Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, we are all grateful to our troops and those serving in Iraq. We are grateful for what we are seeing happening there, and we want to do what we can to support those efforts and make sure that our troops have what they need.

But every time when I go home, no matter what the subject is that we are talking about in any meeting, the thing that always comes up is the deficit. Somebody always says, ``But what are you doing about the deficit?''

My concern with the embassy being in the supplemental is exactly that, it is over and above the regular process. I have no problem with building an embassy in Iraq. We need an embassy in Iraq, but we have also known we need an embassy in Iraq, and why did it not come through earlier if it is that much of an emergency.

Yes, it is a huge amount of money and I understand it is not just a building, it is a compound, but it is three times what we have spent in Afghanistan already.

If we do not start getting some discipline in this body in what we are doing, we are never going to get back to where we all want to be, and that is what we did in 1997 was start to balance the budget, and we were well on the way. Sure, we have had a lot of problems. We had the war, the recession, other problems which have interfered with that, but we have to have some fiscal discipline and just putting things that are not actual emergencies in a supplemental spending bill in my opinion is not to be done. A supplemental is for emergencies and I do not consider an embassy to be an emergency.

My constituents at home agree with this. As I said before, whenever I am anywhere they always say what are you doing about cutting spending, what are you doing about the deficit?

I hope we can bring this embassy back through regular order and make it happen because we want to be sure the people are protected, and then pass the supplemental today. The other things in the supplemental are needed. There is no question about that. Our chairman has done a very, very good job with this bill, but I have a problem with funding the embassy in a supplemental.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the memory of a dear colleague. I first met Tillie Fowler when I came to Congress in 1995. Tillie always stood out as someone Members could admire. The more we worked together, the more I grew to admire her. She always took time to give advice--no matter how busy she was.

Tillie would stick to her convictions regardless of who disagreed with her. Yet, at the same time, she was also very warm and friendly. Due to these characteristics Tillie earned the nickname ``Steel Magnolia,'' which I thought really suited her.

Tillie was a staunch supporter of strengthening the defense of our country. She was also a strong conservative who wanted government to stop interfering in people's lives. Due to her strong stances and warm personality, Tillie was chosen as one of our top Republican Leaders; a position she filled with grace and wisdom.

To those of us who knew Tillie, simple words or speeches cannot describe her. Nor can they speak enough about the woman she was. I will always remember Tillie as more than just a colleague during my years here. I will remember her as a good friend.

May God bless Tillie and her family, and may we not forget the contributions she has made to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the birth of Madalyn Elizabeth Priest. My Legislative Director, Matt Priest, and his wife Lisa welcomed little Madalyn into the world on January 31, 2005. Weighing 7 pounds 3 ounces, Madalyn has already become the pride and joy of her happy parents.

With each new birth we are reminded of just how precious life is and how amazing a design God has created in us all. We also have an opportunity to reflect on the role this body can play in protecting human life at its most innocent and vulnerable stage.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 831 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and passed this resolution waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

The waiver authorized by this resolution applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of Friday, October 8, 2004, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill H.R. 4200, the Defense authorization conference report for fiscal year 2005. I would advise my colleagues that adoption of this resolution is made necessary because the work of the conferees on the Defense authorization conference report has taken longer than anticipated.

I believe it is imperative that the House considers the proposed conference report on Defense authorization as soon as possible. The last thing we would ever want would be for the necessary armor and weaponry needed by our Armed Forces to be held up or delayed in any way.

My friend from Texas has always been a strong supporter of our military. I trust he, too, would prefer to rapidly approve the Defense authorization conference report; and to that end, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, today the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for H.R. 4200, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, it provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

This should not be a controversial rule; it is the type of rule we grant for every conference report that comes through the House. This legislation firmly shows our commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. The conferees authorized $447.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense, DOD, and the national security programs of the Department of Energy, DOE.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for all of the work they have done in their tireless support for our brave sons and daughters in uniform. The safety and security of our troops and our Nation can be attributed to the contributions they have made.

This legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the Nation and our interests around the globe. More than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have served in the global war on terrorism. We owe them our gratitude for defending our freedom.

Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their commitment to defend our freedom.

On the battlefield, we provide critical force protection resources, including countermeasures for improvised explosive devices, improved surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities and the latest infantry equipment.

H.R. 4200 adds more than $2 billion for force protection measures, including armor, munitions, communications

and surveillance programs. The legislation contains provisions to eliminate procurement obstacles and field commercially available technology on an expedited basis, something that is much needed. At home, this legislation meets the needs of our military personnel with numerous quality-of-life improvements.

Among the many initiatives are a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise, special pay and bonuses, and improved housing, as well as the complete phaseout of out-of-pocket housing expenses.

This conference report makes great strides in addressing the disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension benefits reduced, dollar by dollar, by the amount of disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The fiscal year 2004 act authorized full concurrent receipt to be phased in over 10 years.

The conference report continues to build on this improvement by removing disabled retirees who are rated 100 percent disabled from the 10-year phase-in period. These retirees are authorized for full, concurrent receipt effective January 2005. Our veterans have given deeply and heroically, and it is only fair that we recognize their service.

So let us pass the rule and pass the underlying Defense Authorization Conference Report. At the end of the day, we are going to make our homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and daughters serving in the military. We will be preparing for war, thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this bill is most important.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of this committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 832 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and passed this

resolution, waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver authorized by this resolution applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of Friday, October 8, 2004, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill, H.R. 4837, making appropriations for military construction, family housing and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues that adoption of this resolution is made necessary because the work of the conferees has taken longer than anticipated. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

September 30, 2004: Rollcall vote 485, on H. Con. Res. 501, honoring the life and work of Duke Ellington, recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, and supporting the annual Duke Ellington Jazz Festival, I would have voted yes.

October 4, 2004: Rollcall vote 487, on S. Con. Res. 76, recognizing that November 2, 2003, shall be dedicated to ``A Tribute to Survivors'' at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 488, on S. 1814, to transfer federal lands between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 489, on H. Res. 567, congratulating the American Dental Association for sponsoring the second annual ``Give Kids a Smile'' program which emphasizes the need to improve access to dental care for children, and thanking dentists for volunteering their time to help provide needed dental care, I would have voted yes.

October 5, 2004: Rollcall vote 490, on H. Res. 814, ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 491, on H. Res. 814, adoption of the rule, I would have voted yes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 823 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Rules Committee met and granted a modified closed rule for H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act. The measure is a combination of a House-passed bill, H.R. 3214, expanding DNA testing to catch more criminals and to allow wrongly convicted people a chance to prove their innocence, and a Senate-passed bill, S. 2329, that improves victims' rights.

I am also very pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) included a manager's amendment to address Members' concerns and the Department of Justice, as well as victims' rights groups' concerns. H.R. 3214 passed the House in November, 2003, by a 357-67 margin. S. 2329 passed the Senate in April 2004 on a 96-1 vote.

Regarding the crimes victims portion of this bill, the legislation seeks to remedy the apparent disparity between

the great number of rights and protections afforded to a person accused of a crime, but the relatively few rights and remedies for victims. The bill amplifies the existing rights for victims and sets forth an explicit enforcement mechanism. Additionally, H.R. 5107 provides funding for legal counsel for victims to assist them in the process and to ensure that these rights are enforced.

On the DNA side of this bill, it seeks to position DNA testing so it can finally reach its enormous potential.

Unfortunately, the current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many cases public crime laboratories are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, samples that could be used to solve violent crimes if the States had the funds to eliminate this backlog.

In my home State of North Carolina, the number of unprocessed DNA samples is 7,000 and the number of unprocessed DNA rape kits is estimated to be 6,000. North Carolina authorities say that the processing and entering of the DNA backlog could solve hundreds of crimes.

This legislation will authorize a significant increase in resources to better use DNA in solving crimes, taking dangerous people off the streets and sparing many innocent Americans from further crimes. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the original author of the House bill who has been working on this issue for a long, long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes due to a personal matter. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows:

September 23, 2004: Rollcall vote 469, on H. Res. 785, on ordering the Previous Questions, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 470, on H. Res. 794, on ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 471, on H. Res. 794, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 472, on agreeing to the conference report for the Relief for Working Families Tax Act of 2003, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for H.R. 106, the marriage protection amendment. The rule provides 2 hours and 30 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.

H.J. Res. 106 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The amendment states that ``Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a man and a woman.''

The constitutional amendment process is the most democratic process in our Federal system, and it requires approval from two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-quarters of the States by votes of their State legislators.

This bill has come up because same-sex marriage advocates have been using the courts and even local officials who have intentionally violated the law to circumvent the democratic process. Passing a constitutional amendment will place the debate where it belongs, with the American people.

Forty-four States have already enacted laws that provide that marriage

shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Those forty-four States represent 88 percent of all the States and 86 percent of the population.

As President Bush said in his State of the Union address, if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts is aware that the Homeland Security bill, a very complicated bill, is going through, I believe, five committees, and it is in that committee process this week and we are going to have it on the floor next week. So it is not that the Homeland Security bill is not going to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, September is National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Education and advocacy are crucial in the fight against cancer. Imagine a disease that takes the lives of 30,000 U.S. men each year. Now imagine that disease ablated in just a few hours with minimal pain and side effects. Ultrasound is revolutionizing prostate cancer treatment and is well on its way to replacing traditional treatment models.

I am honored to have a company in my district that is making this revolutionary treatment a reality. U.S. HIFU is a development company dedicated to fighting cancer and preserving patient quality of life with noninvasive high intensity focused ultrasound technology. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound, HIFU, is a state-of-the-art acoustic ablation technique for prostate cancer treatment that utilizes the power of ultrasound to destroy deep seated tissue with pinpoint accuracy.

HIFU is noninvasive, non-ionizing and 88-99 percent of patients treated have a PSA (prostate specific antigen) of less than 1 after one year, which indicates no evidence of recurrence.

Equally important is that there has been minimal to no incidence of incontinence and only 7 percent erectile dysfunction.

It can be preformed in one to three hours on an outpatient basis with an epidural anesthetic. Unlike other treatments, HIFU patients are up and walking around within hours of being treated.

The Sonablate 500, the HIFU device, targets tissue in the prostate in the same way that sunrays entering a magnifying glass burn a leaf. When a magnifying glass is held above a leaf in the correct position on a sunny day the sunrays intersect below the lens and cause the leaf to burn at the point of intersection. The scientific principles at work in this example are the same as those with HIFU. The energy source is the only difference. Instead of light as the energy source, HIFU utilizes sound.

In basic terms, the technology allows the physicians to get a live image of the prostate and cancerous tumor, carefully target cells with custom treatment planning and kill the tumor with a beam of clean ultrasound energy effectively destroying the cancerous tissue, leaving surrounding healthy tissue untouched.

HIFU involves no incision, and it can be applied repeatedly without damaging other tissue, unlike radiation-based therapies. As many as one-third of patients who receive either external radiation therapy or brachytherapy have a recurrence of cancer; fortunately, HIFU can be a salvage technique for these recurrent failures.

Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer found in American men and the second leading cause of death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be about 230,900 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in the year 2004. About 29,900 men will die of this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor and recognize the YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter. On October 21st, 2004 the YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter will be celebrating their thirtieth birthday. I have known Dave Hoppe, Executive Director of YouthNetwork, and Kyle Boyles, Senior Development Officer and the staff for many years. They have been and will continue to be an integral part of the Charlotte, NC community.

The YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter was founded in 1974 by members of Dilworth United Methodist Church in Charlotte. Originally know as The Relatives, the shelter was established due to the rising concern about the growing number of homeless youths in the center city. Since its founding, it has served thousands of teens and their families over the past 30 years. The shelter continues to be one of Charlotte's most successful charitable causes.

Located on East Boulevard in Charlotte, the Crisis Shelter serves the community as a coed, 9-bed emergency shelter for runaway, homeless and other youth in crisis. The Shelter is one of the Alexander Youth Network's numerous programs for positive growth and improvement of youth. Staff provides 24-hour supervision, individual and family conferences, recreational activities, and community referrals.

I greatly appreciate all their efforts and dedication to the Charlotte community.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and grant a closed rule for H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

This bill seeks to utilize the constitutional authority of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to hear cases which may arise as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise known as DOMA. The bill reserves that authority to the States. The bill provides that no Federal court will have the jurisdiction to hear a case arising under DOMA's full faith and credit provision.

This provision in DOMA codified that no State would be required to give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another State if that relationship is between two people of the same sex. Long- standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of courts that it creates.

In essence, the bill says no Federal court will have the opportunity to strike down DOMA's full faith and credit provision. The result of such a decision by the Federal courts would in effect invalidate the numerous Defense of Marriage Acts which have passed in at least 38 States. This would mean that the citizens of States such as Michigan, California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida, who have their own statutes to define marriage as between one man and one woman, would have to recognize the marriage licenses issued to same sex couples by other States that allow that practice.

I believe the people of these States as well as the people of my home State of North Carolina should be able to defend and preserve the institution of marriage and that we today should support their efforts. This is the way it has been throughout civilization. It is our job to prevent unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges from striking down DOMA's protection for the States. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

I would like to clarify the actual wording of what this bill does. It does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any group of people. It is motivated by a desire to preserve for the States the authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to protect them from having to accept same sex marriage licenses issued out of State will hold. There is no ill will here toward anyone. It does not dictate the results, either. It only places final authority over whether the States must accept same sex marriage licenses granted in other States in the hands of the States themselves.

This bill should be supported, I believe, by any Member who supports the proposition that lifetime appointed Federal judges must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policies for the States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for just a clarification.

Marbury v. Madison is entirely consistent with H.R. 3313. It established the principle of judicial review and stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court has the final say on the issues it decides, provided either the issues it decides are within its original jurisdiction or Congress by statute has granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear the issue. It is that simple. If a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts because Congress has not granted the required jurisdiction, Federal courts simply cannot hear the case.

The author of Marbury v. Madison was Chief Justice John Marshall, as was stated, and Chief Justice Marshall himself, after he decided that case, dismissed cases when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

I would like to read a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that he made, of course, a long time ago. He lamented that ``the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. . . .''

In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individual rights to fellow judges employed for life was a very serious error. Responding to the argument that Federal judges are the final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, ``You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.''

They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their core. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible as the

other functionaries are to the elective control.

The Constitution has elected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Well, in this particular case, it is the State courts, the right to be left to the State courts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I have no more speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 735, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

The Defense Appropriations Conference Report provides the tools and the resources for our military to wage an aggressive war against terrorism, while defending our Nation against ever-changing military threats.

Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom, and each time our forefathers and -mothers have answered that call. Our generation's time of national trial has come, and we are being called to stop a new kind of enemy, different from any that we have ever fought before. This enemy is patient, building resources and striking where and when we are least prepared.

The enemy uses a different method each time, and this enemy requires a new kind of defense. And this is what the conference report is continuing to build.

I agree with President Bush when he says that our Armed Forces must be ready to confront every threat from any source that can bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Our forces must be ready to deploy to any point of the globe on short notice, and this bill provides $416.2 billion in new discretionary spending authority for the Department of Defense. It also includes $25 billion in emergency spending, requested by the President for early fiscal year 2005 costs associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our Nation must have, and we will have, ready forces that can bring victory to our country and safety to our people. The world's best soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines also deserve the world's best weaponry; and to ensure that, we must invest in procurement accounts. And this report contains $77.6 billion for procurement. We need to give our military the weapons that they need for the future threats.

If this war against terror means that we must find it wherever it exists and pull it out by the roots and bring people to justice, our military must have the means to achieve this.

This bill also makes significant improvements in the quality of life for our men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, including a 3.5 percent pay raise and targeted pay raises to mid-grade noncommissioned officers, generous housing allowances that will significantly decrease the out-of-pocket housing expenses of our service personnel, and provide access to high quality health care. We can never pay our men and women in uniform on the scale that matches the magnitude of their sacrifice, but this bill reflects our respect for their selfless service.

I feel strongly that we need a strong national defense, and we need to be prepared. And with this conference report, we will be. The primary responsibility for us as elected officials is to provide for the common defense of our fellow countrymen; and to that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill, because now, more than ever, we must improve our national security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 732 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 4837, the Fiscal Year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act.

The United States military is clearly the best in the world, and the young men and women in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are thoroughly dedicated and patriotic professionals, the best our Nation has to offer.

And we are asking a lot of our military today. Our military personnel on active duty know that they may well be deployed overseas and perhaps on dangerous missions; so we want to provide a quality of life for themselves and their families that will allow them to serve, knowing that their families will be taken care of with good housing and good health care.

H.R. 4837 recognizes the dedication and commitment of our troops by providing for their most basic needs: improved military facilities, including housing and medical facilities.

Mr. Speaker, we must honor the most basic commitments we have made to the men and women of our Armed Forces. We must ensure a reasonable quality of life to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for America's fighting forces, and most importantly, we must do all in our power to ensure a strong, able, dedicated American military so this Nation will be ever vigilant, ever prepared.

H.R. 4837 provides nearly $1.1 billion for troop housing and $190 million for hospital and medical facilities for the troops and their families. Military families also have a tremendous need for quality child care, especially single parents and families in which one or both parents may face lengthy deployments. To help meet this need, the bill provides $26 million for child development centers.

This bill is more than just a signal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes their sacrifices. It is a means by which we meet our commitment to providing them decent quality of life, and this will sustain the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer armed services and the families that support them. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.

While our men and women in uniform have swiftly engaged our enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and professional challenges here at home. We must do more to take care of those who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom and for their families that support them. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

It is obviously political season, and when it is politically convenient, deficits are a huge problem on the other side of the aisle, but they are not willing to make any sacrifices in any other areas to be fiscally responsible to all of our citizens.

There is no one in this House who does not support our troops and wants to see more military housing. But I really feel that today, in this debate I am listening to, our troops are being used as a pawn, and that is very disturbing to me. Yes, this is an agenda of our President, but I would also like to remind the other side that tax cuts were also a priority of our President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.