Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, understandably in this debate, we tend to emphasize our differences, but I think it is important to step back a little bit and remember that the basic premise upon which the 9/11 Commission report is based and upon which this legislation is based is that the arrangement of the intelligence organizations we had for the Cold War is not necessarily the best arrangement for today or for tomorrow.

That should not be surprising. It has been true of the military, and we are making changes in the organization of the military. It has been true of our homeland security organizations, and we have made changes there; and it is also true of our intelligence organizations, and this bill begins to make those changes as well.

The issues related to whether we need an overall director of national intelligence have been around since the second Hoover Commission of 1955. CRS has documented about a dozen or more studies that have made this point over the years since then. This bill does it.

There has been unanimous agreement since September 11 that we need to have better fusion of intelligence from all sources, and this bill formalizes that with the National Counterterrorism Center.

There is concern about providing intelligence for the warfighters, and this bill tries to strike the balance to make sure that the warfighters on the ground get the information they need but, at the same time, it recognizes that if we are going to be successful in preventing terrorism, not just managing terrorism, but preventing terrorism, we have to do a better job of bringing that intelligence together and getting it to the policymakers.

This is an important step, but it is only a step, because as the 9/11 Commission recognized, moving boxes on an organizational chart is important, but there are other things that need to be done with the border, with economic development assistance, with public diplomacy, and a variety of other issues that they brought out, and this Congress and the government need to follow that up as well.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier in the debate, I think understandably the debate here

on the floor emphasizes differences we have with the underlying bill; but when you look at it, there is a lot of agreement in the general thrust of this bill and in the specific provisions.

One of those specific provisions is one that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and I have worked on to elevate the position of the Director of the National Cyber Division to an Assistant Secretary position in the Department of Homeland Security.

The reason we think that is a good idea is so that cybersecurity as an issue does not get lost in the bureaucracy; secondly, so that you can attract the kind of person one needs to attract that has the trust of industry and academia to do the kind of work that needs to be done in that position. But also, thirdly, so you can be at a level to deal with other elements of the government at an appropriate level and have other folks and other Departments treat you and treat the issues you bring before them appropriately.

Now, that is one provision. It has widespread support among the industry groups. We have worked with the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on Science, the Committee on the Judiciary to formulate this provision; and it has, as far as I know, complete support on both sides of the aisle. There is a lot in this bill that helps make America safer, and I believe it deserves the support of all Members.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest challenges for this Congress over the past 2 years has been to fulfill our responsibilities on homeland security. At the beginning of this Congress, the Speaker decided to create a Select Committee on Homeland Security to help get the new Department of Homeland Security off to a good start and to focus congressional efforts on the many issues related to helping to protect our citizens against terrorism.

Beginning a new committee on such a complex topic would never be easy. Doing so within a very limited time was even more difficult. We had to have help, and to the good fortune of the House and of the country, we got help from some exceptional people.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the contributions of two of them whose tour of duty on Capitol Hill is ending and to thank them for all they have done for me, as a subcommittee chairman on the Select Committee, and for the entire Committee. Working with my Legislative Director, Kim Kotlar, these two individuals have made enormous contributions to the development of the new Department of Homeland Security and its vital mission.

Our subcommittee has had responsibility for cybersecurity and for science and technology. To advise us on cybersecurity, we have had the assistance of Margie Gilbert. Margie was previously assigned to the White House as a director in the Office of Cyberspace Security, supporting both the National Security Council and the Office of Homeland Security. She dealt with intelligence and domestic protection, particularly national-level incident handling and counterterrorism. Throughout her DOD career, she has worked as an intelligence liaison officer, foreign relations officer, collection systems project leader, contracts and budget manager, and supervisor of a microelectronics research organization. She completed international

business studies at University of Copenhagen, has a bachelors degree in computer science from the University of Tennessee, and a masters degree in technical management from Johns Hopkins University.

I soon discovered that, in addition to her warm and engaging personality, Margie has earned enormous respect from those most involved in and most knowledgeable about cybersecurity issues. Success in cybersecurity requires a unique partnership of government and industry, and Margie has done a great deal to promote that relationship so necessary for success. She has guided the subcommittee to the issues that matter most. Her deep understanding of the issues and of the limitations of some proposed solutions, as well as her personal touch, have benefited all who have worked with her, inside and outside of government.

Dr. Julie Canepa has advised the committee on technology issues. Julie is a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. She has a BS in chemistry from Saint Mary's College in Indiana and her Ph.D. in chemistry is from Arizona State University. Among the many jobs she has had at Los Alamos are Program Manager for Environmental Restoration Project and Program Manager for the Los Alamos work with the Yucca Mountain Project. She has published a number of articles.

Protecting the American homeland requires the research, development, and utilization of technologies. This part of the Department of Homeland Security is totally new, and Julie has helped get it off on the right foot. The range of technologies and issues associated with them is enormous. From communications interoperability to radiological detection to vaccines and antidotes, Julie has had to understand not only the technology, but also the government and industry processes which could bring those technologies into use. In addition to her enormous gifts of intellect, she also has a special talent for helping others, who may not have her breath and depth of understanding and knowledge, feel comfortable with very complex subject matter.

I recognize that Federal agencies have a difficult time allowing significant numbers of employees work in other agencies or in other branches of government. However, I believe more strongly than ever that our country is well served when those who have a particular expertise and perspective are allowed to share that with the legislative branch. In the situation of this subcommittee with so much to learn about very technical subjects, I simply do not know what the committee or I would have done without the benefit of these two exceptional public servants.

The last 2 years have seen much progress and some frustrations in homeland security. We clearly have much left to do. But with the continued work of dedicated, talented professionals like Margie Gilbert and Julie Canepa, we will be successful. And I have no doubt that these two outstanding individuals will continue to contribute to the security of the country in many ways and for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons); and all the members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, including John Bradley of the staff, for their assistance and support with this measure.

I also want to thank all my Texas colleagues. Each of them is a cosponsor of this bill, as is the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), to whom I am also grateful.

I want to acknowledge my staff members who have worked on this issue, especially Sylvia Nugent and Bryan Whitworth.

I also want to recognize Larry Milam, Selden Hale, Pat Cunningham, Marvin Graham, and the other veterans of the Texas panhandle region who initiated this effort, as well as the veterans organizations which have lent their enthusiastic support, including the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS.

I want to acknowledge as well the excellent work in exploring Thomas

Creek's story done by the Amarillo Globe News and High Plains Public Radio. And, finally, I want to thank the Creek family for their patience and understanding and dignity with which they have approached this matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the late 1960s, Thomas E. Creek was in many ways a typical young man from the Texas panhandle. He had worked in a variety of jobs since he was 11 or 12 years old. He was a fan of Elvis Presley. He enjoyed being with his friends, and one remembered that he liked being in the middle of things. His brother, Ross, has been quoted as saying that ``he didn't think Tom was afraid of anything. That's what gets me,'' he said to the Amarillo Globe News. ``If he was afraid of anything, he kept it inside.''

Tom Creek left school early and joined the Marine Corps. On the 4th of July, 1968, he stepped foot in Vietnam. In letters home, he called it hell. But on February 13, 1969, Marine Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek was a rifleman with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, 3rd Marine Division. His unit was part of a resupply convoy that was ambushed by enemy forces using mortars, mines, fragmentation grenades, and small arms.

According to the documents recommending him for the Medal of Honor, the fierce combat found the men firing at point-blank range. Corporal Creek was struck in the neck by a bullet. Blood was seen flowing from the wound. But then he noticed a fragmentation grenade land between him and the rest of the squad. Though wounded, he threw his body on top of the grenade. One of the Marines with him recalled seeing him run towards the grenade and yell, ``I've got it, Mac.'' His body absorbed the full impact of the grenade, saving the lives of at least five Marines nearby. His act inspired the rest of the squad to defeat the enemy and complete its mission to resupply the forward combat base. Eleven others were wounded, but only Tom Creek was killed.

Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek was awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest honor our Nation can bestow. This bill, as the chairman mentioned, will rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Amarillo, Texas, the Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

Dr. Craig Barnes has said that as he read the book ``The Greatest Generation,'' he was struck by the fact that each of those described was a regular person. No one was born a hero. But when pushed, they found something heroic inside themselves. Heroes are ordinary people who refuse to be governed by fear when times are hard, he said.

Tom Creek was a regular person. He was also a hero. He reached down within himself and made a decision in a split second, a decision to sacrifice his life in order to save the lives of others. It is the same kind of sacrifice which men and women have made throughout our history, from the Revolutionary War to the streets of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, sacrifice for others while serving and defending the Nation.

I believe that naming this veterans medical center for this 18-year- old who sacrificed everything he had is a fitting tribute to his incredible heroism and sacrifice; that it will enhance the honor that rightfully belongs to those who have served our Nation and will be treated in this facility; and I hope that it will remind the rest of us that we too can refuse to be governed by fear and find something heroic inside ourselves as our duties demand.

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to serve our country. We are most mindful of the men and women serving on the front lines of the war on terrorism, who risk or even lose their lives for our freedom and security.

But as Ken Towery, a remarkable man who has been a POW in World War II, a Pulitzer Prize winner and Presidential appointee reminds us, ``Not all men are called upon to respond to battlefield conditions. But all men and women will face many, many situations where courage and duty and responsibility are required and where the true measure of their worth is how well they respond to those challenges.''

One way to serve our Nation is by working on the staff of a Member of Congress. It is the Members themselves who receive most of the attention, positive and negative. It is our names on the ballot and in the newspapers. We are the ones who cast the votes on legislation and are ultimately responsible for all that is done in our name or on our behalf.

But as each Member knows, everything we do is assisted by and made possible by the men and women who serve on our staffs.

I am extremely fortunate, for I have had and have today a group of exceptional individuals who have worked with me as I have tried to represent the people of the 13th Congressional District of Texas. At the center of everything I have tried to do for my constituents and for our Nation has been my chief of staff, Sylvia Nugent.

Sylvia comes from a heritage of service to the country. Her father, Vernon Herrington, is a retired FBI agent, having served in the Bureau for more than 25 years. Sylvia grew up learning a sense of patriotic duty as her family moved around the country in her father's various stations.

Sylvia has been married to Dr. Rod Nugent for more than 36 years. And first, she raised her family and volunteered in her community, contributing much. As her children matured, however, she became more involved in politics, becoming active in several campaigns in Texas.

In 1994, to my good fortune, she became the campaign manager for my first race for Congress. Then she served as chief of staff for my office until August 31, 2004. Sylvia is now a grandmother, and she and Dr. Nugent are preparing for the next phase of their lives.

In some ways, Sylvia has not been a typical congressional chief of staff. She was a bit older than most when they entered government service. She has been based in the district; whereas, most chiefs of staff work out of Washington. Yet, the exceptional qualities of patriotism and commitment to service which she exemplifies do represent the best of the people and the work which goes on in the legislative branch of government.

Sylvia is exceptionally gifted. Her intelligence and knowledge help her to get to the root of a problem quickly. Her emotional intelligence and perceptiveness, her people skills, are even more impressive. She is someone to whom a person on an airplane flight will pour out their problems and leave rejuvenated after hearing her counsel. Underlying all of her talents and abilities is a caring heart that wants to help and serve.

She made sure that, in all of the work which my staff and I undertook, we remembered that we work for the people of the 13th Congressional District of Texas, that our efforts are funded by the taxpayers, and that our mission is to help people and serve our Nation. Whether it was locating a lost Social Security check or obtaining military medals earned by a veteran 60 years ago, she was committed to helping the people of the 13th Congressional District. Whether it was cosponsoring a rural health care bill or passing the bill to create the Department of Homeland Security, she was committed to doing what was right for the country.

As she supervised all of the constituent service, communication and legislative work in my office, she also helped advise and guide staff members and interns on their careers and lives, leaving her mark for years to come. Having raised four outstanding children of her own, she brought those nurturing abilities to all with whom she came in contact.

Most importantly, everything she did was motivated by a love of country and a desire to serve and improve. Sylvia has responded to challenges and to opportunities with courage and duty and a sense of responsibility beyond what was required. In a way, her commitment and dedication have been extraordinary, but in another sense, it is the same kind of commitment and dedication that has made America great and continues to ensure that Americans do their duty in whatever circumstances they are placed.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have been tremendously blessed. And my family and I will continue to be blessed to count Sylvia and Rod Nugent among our dearest friends. But the Congress, Texas, and the Nation have also been fortunate to have had the service of this extraordinary lady.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House that our former colleague, Robert D. ``Bob'' Price, passed away August 24, 2004.

Congressman Bob Price's life was a shining example of a true American experience. Throughout his 76 years, Bob Price compiled an admirable record of service to his community, his state, and his country.

Bob Price was born September 7, 1927 in Reading, Kansas. He received a bachelor's degree in animal husbandry from Oklahoma State University in 1951, the same year he married his wife, Martha, or ``Marty'', in Oklahoma City.

Also in 1951, Mr. Price began a four-year stint in the United States Air Force. During the Korean Conflict, Mr. Price served as a fighter pilot, flying 27 combat missions and earning the Air Medal. After leaving the Air Force, Mr. Price owned and operated a ranch with his wife in Pampa, Texas for 50 years.

He was first elected to the U.S. House in 1966 and served here for eight years. Mr. Price served on the Armed Services Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Science and Astronautics Committee. During his time in Congress, Mr. Price was known as the only member who had flown Mach-3 in the SR-71 Blackbird, the F111-A and the F-4E Phantom. After leaving the U.S. House in 1975, he later served in the Texas State Senate from 1978 through 1980.

Mr. Price was also an active member of his community as a member of the First Baptist Church, the Pampa Masonic Lodge Number 966 AF & AM, the Pampa Shrine Club and the Downtown Kiwanis Club. He was also a member of the El Paso Scottish Rite Consistory and the Khiva Shrine Temple of Amarillo.

Bob Price is survived by his wife, Marty; a son, Carl Price, his wife, Kelly, and their children, Courtney, Grayson, Bridget, and Daniella, all of Houston; a daughter, Janice Johnson, her husband, Marc, and their children, Nicholas, Miles, and Elise, all of Indianapolis, Indiana; and a brother, Ben Price Jr. of Reading, Kansas. Mr. Price was preceded in death by his infant son, David Wayne Price, and another son, Robert Grant Price, who died in 1987.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the family and friends of former Congressman Bob Price of Texas and in honoring his service and many contributions to our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I have the privilege, along with the entire Texas delegation in the House and Mr. Moran from Kansas, to introduce a bill to rename the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Amarillo, Texas, the ``Thomas E. Creek Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.''

Lance Corporal Thomas E. Creek, USMC, of Amarillo, Texas, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously by President Nixon. He was a true American hero, deserving of this recognition and honor.

On February 13, 1969, Lance Corporal Creek was an 18 year old Marine with Company I, 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, 3rd Marine Division in Vietnam. He was part of a resupply convoy that was ambushed by enemy forces using mortars, mines, fragmentation grenades, and small arms. According to the documents recommending him for the Medal of Honor, ``[t]he fierce combat found the men firing at point blank range.'' Lance Corporal Creek was wounded by a bullet in the neck, but then saw a fragmentation grenade land between him and the rest of the squad. He then, though wounded, deliberately rolled on top of the grenade, taking the full impact of the explosion, and saving the lives of 5 Marines nearby. His act inspired the rest of the squad to defeat the enemy and complete its mission to resupply the forward combat base.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot help but be moved by such acts of self- sacrifice and bravery. They exemplify the highest standards of the Marine Corps, our military, and our Nation. The veterans community in the Amarillo area suggested this way of honoring Corporal Creek. It is supported by the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and AMVETS.

I also want to acknowledge and to thank all those who have helped in this effort to recognize Lance Corporal Creek, especially Corporal Creek's family, Selden Hale, and Larry Milam, who were instrumental in this endeavor.

In some ways, 1969 seems like a long time ago, yet acts of bravery like Corporal Creek's are timeless. They provide an example for us all. Corporal Creek's name will further magnify the honor attached to those who have served our nation and receive health care at this veterans' facility. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I feel a real and personal sense of loss with the death of President Ronald Reagan. He was a great man and a great President, ranking in the top tier of all of our chief executives. He will be remembered as a pivotal historical figure; but, at the same time, many Americans feel as though they have lost a member of their family. Such was the unique character and legacy of Ronald Reagan, the President and the man.

My wife, Sally, and I each had the honor of serving as political appointees during the second term of the Reagan administration. We were down in the bowels of the bureaucracy, but proud to be working for and certainly inspired by President Reagan. With his optimism and his confidence in America, he inspired at least a generation of conservatives to be involved in public life and to advance the ideals for which he stood.

As important as his accomplishments domestically and internationally were, perhaps his most important success was to help the American people believe in themselves again. After the tumult of assassinations, Vietnam, Watergate, and malaise, Ronald Reagan came to remind us of the core values of the Founding Fathers and the special place that the United States has in the history of the world, that ``shining city on a hill.''

President Reagan was called The Great Communicator, but he said that what was truly great were the ideas he communicated. Those ideas were fundamental in the creation of the United States. As he noted in his farewell address, he communicated ``great things that came from the heart of a nation, from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for 2 centuries.'' Ronald Reagan brought out the best in us because he knew the best of us.

Our Nation was blessed to have been given Ronald Reagan, the President and the man.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the accomplishments which cause Ronald Reagan to stand among our greatest Presidents can be traced to a set of fundamental beliefs to which he adhered throughout his political career.

One of them was strong, steadfast confidence in the American people. President Reagan knew that government must be limited so that the unlimited potential of individual Americans could be unleashed. He knew that when families were able to keep more of the money they earned, not just the family but the whole country would benefit. The result of his tax relief and restraint of government was the longest period of economic growth in the nation's history.

President Reagan also believed, with the signers of the Declaration of Independence, that freedom is a gift of God, intended for all peoples. In his speech to the British Parliament in 1982, which he viewed as among his most important, he said:

We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not

the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and

universal right of all human beings.

President Reagan was often underestimated. But, his clear words required clear thoughts, and those clear thoughts came from a clear vision and clear values, the articulation of which was refined over a lifetime of work. The amount of work and thought Ronald Reagan put into developing and expressing his views are only now becoming known, with the publication of some of the thousands of articles and letters written with his own hand.

He clearly believed that one must not be afraid to speak the truth, sometimes to the discomfort of his advisors. In the well-known speech in which he called the Soviet Union the ``focus of evil in the modern world'' he went on to urge his listeners and the country to

[S]peak out against those who would place the United States

in a position of military and moral inferiority. . . . I urge

you to beware the temptation of pride--the temptation of

blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both

sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and

the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the

arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove

yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good

and evil.

Throughout his career of public service, Ronald Reagan did not remove himself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil. He engaged in that struggle, and he changed the course of history.

Before the British Parliament, President Reagan repeated the question asked by Winston Churchill in one of his wartime speeches: ``What kind of people do they think we are?'' President Reagan answered, ``Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.''

Being a ``free people, worthy of freedom'' and help[ing] others gain their freedom as well'' remains America's challenge. My hope is that we pursue those aims with the determination and spirit that Ronald Reagan displayed throughout his career.

A President whose basic political philosophy about the role of government continues to occupy center stage in our domestic debates more than a decade after he left office; a President who changed the course of world history and helped free millions of people from totalitarian bondage; a man who restored a nation's confidence in itself and continues to inspire defenders of freedom everywhere--

Quite a record. Quite a life.

Again, our Nation was blessed to have been given Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day, let us remember Air Force Captain Eric Das. He was a young man from my district who loved our country, and who lost his life fighting for its ideals in Iraq.

Captain Eric Das, 30, of Amarillo, Texas, was an Air Force pilot for the 333rd Fighter Squadron of the 4th Fighter Wing at North Carolina's Seymour Air Force Base. He was pronounced killed in action on April 18, 2003. Eric was on a bombing mission, flying an F-15E Strike Eagle jet over Iraq, when his plane was shot down on April 6, 2003. Eric has been awarded the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Award, and the Distinguished Flying Cross. He has also been installed in the Amarillo High School Hall of Fame. He will be remembered for his strong, sure faith in God.

Eric leaves behind his wife, 1st Lieutenant Nikki Das; parents, Bruce and Rosie Das of Amarillo; two sisters, Melody Neumann and Elisa Das, both of Amarillo; and his grandmother, Jessie Renne of Minnesota. Eric was not only a soldier, but a friend to many, a committed husband, and he will be remembered for the lasting impact he had on those who knew him.

Those who wish for the liberty of all people will forever owe a debt to Captain Das. This young man from the Texas Panhandle became a hero when he refused to be governed by fear and sacrificed his life for us and our safety.

Captain Eric Das has joined an unbroken line of patriots who dared to die so that freedom might live and grow and increase its blessings.

May God continue to bless our Nation with such heroes.

Mr. Speaker, on this Memorial Day, let us remember Marine Lance Corporal Aaron Austin. He was a young man from my district who loved our country and who lost his life fighting for its ideals in Iraq.

Lance Corporal Aaron Austin was a 21-year old from Sunray, Texas. He was part of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, California. Aaron died April 26, 2004 near Fallujah on his second tour of duty in Iraq.

His family and friends described him as a warrior who was not afraid of anything. After joining the Marines, Aaron quickly became a leader of his machine gun team. He was the product of a small town and enjoyed the outdoors, sports and hanging out with his friends.

Survivors of Corporal Austin are parents, Doug Austin of Amarillo and De'on Miller of Lovington, New Mexico; two brothers, Eric Austin of Amarillo and Mike Austin of Las Vegas, Nevada; his maternal grandparents, Harvey Grigsby and Virgie Thomas of Lovington; his paternal grandmother, Juanita Austin of Yorba Linda, California; and many aunts and uncles. Aaron had planned to wed his fiancee, Tiffany Frank of Phoenix, Arizona on December 11, 2004. Aaron was loved by many and will be remembered as a courageous Marine.

Those who wish for the liberty of all people will forever owe a debt to Corporal Austin. This young man from the Texas Panhandle became a hero when he refused to be governed by fear and sacrificed his life for us and our safety.

Lance Corporal Aaron Austin has joined an unbroken line of patriots who dared to die so that freedom might live and grow and increase its blessings.

May God continue to bless our Nation with such heroes.

Mr. Speaker, Members come to this Congress with a policy agenda or a political agenda. We spend our time and effort trying to make some change we think is good for the country. Yet there is something bigger and more enduring than any one of us or any one of our issues. That something is the institution of the House of Representatives.

I believe that every elected Member has a responsibility to that institution, but it is the professionals who serve as the officers and staff of the House that make sure it is preserved and protected. They serve the House and the Nation day and night through heated debates and even through long, dull special orders.

Nobody has served this House more faithfully and more nobly than our Parliamentarian, Charles Johnson. He is smart and insightful as his job required, but he also has the integrity to be trusted by both sides of the aisle during heated debate and controversial rulings. He has a sense of history and, I think, a sense of responsibility for this institution going back 217 years to the Constitutional Convention on through today and on through generations to come.

The House has been in good hands during Charlie Johnson's tenure, and part of his legacy, part of his lasting influence, will be felt through his successor. I join in expressing sadness at his leaving, but also admiration and gratitude for his service.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to eliminate a research program designed to explore whether or not we can threaten deeply buried targets with an existing nuclear warhead. As the chairman of the subcommittee just said, to build an actual weapon requires Congress's approval. That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about whether we want to know what our options may be. And to stick our head in the sand and pretend that we are somehow safer if we do not know or to pretend we are somehow safer if we limit our options seems to me not only foolish but actually dangerous.

I agree with the gentleman from Washington, it is about deterrence. But we do not deter anybody if they know we are not going to use a weapon. They have to have a realistic expectation that we might in order to discourage them to do something.

Clearly, there is a trend toward burying things. It may be a leadership bunker. It may be a weapon-production facility. It may be weapons themselves. And today we are very limited in our ability to threaten things which are buried. The more limited we are, and especially the more we limit ourselves, the more it encourages potential adversaries to go underground.

We have heard all these conclusions giving reasons why we should not use such a weapon. The problem is these are conclusions not based on scientific study and scientific fact, and they come with a political agenda. We ought to step back from political agendas and objectively study what the pros and cons of this approach are and then collectively make a judgment call on whether it is a good idea or not. But we are not anywhere close to that at this point.

I am for putting all the money we need into research into conventional weapons that can accomplish the same goal; and if more money is needed to effectively and productively take advantage of those programs this year, then I am all for it. But this is so important that to limit our options at this time, to not even explore what the options are and what may be available to us, I think, is extremely shortsighted. Therefore, I urge Members to again this year, as we did last year, reject this amendment and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and commend him on his patience and persistence that was required to have this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. In my view, the first job of the Federal government is to defend the country, and there is certainly no greater priority in this budget than protecting America.

When it comes to helping make the country strong, we in Congress have an

important role to play. Part of our role involves the other major bill we are working on this week, the defense authorization bill. But I believe that passing this budget today also puts in place an essential building block that helps make sure we do our job in keeping and improving on a strong America.

This budget fully funds the President's request for military and homeland security. It allocates $420 billion for the national security function. Included in that is $402 billion for the military, and on top of that is $50 billion that the chairman just talked about for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once that allocation is translated into the various programs, we will have increased basic pay for soldiers in the military, 21 percent over the past 3 years.

We will have increased personnel funding 59 percent since 2001. Operation and maintenance will have increased 55 percent; procurement up 43 percent; R&D funding up 76 percent over the past 3 years.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we will have provided everything the Pentagon has asked for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and then some.

On homeland security, this budget allocates $33.4 billion, including $31 billion for the Department of Homeland Security. This is nearly double what those agencies were receiving in 2001, nearly double. The budget carves out $2.5 billion in advance funding for Bioshield, the effort to deal with that threat which many people view as the most dangerous to us, biological warfare.

But as I said when the House first considered this budget, we could slap a homeland security label on the whole Federal budget and still not be perfectly safe; but passing this budget today allows the other committees to do their work on the detailed programs and make sure that in Congress we stand up and do our job on homeland security and defense, supporting the men and women who are on the front lines every day protecting our lives and our freedom. It deserves our support.

Mr. Speaker, generally I think we can be faulted on this floor for saying the same thing over and over again in our debates; but in this case, I think it is important to say over and over again so it is heard clearly and definitively that the conduct here, including the taking and distribution of photographs, is abhorrent to our Nation and to our values; and also to say that we are proud of and grateful to the thousands and thousands of men and women who do represent and exemplify our values every day in Iraq, for every day there are countless acts of kindness and generosity and respect shown to Iraqis by American soldiers, risking their own lives. Part of the tragedy of this episode is it gets so much attention while all of those acts get so little attention.

Yet it is important for us to continue to do the right thing, to hold those involved accountable for their actions or their neglect, and to not let up in our efforts to overcome the malicious forces of oppression, working with the Iraqi people for a free and secure and stable Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman of the Committee on the Budget for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, the first priority of the Federal Government is to defend the country, and there is no greater priority in this budget than protecting America. I think all of us realize that the world in which we live and the world in which our children will live is, in many ways, a more dangerous place than the world of our parents and our grandparents. It is certainly more difficult to predict. It certainly changes more rapidly. And the number and diversity of threats to our citizens has never been higher. Yet the fundamental fact remains that our freedom and our individual safety depends upon our strength.

This budget allocates the resources needed to fight the global war on terrorism; secondly, to prepare for future security challenges; and, third, to protect our homeland. In national defense, this budget provides $419.6 billion. As the chairman noted, over the past few years, we have had to address both a defense deficit and a homeland security deficit. After the Cold War, defense spending declined, eventually reaching the lowest percentage of GDP since World War II. Infrastructure was deteriorating. We were not taking good care of our people. We had what some people described as a hollow force, as we had to cannibalize airplanes and other systems just to keep others operating.

But we have provided significant increases in defense over the last few years. Personnel funding is up 59 percent, operations and maintenance is up 55 percent, procurement is up 43 percent, and R&D is up 76 percent. This budget provides an additional 7 percent increase for fiscal year 2005 to meet the security challenges of our time and to be better prepared for the security challenges that the future may hold. And may I clarify, Mr. Chairman, that this budget funds dollar for dollar exactly what the President requested for the Department of Defense. Any change in the defense function is for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and some others that are under that old 5-0 function, but it fully funds the Department of Defense.

The other thing, I think, that needs to be clarified in response partly to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri is that a budget cannot do all of the things that he advertises that it can do. That is up to the committee he and I serve on, the Committee on Armed Services, as well as up to the Committee on Appropriations to determine how much we are going to fund individual personnel programs or how much we are going to fund housing and other vital needs for our military.

What the budget can do is set an overall target for Federal spending. And this budget does a good job of fully meeting what the President has told us and what most of our Members believe our security needs are.

But the chairman's mark also stands for the proposition that no part of the

Federal budget, even those agencies assigned to the first priority, is beyond scrutiny, to ensure that each dollar that the Federal Government takes out of some taxpayer's pocket is used as efficiently and productively as possible.

The military has made some tough decisions recently. It canceled a major weapons system, it is restructuring the Army, and it has more tough decisions ahead even with this increase. But we want to be clear in this budget that we will do whatever it takes to defend America. Our Nation will not just sit back and let the terrorists hit us again.

We have taken the fight to them in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in this budget we allocated $50 billion for those ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. We assume that they are going to continue, and we put money in there to make sure that they will be provided for.

We are also committed to defending America here at home. Earlier this month we marked the 1 year anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security, the result of the biggest reorganization of the Federal Government in more than 50 years.

Now, we have heard arguments and I am sure we will hear other arguments about whether the glass is half full or half empty with regard to homeland security. And both can be true at the same time. There are those who think we are spending too much, others who think we are not spending enough; and I suspect both are right, and we will find out exactly where the next time that there is an attack. But, again, if you look at where we have been over the last 3 years, you see tremendous increases for homeland security, appropriately so.

This budget allocates $34 billion for homeland security, which is up from last year's $29.5 billion. The President has suggested significantly more funding for biological surveillance programs, as well as continuing to push ahead on things like port security, infrastructure protection, emergency preparedness and response.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that we could spend the whole Federal budget on things that have the label of homeland security and still we would not be perfectly safe. So the challenge before us in the Committee on the Budget, as well as the other committees, is to move ahead in a common-sense way that makes the country safer. That is what this budget tries to do, and I think it does a good job.

Mr. Speaker, like most bills brought before us, this bill is a mixture of provisional I support and provisions I oppose. Unlike most bills brought before us, it affects every American and will have significant, long-term consequences for our Nation.

I believe that providing access to quality health care is one of the most formidable challenges facing our Nation now and in the decades to come. The retirement of the baby boom generation, which begins in less than 8 years, will make that challenge enormously difficult.

When the House considered its version of this bill in June of this year, I said that our objective should be to ``update and strengthen Medicare so that it does a better job of providing health care for seniors and at the same time put Medicare on a sound financial footing so that it can be sustained through the baby boom generation retirement.'' This conference report does begin to update Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage. It does little to put Medicare on a sound financial footing.

Making prescription drug coverage available to all seniors is very important. Not only will that benefit keep seniors from having to choose between buying medicines and other necessities of life, it will help them stay healthier. As they stay healthier longer, hospital and other medical expenses should be less.

This bill includes reforms of the system which are also important. Allowing all Americans to choose Health Savings Accounts gives everyone a new option to pay for health care and could help stem the tide of rising insurance rates and rising health care costs. Beginning to consider income in calculating Part B premiums is a significant change in the law. Other provisions related to provider reimbursements and reducing the discrimination against rural health care providers are worthy of support.

I am concerned that the total cost of this bill is vastly underestimated, as has happened before in Medicare. There are payments or tax credits for virtually every group interested in health care, yet of all of the groups affected by this bill, I worry that the interests of those paying the bills, especially future taxpayers, are given the least consideration.

So, we are left weighing the benefit of modernizing Medicare and some reforms versus the danger that this bill will hasten the day of Medicare' collapse. It is not an easy judgment to make.

It is clear that if we do nothing, millions of seniors will go without the prescriptions they need and that none of the reforms essential to Medicare's survival will occur. We must begin somewhere. Reluctantly, I have concluded that this most imperfect bill is at least a place to start.

If we are honest, we have to admit that this bill is something of a gamble. We are betting that the limited reforms begun here will flourish and work to strengthen Medicare for the 21st century. If we are wrong, the added benefits and payments may sink the entire program. Tonight, I choose to vote with my hopes rather than my fears, prayerfully mindful of both my parents and my children.