Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the right of Israel to act in self-defense, which requires the inspection of cargo going into area controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas surrounding the Gaza territory. The inspections are vital because Hamas has smuggled in thousands of rockets to attack and terrorize Israeli civilians. Hamas has clearly stated its goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the leaders of the Gaza flotilla, particularly those on the Mavi Marmara, set out to intentionally use force to confront the blockade. If the blockade were to be broken, it would be impossible to tell which vessels were carrying humanitarian supplies and which were carrying deadly rockets.

As a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to protect its people from the threat of terrorism. Israel warned the boats that they were in violation of a lawful blockade and offered them an alternative where the humanitarian aid would be off-loaded and delivered to Gaza. The flotilla, however, insisted on attempting to circumvent the blockade because their primary motivation was confrontation.

Israel is a long-standing democratic ally of the United States. We must stand with Israel and defend their right to defend the Israeli people.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is axiomatic in American politics and on this floor that Members come to the floor and praise small business to the heights. People frequently cite statistics which state that small businesses create most of the new private-sector jobs. They're right. They praise small business men and business women, and they are right to praise them. Though, I think, after all the words, it is time that we took some action that actually benefits small business people in the country. This bill provides such action.

It provides access to credit for small businesses which desperately need it. I think Americans are frustrated--and small business people share in the frustration--that, after advancing hundreds of billions of dollars to banks, many of those dollars haven't seemed to find their way into loans to small businesses. The underlying bill begins to address that problem in a very significant way. It extends a practice that this chairman and his predecessor began of extending tax cuts to small businesses. A small business that buys a laptop or a truck or some other piece of equipment can expense that. Businesses can, in effect, cut their taxes by investing their businesses in the economy.

Then we have the ironic statement by the minority leader that, in order to help small businesses, he wants to repeal a law that helps small businesses, for the first time, buy health care. What the new health care law says is that a person running a small software company or a restaurant or a delicatessen should be able to buy health insurance with the same volume discount that Lockheed Martin or General Electric gets. Small business people have been asking for that opportunity for a very long time. The law the President signed provides that.

It is very important to understand that, with all due respect, the minority leader did not correctly state the impact of the bill on small business, so let the record correctly reflect the state of the new law.

If a small business person has 50 or fewer full-time employees, there is no mandate on that business to do anything. Businesses which choose to provide health insurance to their employees will have the same abilities that huge companies have to buy health insurance at a discount if they choose. Companies with fewer than 50 full-time employees don't have to do anything. Many of the small businesses which do choose to insure their employees will get significant tax cuts to help them do that.

After all of these words, isn't it time we had some loans for small business? Isn't it time we had some tax cuts for small business and some affordable health care for small business? If you want words, take the minority's approach. If you want action, support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, this motion is a guaranteed increase in middle class health insurance premiums for all Americans. If that's what you want, you should vote for it. But you know, when a person goes to the emergency room and is uninsured, doesn't have health insurance, they get health care. The question is who pays the bill.

The provision that is before us from the minority party says that insured middle class Americans should pay the bill. The law the President signed in March says something very different. It says that everyone has the responsibility to earn and pay for, at a reasonable price, their own health insurance.

The question is not whether uninsured people get care; the question is whether insured middle class people pay for it or not. The question is whether when someone has breast cancer or asthma and is turned away because of a preexisting condition that we will be able to insure that person at regular premiums. If you don't have nearly everyone insured, you can't do that.

So if you think that middle class people paying other people's bills is the right way to go, this is your motion. If you think that we should no longer provide health insurance coverage for those with a preexisting condition, then ``yes'' is your vote.

Our opponents talk of freedom. I think it's time that middle class Americans were free from paying other people's bills and paying for the insurance company mandates. So if that's your version of health care reform, and I believe that's the majority of Americans, then your vote is ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Zia Rahman of Voorhees, who passed away on June 1st, 2010 at the age of 65. He is survived by his wife of 60 years, Zahida, two

sons, and five brothers. Mr. Rahman made a lasting mark on the Voorhees community for his religious passion and understanding.

Mr. Rahman was the Managing Director of the Muslim American Community Association (MACA), but many will remember him for building a mosque in Voorhees. Six years ago, while trying to find a site for the mosque, Mr. Rahman and the MACA faced many obstacles. To overcome these challenges, Mr. Rahman brought together leaders of different backgrounds to create the Coalition for Multi-Faith Democracy. The members worked together to encourage tolerance and tear down stereotypes within the South Jersey community. Mr. Rahman inspired others with his passion to unite and build understanding between members of different faiths.

Mr. Rahman was an advocate for peace and understanding. He spoke in front of community groups, churches, and synagogues to encourage a better understanding of Islam. One of his proudest achievements was creating an agreement of cooperation and understanding between his mosque and the Diocese of Camden. Mr. Rahman educated and connected many throughout his lifetime. He united many people of different faiths while breaking down stereotypes about Islam.

Madam Speaker, Zia Rahman's commitment to Voorhees and its citizens should not go unrecognized. I express my deepest condolences to his family for their loss and pay tribute to the memory of this outstanding individual.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Marion Emily Ford for her 95th birthday. Mrs. Ford is a devoted mother, grandmother, and great grandmother, and for this she deserves great praise.

Mrs. Ford was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on February 12, 1915. During the Great Depression, she left school at age sixteen to help her parents who were raising eleven children. Her first job was as a saleswoman for Wanamaker's Department Store. While working at Wanamaker's, she was approached to be an understudy for Vivian Leigh, the famous star of Gone with the Wind. Mrs. Ford turned down the flattering offer. She moved to New Jersey in 1948, and settled in the Fairview section of Camden until 1975 when she moved into her daughter's home in Brooklawn.

Mrs. Ford has a deep appreciation for her heritage. She is a proud great-granddaughter of Pecan Wolf, a Native American from the Ottawa/ Chippewa tribe. Mrs. Ford also has a passion for reading that continued even though her sight was taken by macular degeneration.

Madam Speaker, Marion Emily Ford's commitment to her family and community should not go unrecognized. I wish her a happy 95th birthday and all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Woodbury Rotary Club and the recent construction of the Woodbury Rotary Club Veterans Monument. The Veterans Monument recognizes veterans from the past, present, and those who will serve in the future.

Construction of the monument would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts of the Club Service Committee Chair, Herb Budd, Jr. Mr. Budd served as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army National Guard. He was elected President of the rotary club in 1971 and 2005 and served as District Governor in 1989.

The Woodbury Rotary Club Veterans Monument has been an ongoing project since 2005. The monument is a ceremonial stone fixture, centrally located on the Rotary Park Memorial Walkway. Veterans of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marines and Army National Guard are honored for their service during both times of war and peace. The area around the monument will be made up of bricks engraved to reflect military service of individuals in the South Jersey community.

This monument embodies the motto, ``Some gave all, all gave some'' by honoring those brave individuals who committed selfless acts for their country. The actions of these men and women ensured peace and freedom for American people. The monument pays tribute to those who have lost their lives in combat, those who survived, and those who will serve in the future.

Madam Speaker, the Woodbury Rotary Club should be recognized for their time and effort spent constructing a permanent tribute to our veterans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor forty-seven high school seniors in Camden County for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these forty-seven, ten are with the New Jersey Army National Guard; their names are Gabriel Gonzalez-Galarza, Baruch Zepeda, Adam Knight, Carlos Watson, Kourtney Scott, Esamuel Tutt, Louis Alcantara-Narvaez, Timothy Johnson, Resheena Whittington, James Sheridan. Sixteen have joined the Marine Corps; their names are Peter Cuoco, James Baume, Robert Distefano, Ashley Fitzgibbons, Nicholas Lentz, Kyri Chandle, John McConnell, Mark Wyatt, Natasha Rodriguez, David Nguyen, Matthew Deeney, Donato Cancelli, Daehan Bong, Erick Mistretta, Pedro Aldebol, Jasmin Ramos. Three have joined the Air Force; their names are Marc Eisenmann, Jade Bates, Efrain Cardona. Five have joined the Navy; their names are Matthew Wilson, Nicolle Morris, Wayne Young, Nicholas Lugo, Eric Jacot. And fourteen have joined the Army; their names are Chelsea Hunter, Erik Coates, Francis Ayala, Jacob Lambeth, Zachary Tavani, Ryan Langley, Joseph Olivo, Alexander Gonzalez, John Wilson, Elizabeth Vollmar, Matthew Kline, Matthew Lincoln, Jacob Colman II, and David Reeves. All forty-seven will also be recognized on June 2nd at ``Our Community Salutes of South Jersey.''

Later this month, these young men and women will join with many of their classmates in celebration of graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, they instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our country.

Naturally, many may be anxious about the uncertainties that may await them as members of the Armed Forces. But, they should rest assured that the full support and resources of this chamber, and of the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

It is thanks to the dedication of untold numbers of patriots like these forty-seven that we are able to meet here today, in the House of Representatives, and openly debate the best solutions to the many and diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a fractious world.

Madam Speaker, their decision to serve our country will not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank these forty-seven graduating seniors for the selflessness and courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of others. We owe them, along with all those who serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Joseph J. Hoffman Sr. of Franklinville, who died from pancreatic cancer in his home on May 13, 2010 at the age of 87. He is survived by his wife of 60 years, Wanda, two sons, and six grandchildren. Mr. Hoffman's life made a lasting mark on the Gloucester County community.

Mr. Hoffman was a graduate of Clayton High School, where he was an avid member of the baseball team. His skills as third baseman for Clayton High School were recognized with his early induction into the Gloucester County Sports Hall of Fame. After high school, he had the opportunity to attend training camp for the Philadelphia Athletics minor league team, but turned it down to work on his family's three farms in Franklinville. He remained involved with community sports, playing for many semi-pro South Jersey baseball teams, and later becoming President of the Franklin Township Babe Ruth League.

After nine years as Township Clerk for Franklin Township, he was elected Gloucester County clerk in 1962. Mr. Hoffman served for a record forty-four years as Gloucester County Clerk. He was then successfully re-elected for seven consecutive five year terms, ending with his retirement in 1997. Not only was Mr. Hoffman involved with the local government, he also served 43 years on the board of Newfield National Bank, volunteered with the Franklinville Fire Department, and served as General Chairman of fundraising for Underwood Memorial Hospital in Woodbury. In 1995, his achievements were recognized by the Boy Scouts of America when he received the Southern New Jersey Council Boy Scouts of America Distinguished Citizens Award. He also was rewarded the Public Service Award by the NAACP.

Madam Speaker, Joseph J. Hoffman Sr.'s commitment to Gloucester County and its citizens should not go unrecognized. I express my deepest condolences to his family for their loss and pay tribute to the memory of this outstanding individual.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

So here's one of the issues before the House today. Say you have an American company that owners live here and they decide that they can make more money by sending their jobs to Asia or south of the border, out of the country, and they do. And they bring the money home and enjoy it here, but the jobs go overseas. And they figure out a way to game the tax laws so they don't pay taxes for that business to the United States Treasury. So the profits come home, the jobs go overseas, and the tax revenue doesn't flow into the Treasury. This bill closes that loophole. It says, if you outsource our jobs from this country, you don't get off the hook when it comes to the IRS.

Now, what does it use the money for? Well, if an American business goes into a bank today and the bank says, you know, we would make this loan to you to expand your business but we just need a little more collateral, a little more guarantee, this bill says the Small Business Administration can step in and make that loan happen and create those jobs. Or a woman running a software company or a biosciences company says, I've got a real opportunity here to hire more scientists and researchers, but I just can't quite find the capital.

This bill says she can hire five scientists for the price of four because of the research and development tax credit, or the mayor and council of a town is saying we could fix our antiquated clean water system. We could build a new water treatment system and have cleaner water and more jobs for people in our town, but the interest rates are just a little bit too high for us. If we could borrow the money just a little bit less expensively, we could create more jobs.

This bill says that they can do that. This bill creates jobs, and it pays for the creation of those jobs by saying that those who outsource our jobs can't get off the hook and have to pay their fair share of taxes. Now I know this discomforts some on the minority side. I know it goes against their philosophy that whatever corporate America does, it is okay. We think if you outsource

your job you shouldn't get off the hook for your tax obligations.

I know that it was a longstanding tradition under the prior administration and the erstwhile majority to let people outsource American jobs and not pay their fair share of taxes. Those days are ending, and the days of jobs hemorrhaging from this economy are ending because we are reinvesting in small businesses, local governments, and entrepreneurs around this country to put our people back to work.

That's the legislation before the House today. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, through the Chair, that maybe, instead of a dictionary, we should have a math book or a history book brought out, because there is some historical context, recent historical context, to this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we were told in January of 2009, with respect to the Recovery Act that was on the House floor, that it is clear that it doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen. That was said by our friend, the minority leader of the Republicans, Mr. Boehner, that it is clear that the recovery bill doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen.

Now, in the 3 months that were in the context of that remark, for example, in March of 2009, the economy lost 753,000 jobs. In April of 2009, it lost 528,000 jobs. We brought to this floor a bill that put construction workers back to work by building transportation projects. If they bought homes, we gave people tax credits for their downpayments. We sent more people to colleges and to universities on Pell Grants. We cut taxes for small businesses and families across the country.

Then what happened? Well, in March of this year, the economy added 230,000 jobs. In April of this year, the economy added another 290,000 jobs.

So the other side said in good faith, in January of 2009, these things would not work. They were wrong. They haven't worked as quickly as we want. They haven't worked as much as we want, but the tired philosophy that says that inaction and inattention will fix the problem has failed. A philosophy that says that giving American entrepreneurs, American taxpayers, American construction workers the chance to succeed will and does.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas made a statement, I believe, that most of the jobs created were census jobs. Did the gentleman tell us how many jobs were census agency jobs created in the last 2 months?

I yield to the gentleman to answer the question.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman said that most of the jobs created in the last 2 months were census jobs. How many were created in the last 2 months that are census jobs?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's statement is wrong. A small minority of the jobs created in the last 2 months have been census jobs. The gentleman is wrong.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, if you love your country, you ought to be able to serve your country. That's the change that Congress is talking about today.

The minority is opposing an amendment that doesn't exist. We've heard voices on the minority side say that the policy changes ignore the advice of those in uniform, and it's not listening to the report the military is presently preparing. They should read the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment says the policy change would not take effect until 60 days after the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say the implementation of the necessary policies is consistent with the standards of military readiness.

I will yield, yes.

Has the gentleman read the amendment?

Reclaiming my time, am I correctly stating the amendment?

Mr. Chairman, the best way to defend this country is to have every person who is willing to serve her have the opportunity to do so and who is able to do so. That's the intention of the Murphy amendment which, frankly, there have been a series of misrepresentations about.

Let's set the record straight. If the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe, after listening to the input of our service personnel, after reviewing the facts, if they believe that implementation of this policy would in any way undercut the readiness or effectiveness of our Armed Forces, they will not certify the policy, and it will not happen. This policy will happen only when the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that it's the right thing to do for this country.

The right thing to do for this country is not to ask someone what church they go to, what country they came from, what color they are, or what their sexual orientation is. It's to ask if they're willing and able to serve, and that is what we are going to do.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, a gentleman who has made a tremendous contribution to the committee already in the area of nuclear weaponry, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the House, we will be calling several speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague who has been a leader on port security issues here in the country, who has worked very hard on them, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), who has worked very hard on the issue of special combat pay for those facing the fierce actions we are engaged in.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) to talk about his ideas to help improve health care for those who serve in our National Guard.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. It is a very well-thought-out amendment that encourages competition, which will be a service to the servicemembers of our country, as well as to our taxpayers. We thank the gentleman from Maryland for offering it and would urge Members to support it.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I request that during further consideration of H.R. 5136 in the Committee of the Whole and following consideration of Amendment No. 82 printed in House Report 111-498, the following amendments be considered: en bloc No. 3, followed by en bloc No 4.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Smith of Washington

I think that the process that my friend from California lays out is a correct one, that there should be wide solicitation of views from those who wear the uniform, and there will be.

And the amendment that Mr. Murphy will be offering later today simply says this: If, after that process the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Staff believe that the evidence shows that implementation of the repeal would undercut the readiness or effectiveness of our troops, they will not certify that the policy should be put into effect, and it won't be. The Secretary has repeatedly said, Admiral Mullen has repeatedly said the question is not whether repeal should take place, but how.

Mr. Murphy's amendment will set up a rational process for that to take place. I believe it's the right thing to do, and I support Mr. Smith's amendment which is before us right now.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Certainly, the debate the minority keeps bringing up about Don't Ask, Don't Tell is very important, and we will have that vigorous debate.

Mr. Chairman, I think many Americans don't really place whether gays and lesbians can serve in the military as the number one thing they worry about in national security. I think they're probably more worried about something like a nuclear IED going off in Times Square.

It is important to look at the work that the two parties have done together that is reflected in this bill to prevent that day from happening. There is a program which identifies, gathers up, secures, and eventually disposes of the material that could make a nuclear bomb which would make that horror story happen.

In 2008, we devoted $199 million to that program. Frankly, it was lagging behind. We weren't identifying, securing, or disposing of enough of it. This year, we are putting $559 million into that, which means more nuclear material will be identified, locked down, disposed of, and the risk that we will have a terrible situation like I just described will be diminished.

This is the real work of the defense committee, and it deserves everyone's support.

Mr. Chairman, Members should ask themselves these questions in deciding this issue: When it comes to saving money, would you rather have two people competing or one for your business?

When it comes to protecting the fleet, the ability to fly, would you rather rely upon one company or two to keep the fleet flying?

When it comes to competition, should you presume that competition works or presume that it shouldn't?

To save money, to protect the fleet, to promote competition, we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer amendments en bloc No. 3.

Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment represents a contribution by Members in both parties: very thoughtful, a lot of excellent ideas the committee is pleased to support. So I would urge the committee to adopt the amendments en bloc, each of which has been examined by both the majority and the minority.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes before I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, the minority, for understandable reasons, wants to continue talking about the Murphy amendment, which is not on the floor.

Again, to set the record straight, the Murphy amendment has reflected the views of the joint Chiefs of Staff and of the Secretary of Defense for a very long time. The question has been not ``if'' we are going to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell but when and how.

The Murphy amendment says that the policy will not be repealed. It will stay in effect until such time as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense certify that nothing about that repeal will in any way undermine the security of the country, the efficiency of the Armed Forces or their effectiveness.

Now, the minority wants to keep talking about this. I think the American people, Mr. Chairman, are a lot more interested in some of the terrorism threats this country is actually facing.

By the way, one of the reasons those terrorism threats are more difficult is that we don't have enough Arabic speakers in the intelligence units of our Armed Forces. At least several dozen, perhaps several hundred, Arabic-speaking persons have been expelled from the Armed Forces because of their sexual orientation. That doesn't strike me as a particularly good way to protect national security.

Beyond that, though, a good way to protect national security, which is in this bill, is to strengthen our special forces. This legislation spends $9.8 billion on our Special Operations Command, the highest in the history of the country.

So, when we call upon brave Americans to kick down that door or to do a commando raid in any dark corner of the world, which is going to prevent a terrorist attack in this country, this bill supports them. Both parties support that and both bills fund it. That is the issue that is actually before the American people.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to someone who has done tremendous work on dealing with brain injuries and other traumas associated with brain injuries, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Is the Murphy amendment before the committee at this point?

The gentleman said he was rising in opposition to the Murphy amendment. Would those remarks be in order at this time?

I understand. Thank you.

Excuse me for interrupting, sir.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my friend, I yield myself 90 seconds.

The gentleman from Indiana's point about the servicemembers being listened to is absolutely right, which is why Mr. Murphy's amendment says--I will comment since he did--if after hearing the comments of the servicemembers the Secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that there would be an impairment of their ability to defend the country, they would not certify to the change in the policy.

There is an echo in this debate, which is a quote from prior debate: The President's move would seriously impair the morale of the Army at a time when our Armed Forces should be at their strongest and most efficient. Such an action is most unfortunate, the Senator declared.

The quote is taken from Senator Lister Hill in 1948. The issue was the racial integration of the Armed Forces in 1948. I think this is the same issue.

Yes, I would yield.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know precisely what the author said--he will speak--but I do know that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have said that. Admiral Mullen has said he feels repeal is the right policy. The issue is when and how, which is what Mr. Murphy's amendment addresses.

I would at this time be happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend who is focused on the issue of departing servicemembers, when they separate from service, and their knowing their rights and opportunities, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who has had some important personal experience with the issue contained in the Murphy amendment.

I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Is it in order to propound a unanimous consent request at this point?

I would make a unanimous consent request to extend for each side 1 minute.

I would yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

The committee supports this amendment because we support Mr. Sarbanes' approach of merit-driven decision-making. The OMB will oversee this process. We believe it will improve quality and protect the taxpayers. We support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer amendments en bloc No. 5.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is an example of Members from both sides of the aisle making well thought out, constructive contributions on a whole range of issues that we think improve the bill. Both the majority and minority have examined each of the provisions in the en bloc amendment. We support each of them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) who has taken a leading interest in evaluating both the quality and financial impact of our activities in Afghanistan, very often doing yeoman's work on tedious detail.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) who has done very careful work on making sure that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction is fully discharging very important functions.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has left on this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is very important that we take assessment of the excellent ideas in this bill that both parties support. Much of the debate this afternoon and this evening has obviously been consumed by points of controversy, but there are some major points of consensus that each side should be proud of supporting.

Number one, each side is vigorously supporting a significant pay increase for the men and women who wear the uniform of our country. Each side is supporting a very significant increase in the quality of housing, education and health care for the servicemembers and for their families.

Each side is supporting a significant step toward our Navy, reaching the point where our admirals tell us it ought to be.

In 2008, our Navy had authorized and at sea in the fleet 286 ships. Under this bill, our Navy will have authorized and at sea in the fleet 293 ships, a gain of seven ships. Mr. Taylor, in particular, has worked very hard on this point with the full bipartisan support of the Republican side. Our admirals tell us that the optimal size of the Navy they would like to see us have is 313 ships. So we have a ways to go, but progress is being made.

I mentioned earlier the legislation before the House authorizes $9.8 billion for our Special Operations Command. In the toughest neighborhoods in the world, in the toughest circumstances in the world, it is the men and women under the command of SOCOM who do the toughest work, and the bill on both sides supports them very substantially.

Also, as I mentioned before, this bill dramatically upgrades the amount of money we spend on identifying, securing, and disabling nuclear material that could be used to form a nuclear improvised explosive device. This is very much consistent with the administration's policy and broadly embraced by both sides.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want you and others observing tonight to understand that it is the nature of debate that we do dwell--as we have these many hours this afternoon--on points of disagreement, and they are profound points of disagreement; but it is very important that people understand the points of agreement that are before us. Whether it is compensation for our servicemembers and their families, their health care, their housing, their job and educational opportunities, whether it is the end strength of our Navy--which, frankly, is a bipartisan commitment to bring us up to those 313 ships--whether it is the end strength of our Armed Forces; in 2008, the end strength of our Armed Forces was in the neighborhood of 1.4 million people, active duty, Guard and Reserve, a little over that. This legislation before us tonight would have the end strength of our Armed Forces exceed 1.5 million people in our active duty, Guard and Reserve.

So, Mr. Chairman, I again want to say that it is healthy, it is expected, it is anticipated that the floor of this Chamber will be a place where our points of disagreement are vigorously and honestly pursued. But as a compliment to both sides of the aisle, to Mr. McKeon and Chairman Skelton, the legislative product that is before us tonight has many, many, many more points of consensus, and we're looking forward to building on those points of consensus.

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

I yield myself 2 minutes.

I also wanted to make reference to the excellent work that's been done in this bill in the area of our missile defense program. Now, there are obviously disagreements over what the structure of that program ought to be; but when one looks at the fortification of defenses that we already have at Fort Greely and other places, when one looks at the additional investment that we are making in the successful regional-range missile programs that have tested and been quite efficient, I think that the accurate conclusion is that we are fortifying the defenses which have been proven to work in the missile defense field, we are building upon those successes, and we are preparing ourselves for a future generation of defenses that are effective both in a regional context and in the context of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The nonproliferation strategy really has two aspects: it is to be prepared to defend ourselves if a strike occurs, but it is to discourage the proliferation of nuclear capability around the world, as the administration has done in the Security Council negotiations with Iran and it has done with its layered defense missile strategy. So, again, I think this is another point where there is more consensus than disagreement.

There is disagreement between the two sides over the best way to pursue an effective ballistic missile defense. I don't think there is a disagreement over whether the pursuit of a ballistic missile defense is in the interest of the country. It most certainly is.

I would conclude at this point, Mr. Chairman, where I began. We know that the cornerstone of our country's defense is not found in this Chamber. It is found at bases throughout the world, both in the Continental United States and at forward-operating bases and other places overseas. We are profoundly grateful to the men and women who volunteer to serve this country. We, on a bipartisan basis, are expressing our gratitude where it counts: compensation, support for families, education, health care, and other opportunities.

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

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from California for yielding his time to the gentleman from Mississippi. We appreciate that very much.

I will just conclude by pointing out that we've heard some disagreements here about the nature of ballistic missile defense. But to my core point, there is much in this bill that has been embraced by both sides of the aisle because both sides of the aisle have a profound respect for the men and women who serve and a profound appreciation for the core duty we have to preserve and defend the country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge support of the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 1404, I hereby give notice that amendment No. 79 may be offered out of order.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1404, as the designee of the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, I offer amendments en bloc No. 6, including modifications to amendment No. 50.

Again, we appreciate the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle in working through a wide array of problems in a very thoughtful way. Each of these amendments has been reviewed and accepted by both the minority and majority staff. We thank the Members for their efforts.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of one of the en bloc amendments, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a gentleman who is an Appropriations subcommittee chairman and who has taken the lead on making sure that the use of private contractors is done properly, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure at this point to yield 1 minute to a gentleman who has been in the forefront of trying to promote American jobs through this bill, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to another champion of growth of American jobs here from the runner-up city in this year's Stanley Cup finals, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, through the Chair I would say to my friend from California, we have only Mr. Kennedy left to speak, and I believe we have the right to close on this. So does the gentleman intend to speak again?

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I would say, of course we recognize our duty to listen to those who serve in uniform. We also recognize our duty to raise their pay, to give them the tools and weapons necessary to do their job, to support their families, and to give them the strategy that works to defend this country. This bill does all of those things. We should support the bill and support the en bloc amendment before the body.

I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I would advise my friend on the other side we have no further speakers, so I will yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this outstanding amendment. Our side of the committee strongly supports it. We think it does a great deal of good for some great heroes. We would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I'd like to, on behalf of the committee, thank the gentlelady for crafting this amendment. I think it's an invaluable tool for our investigators and, if necessary, prosecutors, to track down fraud, protect our servicemembers, and protect the taxpayers. So we're very happy to support this very worthy amendment.