in the reading:

An amendment by Mr. Gilchrest regarding section 3011; and an amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding the Defense Production Act; and that each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; and that each amendment shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I am certainly aware of the devastating impact of last year's hurricane season, and you have my assurances that I will work with you and do everything I can to address this issue when we go to conference with the Senate on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for the purpose of a colloquy.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield half that time to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am doing this in no small part because I have been looking for an accurate description of ``holy pictures'' for some time now since I have been dealing with my friend from Wisconsin, and in this process we are going through today, I think I may have found at least one snapshot.

What we have done in this bill is attempt to respond to a very serious concern on the part of the American public regarding having a country or an organization that is related to a country in the Middle East having authority or control over any of our ports in this country. It is viewed by many as a serious national security issue, and this is a national security bill.

Our goal is to make certain that we have thought through this Dubai Ports World deal very carefully before moving forward. The language is to stop that deal. It is rather straightforward. The 62-2 vote in the committee indicates the broad cross-section of public reaction reflected in the membership to going forward without some action on the part of the committee, and thus this language in the bill. It is rather straightforward.

I welcome this discussion today, and intend to be as helpful as I can to those opposing our language.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

We are on the amendment dealing with the Dubai Ports. Does the gentleman know that?

I thought that is why you were asking to speak. But that is okay. Just go right ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I will use just a few seconds to close.

We oppose this amendment for security purposes. This language should remain in the bill to make certain that Dubai Ports World does not have any management control or authority over any of our major ports.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to one of our Capitol Police Officers, Detective David E. Novak, who will retire after more than 20 years of service. During his career, Dave's dedication, professionalism, and expertise have served the Congress well, and his important contributions will be missed.

Special Agent Novak grew up in Nebraska, but in 1983 came to Washington, DC, and became a member of the United States Capitol Police. First assigned to the Capitol Division, he soon earned the rank of Detective and accepted a position with the Hazardous Devices Section, graduating from the FBI Bomb Data Center Hazardous Devices School in Huntsville, Alabama, on November 21, 1986.

The Bomb Squad has excelled for more than 30 years at developing and adapting new tools and techniques for rendering safe procedures. Dave played an integral part in this success. The Capitol Police Bomb Squad is rated by the FBI Bomb Data Center and staff of the Hazardous Devices School at Redstone Arsenal as one of the top bomb squads in the Nation. The unit has achieved recognition throughout the bomb technician community through their assistance to other agencies and service in offices and positions in professional associations and organizations.

Admired by his colleagues for his cool, steady demeanor and exceptional skills with tools and equipment, Dave served as one of the leaders of the Bomb Squad as its members coped with the emergencies of 9/11 and the Anthrax letter attack. Mr. Speaker, the magnificent performance of the Bomb Squad in response to the opening of the anthrax letter on October 15, 2001, cannot be overstated. The continued dedication and commitment of the Hazardous Devices Section after that incident was impeccable. Dave helped sustain the morale and commitment of the bomb technicians after the contamination caused the closure of their offices, along with much of their equipment and vehicles. They coped with this loss even as they faced an exorbitant increase in response calls, and worked 12-hour shifts six days a week for nearly seven months.

The Bomb Squad is a small but very important component of this police force we all take great pride in. As Dave prepared for his retirement, he went out of his way to serve as a mentor, and a colleague, to those who would follow in his place. While we wish him well in his retirement, his wit, practical jokes, technical expertise and the significant role he played will be greatly missed. I thank him for his many years of service, and for his dedication in implementing the mission of the United States Capitol Police, protecting the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 6 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 14, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, section 402 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 2006, requires a statement to be published in the Congressional Record explaining how the funding contained in H.R. 4745, (making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program, which will be considered in the House today, meets the criteria of emergency funding specified in such section.

Funding for the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program is provided in response to essential, urgent, and compelling needs resulting from the extreme natural disasters that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico region in calendar year 2005. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma resulted in the most expensive natural disasters ever to strike the U.S., and their scope and cost were completely unforeseen. The emergency funds provided in H.R. 4745 are justified under the criteria outlined in H. Con. Res. 95.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and

pass the bill (H.R. 4745) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the Small Business Administration's disaster loans program, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4745, provides critical funding to assist victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma by making $712 million in loan subsidy funds available for the Small Business Administration's disaster loans program.

The funding provided in this bill translates into $4.8 billion in loans that will now be available to victims of the gulf coast hurricanes.

To date, the Small Business Administration has approved more than 60,000 business and home loan applications, awarding $4.3 billion in loans. Loans continue to be approved at a record pace, yet 160,000 applications remain in the pipeline, and the application period remains open for 3 more weeks.

Without this critical infusion of funds, the Small Business Administration is in danger of depleting its loan funds prior to the Congress considering the administration's next supplemental request for hurricane-related costs.

This bill simply provides a temporary fix by shifting funds previously appropriated for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and redesignating them for the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program.

I also note that the SBA administrator has informed the Appropriations Committee that the need could be much higher than the amount provided in this bill. However, the committee has used the best available estimates to determine the short-term funding requirements and will continue to review the matter as it considers the next supplemental request submitted by the administration.

This funding is needed immediately as a stopgap measure so that lending to affected homeowners and businesses can continue uninterrupted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), my colleague, who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I might mention that the gentleman and I, our ranking member, have been working hard to try to bring ourselves together and go down and visit the gulf coast. I think we are going to be able to accomplish that sometime in the near term. It is on both of our agenda, but, in the meantime, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 4745.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say congratulations to the San Bernardino, California, Police Department, which has been protecting and serving the people of my hometown since 1905. I would like to give a hearty thanks to Chief Garrett Zimmon and his officers, and all of those who have served over the years in this fine department.

When the police department was formed, nine officers were sworn in to patrol a city of 20 square miles and provide law enforcement to 9,150 residents. By 1913, San Bernardino saw its first motor officers, and the department continued to grow with the city. Seven brave officers have given their lives in the line of duty for San Bernardino citizens.

Although the first female officer was not hired for the force until 1974, I would like to mention that the mother of one of my high school friends--Jack Brown--served as a reserve officer beginning in 1954. Rose Brown set an upstanding example of community involvement for her son, who as CEO of Stater Bros. Markets is now one of San Bernardino County's most active private citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the San Bernardino Police Department now serves a city of 190,000 residents, covering 60 square miles. Many of the law enforcement problems that used to belong in the ``big city'' are now faced daily by the 301 sworn officers and 159 support staff members. I've been pleased to be able to provide some assistance in creating a 21st-Century dispatch system that places computers in every patrol car. In short, the San Bernardino Police Department has grown up with my

hometown, and I ask you to join me to with the chief and his officers congratulations on their Centennial year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to express my appreciation for both my chairman, Bill Young, and for Jack Murtha for this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report funding the Department of Defense, hurricane disaster assistance, and avian flu preparedness.

The conference report funds the DoD at $403.5 billion plus a bridge fund of $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The conference report also includes a total of $29 billion for disaster assistance to hurricane damaged areas as well as $3.8 billion for avian flu preparedness.

The conference report includes no new net spending for hurricane assistance and avian flu. Any additional expenditures are offset by the following: reallocating previously appropriated funds in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, rescissions of un-obligated balances, and a one percent across-the-board reduction applied to all FY06 discretionary spending with the exception of VA funding.

Let me be very clear: This package is less than ideal in my mind's eye, but it is absolutely critical that we pass it.

As the body knows, the Appropriations Committee has made tremendous strides this year in reforming the process of adopting our annual spending bills.

The Appropriations Committee has been strongly committed to bringing to this floor individual conference reports for each and every bill.

Early in this process, I made it very clear to my leadership and to our members that the Appropriations Committee would not support an omnibus spending bill in any form. This Committee has done everything in its power to ensure that did not happen.

The Appropriations Committee passed each of the 11 spending bills off the House floor by June 30th, the earliest that has been done in 18 years.

The Appropriations Committee made a commitment to move its spending bills individually--in ``regular order''--and within the framework of the Budget Resolution. We have done that. My colleagues, the Appropriations Committee has kept its word. ``

Moving our spending bills individually is the only way for us to maintain fiscal discipline. Lacking regular order, there is a tendency for these bills to become Christmas trees for unrelated legislative proposals and for spending to grow out of control. That is simply not acceptable. I hope that next year we do not find ourselves in the position we are in today.

The underlying bill in this conference report--the DoD Appropriations bill--is the most important of our annual appropriation bills for it funds our national security.

Frankly, we could have passed this bill weeks ago. Our failure to enact this bill earlier is a disservice to our men and women in uniform. We are at war, we have troops in harm's way, and here we are-- two weeks from the end of the year--and we still have not passed this critical legislation.

And now, at the eleventh hour, controversial legislative language has been attached to this conference report. My fear is this language has the potential to sink the entire package once it reaches the Senate.

But tonight, with passage of this conference report, the Appropriations Committee fulfills its commitment to pass all 11 individual bills under the parameters of the budget agreement.

Again, the Appropriations Committee has kept its word and has concluded its work for the year.

I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and close my remarks by wishing all of my friends on both sides of the aisle a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant who has spent 42 years helping preserve our forests and wildlands for future Americans, want to particularly commend Gene Zimmerman for the past 15 years he has spent as supervisor of the San Bernardino National Forest.

Even as a boy growing up in eastern Oregon, Gene heard the call of the great outdoors. He spent his time camping, fishing and hiking in the Umatilla National Forest, and worked for a timber company in the summer. While attending Oregon State University, he spent his summers working for the U.S Forest Service, and began his full-time career there when he graduated in 1964.

Supervisor Zimmerman worked as a ranger in a number of forests in Oregon, and began honing his skills in volunteer organization and partnership building while working as district ranger in the Columbia Gorge District. He continued to develop an expertise in this area when he came to the National Headquarters in Washington, DC, to oversee legislation on recreation issues.

The experience Gene Zimmerman gained on how to help people enjoy National Forests without damaging them paid off when he was appointed supervisor of the San Bernardino National Forest. I have proudly represented this area throughout my years in Congress, and I can safely say that there is no more heavily used and urbanized forest in the United States.

Imagine a forest nearly surrounded by the largest urban area in the Nation--the cities of Southern California--and sharing a mountain territory with tens of thousands of homes whose values range into the millions of dollars. The main ski resort area of southern California is within the San Bernardino National Forest, and millions of people go there for recreation each year. For millions of children

in southern California, this is the only place to go to play in the snow or hear the wind whispering through the pines.

The supervisor of this forest spends as much time dealing with urban issues as many mayors. He must deal with water quality, roads, development and emergency services as often as he deals with tree health and animal habitat protection. Gene Zimmerman has become the most familiar face in the San Bernardino Mountains in this role over the past 15 years.

It has been my pleasure to work with Gene on developing services for visitors--the Big Bear Discovery Center is one of the most heavily used visitor centers in any forest in the Nation. The San Bernardino National Forest Association, which Gene organized to help raise funds for visitor services, has become a unifying force throughout the mountain communities.

The need to forge a unified approach between the forest and the surrounding communities became deadly serious in recent years, when drought and an infestation of pine bark beetles left millions of trees dead and just waiting for a spark to become a terrible disaster. Gene rose to this challenge, as well, organizing the Mountain Area Safety Task Force. These Federal, State and local officials developed a plan to evacuate nearly 50,000 people, and when the inferno of the Old Fire struck in 2003, not a single life was lost to the fire even though nearly 1,000 homes burned.

My work with Gene has continued in the past 3 years as we have sought ways to reduce the fire danger and restore the forest. It is my hope that this can be accomplished with the help of the recovery plan Gene has set in place. He will now hand off the implementation of that plan, as he has decided to retire at the beginning of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the mountain residents in my district owe a debt of gratitude for the dedication shown by Supervisor Gene Zimmerman. I would ask you and my colleagues to join me in thanking Gene for his four decades of public service and in wishing the best to Gene and his wife Anne in all of their future endeavors.