Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 24 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, July 25. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on International Relations, which was ordered reported on June 27, 2006, and is expected to be filed tomorrow, Friday, July 21.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to an article written by my good friend and colleague Les Francis that pays tribute to Norman Mineta, the longest serving Secretary of Transportation in U.S. history. Mr. Francis has rightly drawn attention to the bipartisan nature of Mr. Mineta's political style and his efforts to work across party lines to achieve common goals. I have known Les Francis for almost 20 years, dating from the early 1990s when we both ran the House Republican and Democratic congressional campaign committees. Les is not only a highly skilled and effective campaigner for the Democratic Party, he is also a man who is devoted to Congress as an institution and to our Nation. He learned those values and beliefs working for Secretary Mineta early in his career.

Mineta Is Able To Rise Well Above Political Affiliation

[From the Mercury News, San Jose, CA]

(By Les Francis)

Tonight, when U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman

Mineta leaves office, it will mark the end of one chapter in

a remarkable career, and no doubt the advent of another.

Mineta's dedication to public service was forged by a

searing childhood experience: In the spring of 1942, as a 10-

year-old American boy of Japanese ancestry, Norm was hauled

off and locked up in an American internment camp.

Thirty years later, while vacationing in the Grand Tetons

and Yellowstone, the Minetas and Francises made a pilgrimage

to nearby Heart Mountain, WY, and we visited the site where

the Mineta family had been incarcerated. Norm told us of that

experience, how it shaped his life, and how it led to his

deeply held views on civil rights and civil liberties.

Once, as mayor of San Jose, Norm presided over a city

council meeting where a crowd protested an exhibit at San

Jose's art museum that included one photograph protesting the

Vietnam War, and which some thought to be in poor taste. The

protesters wanted the offending item removed or the exhibit

closed. After listening patiently and without emotion, Norm

said, ``I understand what you are saying, but it is that kind

of thinking that got me and my family put in camp in 1942.''

His remark ended the debate. And I knew Norm was speaking

from the very pit of his soul when he said it.

A Democrat, Mineta was elected to the U.S. House of

Representatives in 1974 largely because of two factors: the

public's anger at President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon

after his role in Watergate hurt Republican candidates, and

Norm's record as a nonpartisan, pragmatic municipal leader,

which appealed to many independent, ``ticket splitter''

voters.

Although his district was always competitive, based on

party registration, Norm never received less than 60 percent

of the vote in every subsequent re-election, and he was

actively supported by Democrats and Republicans throughout

his career in Congress.

Eventually, Mineta was appointed secretary of commerce by

President Bill Clinton, thus becoming the first Asian-

American to ever serve in a Cabinet position. After the

bitterly contested presidential election of November 2000,

when he learned that he was being considered for the top spot

at the Department of Transportation in the incoming Bush

administration, Norm pulled together a group of friends and

advisers to discuss--and debate--the upsides and downsides of

such an appointment.

As the conversation developed, I knew that the only thing

that mattered was Norm's belief that, if the president asks

for your help, unless it's a request for something illegal or

immoral, the only answer is, ``Yes, Mr. President.''

That belief helps explain the relationship between Norm

Mineta and George Bush, two individuals with profoundly

different political ideologies. When they first met, on Jan.

2, 2001, the then president-elect wasted no time getting down

to business by saying, ``Dick [Cheney], Andy [Card] and my

dad all tell me that you are the best man for the job.''

As he recounted the conversation to me later that evening,

Norm then reminded the president-elect that he had campaigned

extensively on behalf of his opponent, Al Gore, throughout

the fall. Norm wanted to know if Bush was troubled by that,

to which the president-elect replied, ``No, I know all about

that, Norm, but you never made it personal.''

The bond between the president and his secretary of

transportation was assured in the terrible early hours of the

Sept. 11 tragedy, when to prevent any further attacks Norm

commanded the immediate and safe landing of thousands of

commercial flights. In the days after Sept. 11, as a

volunteer ``utility infielder'' of sorts, I had a ringside

seat at the Transportation Department, from which I watched

Norm, under enormous pressure, perform steadily and ably,

leading the department in a way that quickly restored its

operational and emotional balance.

Norm Mineta has served the president and his country well

and honorably for the past 5\1/2\ years, and in so doing has

validated the president's early and continued confidence in

him.

Even so, Norm's tenure in the Bush administration has

frustrated and angered some Democrats, who oppose any such

collaboration. Those critics would be well-advised to

contemplate what Norm wrote in his letter of resignation to

President Bush, which became effective today:

``There is much talk these days about a lack of civility in

our political discourse and of deep ideological and partisan

divisions at every level of government, most especially here

in Washington, D.C.--I like to think that you and I have

demonstrated, even in a small way, that different political

affiliations do not have to translate into opposing views on

the value of public-policy issues and the nobility of public

service.''

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, during consideration of H. Res. 877, the rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007, on June 20, 2006, I improperly referred to the Ranking Member of the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee as Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. I would like the record to show that I meant to refer to the Ranking Member of the Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee as Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 2006 I inadvertently missed rollcall vote 320. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 320, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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 Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second, transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age; third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year.

Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50 billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion, the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the administration requested.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our continued support.

No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges. However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes significant progress in all these areas.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may.

I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9 percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the gross national product.

I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best service as reasonably priced as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I too have no additional speakers. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is even harder during a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect. That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in funding our troops in the field today.

Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and underlying bill.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and insert tabular and extraneous material into the Record.

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.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of House Resolution 861.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is a closed rule providing 10 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions.

It further provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of today's debate, I believe there are four relevant questions we must consider. First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? Second, with Saddam Hussein gone, what are the stakes in terms of our involvement in Iraq? Third, what are the chances for success in Iraq? And finally, where will the battle be won or lost? I would like to consider each of those questions in turn.

First, should we have entered the war in Iraq? I remind the Members of this House that it was official policy of the United States Government beginning in 1998, agreed to by both Houses of Congress, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We had good reason to do so. This is a person who had twice launched regional wars and took over a million lives; who pursued and nearly acquired nuclear weapons on two different occasions; who developed weapons of mass destruction and had used them against his own people; who was a state sponsor of terrorism; who had systematically worked his way out from under the restrictions applied to him by the United Nations; who had expelled weapons inspectors from his own country; who was a continuing threat; and, frankly, who had terrorized and brutalized and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.

Second, with him gone, what is at stake in Iraq? For that I think we should turn to the enemies that we fight today. al Qaeda, they have designated this and other terrorist groups as the central battlefield in the war on terror. I quote from the chief theoretician of al Qaeda: ``Iraq is the greatest battlefield against the infidel and his native allies. It is not the American war machine that should be of utmost concern. What threatens the future is American democracy. To allow Iraq to build a democracy would represent our biggest defeat.'' So the stakes are certainly worth the effort.

Next, what are our chances of success in Iraq? Frankly, I think they are very good, for two reasons. First, obviously, the skill, the bravery, the professionalism of our own people which was demonstrated only last week when they cornered and killed al Zarqawi, one of the world's worst terrorists; but second, and we ought to note this, the Iraqi people themselves. It is they who stepped up under the most difficult of circumstances and turned out in successfully greater numbers at three different elections. It is they who, in the civil turmoil they are going through, have fashioned a Constitution, have created a permanent government. It is their leaders who run the risk of being killed every single day, and it is their people who are standing up literally by the thousands and fighting back to defend their own country and to move it forward to a hopeful and democratic future. So I think our chances of success in Iraq are good.

Finally, though, where will the battle be won or lost? Finally, Iraq is a crucial theater. What happens there with our military, what happens with the Iraqis is determinative to the outcome; but I would also suggest that the United States is itself a battlefield, a political battlefield. The real question is whether or not we will sustain the will that it takes to ultimately be successful, and that decision will be made not in Iraq but in Congress and in the United States itself.

So what we are about today is a fight, I think, that involves us on the most critical battlefield of all, the battlefield of American public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, today we may hear about the ``unfairness'' of this resolution. We may hear charges of a rigged process. Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. The minority was asked to provide their own party substitute to this resolution, and they did not choose to do so. We were ready to make this in order in the Rules Committee. They did not do so, and we moved forward with our resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if the other side of the aisle would like to argue process rather than substance, that is certainly appropriate, and that is their privilege. They should vote against this resolution. If they disagree with the resolution in substance, they should vote against it. If they disagree with the resolution because they consider it ramrodded, they should vote against it. That is their right.

Frankly, I believe their real challenge is that they have no common unified position on Iraq as a party. Whether we are right or wrong on our side of the aisle, we do have a common position, and it is expressed in the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge those on both sides of the aisle who believe that winning the campaign in Iraq is of the utmost important in achieving success in the wider global war on terror to vote for this resolution. I believe that many Members of both parties will.

Mr. Speaker, to that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just 15 seconds.

I want to make note for the record, we did offer the minority an opportunity for a substitute resolution.

And no, I will not yield. My time is very tight, and you have time to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the National Security Subcommittee of Government Reform, a gentleman who has been to Iraq on 12 different occasions, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

I am prepared to close whenever you are, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my close, I simply want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle the simple fact is, despite their insistence to the contrary, our side never received a substitute amendment to consider. The Rules Committee received four amendments, none of which was a Democratic substitute. We cannot make in order what is not submitted to the Rules Committee.

Let me say that I suspect that this procedural problem really represents the fact that there is not a cohesive alternative presented by the other side. We have watched again and again and again as the Democratic Party has struggled to come to grips with this issue and find a united position, and so far no united position has emerged.

As I pointed out in my opening remarks, we do indeed have a united position. It is one that you can agree with or disagree with, but it is a resolution that we can put forward and we can command the overwhelming majority of our Members to support. And, frankly, I hope and trust that many Members on the other side will also be supportive of that position.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. What is at stake in Iraq is the war on terror, whether or not we will be successful. That is the central battlefield of this particular moment.

Everybody on both sides agrees that removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing to do. He was an evil man, a dangerous man, a tyrant to his own people, a threat to world peace. That removal was not going to come about by accident or by internal revolution. They had indeed tried to do that. Unfortunately, they had failed. It took direct military intervention by the United States of America to rid the world of one of the worst tyrants we have seen in the second half of the 20th and the opening of the 21st centuries. Once there, the terrorists, our enemies, made this the central battlefield. And, frankly, over the course of the last 3 years, they have inflicted enormous damage on the Iraqi people.

I, for one, am enormously proud of how the Iraqis have responded to that challenge. To see a people who, in the face of terror and death and destruction, have gone out to the polls not once, not twice, but three times with ever increasing numbers of participants; to see them write a constitution in the midst of turmoil and challenge; to watch them create a permanent government; to watch that government take control; and to see their people, thousands of their people, stepping forward to defend their country and fight their enemies who are also our enemies is, frankly, an inspiring and a noble sight. I think we have a terrific chance to succeed in Iraq because of the Iraqi people, because of the valor and the skill and the professionalism of the American military.

The real battle and the real arena, as my friend Mr. Shays suggested, is here on the floor of this Congress and in the court of public opinion in the United States. If we maintain the resolve, if we maintain the commitment, if we keep our promise to the Iraqi people, we will be successful. If we do not, we not only will fail, we will strengthen and harden our enemies and, frankly, will bring dishonor on ourselves.

I am extraordinarily proud of this President. I am extraordinarily proud of this Congress with its bipartisan commitment to succeed in Iraq.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 857 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert tabular and extraneous material on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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 Friday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the conference report of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Additionally, it provides that the report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, is intended to fully fund our forces overseas and at home.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when our sons and daughters are deployed overseas in a wartime environment, this legislation provides critical funds that will be used to conduct ongoing operations in the global war on terror.

Unlike other wars, this war is one where terrorists are having a critical impact and one that requires the perpetual vigilance of not only our forces but the American people. To our forces' credit, just last week they were successful in killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the critical players among the nonstate terrorist actors. This success required professionalism, perseverance, and tenacity, qualities our military has in abundance.

It is worth noting that if we were not in Iraq we would never have killed al-Zarqawi. However, it is also fair to observe that al-Zarqawi was dedicated to pursuing and killing Americans around the globe. If we had not found him, he surely would have found and attacked us.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraqis also deserve to be commended for their efforts in this struggle. During this war, they have held three elections, written a constitution, and just last week formed a permanent government. They played a key role in locating al-Zarqawi and are assuming an increasing role in defending their own country. They are watching what we do here today. They require and request our continued support as they move forward in their efforts to build a new and better Iraq. The passage of this rule and the underlying legislation is an important sign that this country and this Congress will keep its commitment to Iraq as it strives to create a future of hope and promise.

But, Mr. Speaker, real challenges remain, and it is these challenges that require our action today. Our military, our sons and daughters, need these funds immediately. They require our support and we must give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some may question the cost of the global war on terror. Some may question its worth. But, Mr. Speaker, today is not September 10 of 2001. We know what terrorists are capable of doing. Our enemies have chosen to make Iraq the central theater in the global war on terror. They seek to do to us what their predecessors did to the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and that is a triumph which we must deny our enemies for our own sake as well as that of the Iraqi people.

This war is a generational test, one that will affect not only our children and grandchildren but our great grandchildren as well. We cannot fail in our objectives. We chose this path as a Congress in 2002, and now we must stay on the hard road to its completion. We must support our forces now by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, many may wish to raise extraneous policy issues in this debate. Some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the question at hand. Frankly, I welcome the debate today and later this week; however, now is the time to support our sons and daughters deployed overseas in the field of battle. Now is the time to accept the true challenges we face. We can do so by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that this supplemental has another purpose. It contains funds that are badly needed by our fellow Americans on the gulf coast as they are still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our fellow citizens need and deserve our support. I am proud that we are responding as we have twice before. This, like the war on terror, is a national priority. These twin issues, the war on terror and recovery of the gulf coast, demand and will receive resources from the Congress on a bipartisan basis.

However, I am pleased to note that in our negotiation with the other body our conferees have kept their focus on the challenges at hand. They have not allowed the generous impulses that underlay this legislation to be perverted into a reckless spending spree on other items. For that they are to be commended. They have given us a bill that meets the needs at hand, yet remains fiscally responsible. That is no small accomplishment. This legislation deserves support from all Members.

Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for 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 simply want to note that this supplemental actually addresses many of the gentlewoman's concerns. It includes money for armoring Humvees and truck vehicles. The supplemental makes modifications to requests in

order to get the safest, most effective armored vehicles to troops in the field, including the National Guard, in a timely manner. It also adds $726 million to requests to ensure that Army tracked combat vehicles, such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, are upgraded and available to the National Guard. There is also in this appropriation additional funds to look after the well-being of the troops.

I think that our House Committee on Armed Services has done an excellent job in identifying problems as they have shown themselves and dedicating resources to them throughout this conflict.

Certainly more can be done, and it is being done in this supplemental. But I would also point out for the record, while every loss of life, every loss of life is a tragedy and something that one would prefer not to happen, this is still one of the lowest, if not the lowest, casualty rates in the history of sustained conflict in our country.

So I think, frankly, those in charge of these particular areas have done a commendable job and, frankly, are trying to improve on that job literally on a daily basis. This supplemental is a step in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one of the points that my good friend from Wisconsin made. He used the phrase ``unnecessary war in Iraq.'' I would respectfully disagree with that judgment.

The policy to remove Saddam Hussein was not a policy adopted simply by this administration or this Congress. It was the official policy of the United States under our former President beginning in 1998. Why did we do that? Why did we choose to make the removal of Saddam Hussein a priority in American policy?

You can tick off the reasons. This is the man who launched two regional wars that killed over a million people, and he involved our country in armed conflict in 1991 in Kuwait. This is a man who twice had come close to developing nuclear weapons. First, in 1981, the Israelis took them out. Then he was evidently within 6 months of having nuclear weapons when the Gulf War broke out, according to the United Nations.

You visit Iraq, you can find mass graves everywhere. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. This was a person who was financing terrorism up to the moment he was removed from power, offering $25,000 bounties and rewards to families whose children were killed in terrorist activity.

This is a person who was getting out from under U.N. sanctions, who had already despoiled the Oil-for-Food Program, and who step by step was moving himself toward the ability to be a threat in the region again, or to enhance his threat.

So I think when we actually look at this regime, it is fortunate that it is not there, because, frankly, if it were there today, it would be freer and more powerful and I think more threatening than it was when it was removed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again disagree with my good friend. I find, frankly, comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam to be incredibly overdrawn and misplaced.

When we look at the scale of the American involvement in Vietnam, the level of casualties, the fact that there were not democratic elections, that there was not the constitution, that there has not been the progress; frankly, when we look at the threat that was constituted by Saddam Hussein as opposed to North Vietnam, they simply are not on a comparable scale. Saddam Hussein was somebody who tried to assassinate a President of the United States, who drew us into war, who was actively seeking weapons of mass destruction throughout his political career.

I would agree with the gentleman, the fact that we had had a relationship with him was an enormous mistake and bad judgment by the American Government. I would actually concede my good friend's point in that regard.

I am glad in the end we understood who and what this person is. I point out again, that recognition began before this administration ever took office. That began with an act of this Congress and the preceding administration, the Clinton administration, that declared it was in the interest of the United States to remove this tyrant from office.

I would also point out with respect to the intelligence, while undoubtedly mistakes were made, those were mistakes that were made by the entire planet, and, frankly, I can bring quote after quote out by the preceding administration, by Members of this body that would suggest all of us believed there were weapons of mass destruction.

There is no question that at various points in his career, Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass destruction, acquired them and used them. And in a post-9/11 world, there is every reason to believe he would do so again and that that technology, that capability, could easily migrate to our opponents.

The world is safer; Iraq has a chance for a better future because Saddam is gone. That is due to the heroism and the professionalism of the American military.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that I believe we have had a good debate on the rule. I believe the importance and the timeliness of this legislation could not be more self-evident. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war.

We had an interesting historical discussion and debate here today. It was an interesting debate as to how we got into this war and whether or not Saddam Hussein, it was appropriate to remove him at the time and in the way that we did. I suspect history will vindicate our judgment in that regard. He was a terrorist, he was a tyrant, he was a threat to global peace; and the world is better because he is gone. Iraq has a potential future because he is gone.

However, I would ask Members to remember this is a vote about our willingness to support our service men and women and not about other policy issues. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.

It is also a vote about whether or not we will support our fellow Americans on the gulf coast. On that I doubt there is any division in this House.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. This important legislation will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, moderate gas prices for consumers and create high-paying jobs. This legislation will do all of that while also reducing our trade and budget deficits.

Opening up ANWR, according to the mean estimate, would make available 10.4 billion barrels of oil for domestic consumption. That is more than the proven reserves in all of Texas. The resulting economic activity will create as many as 250,000 new jobs. As an additional benefit, royalties and corporate taxes in the amount of $111 billion would flow to the Federal Government over 30 years, a modest but real improvement in our Nation's budget picture.

Madam Speaker, opponents of this legislation are going to make two different arguments. They are going to say that passage of this legislation will not address all of our energy problems, and they are going to voice environmental concerns. I want to briefly say a word about each of these points.

On the first argument, it is true: Opening ANWR will not solve all of our Nation's energy problems. But in point of fact, there is no single solution for all of our energy problems. We should no more reject ANWR because it fails to solve all of our energy problems than we should reject investing in promising sources of energy that may be many years away from fruition.

Likewise, we should not reject efforts at conservation just because this too can only solve part of the problem instead of all of it. Simply put, we cannot afford to reject any measure that helps us reach the goal of energy independence.

Madam Speaker, on the second concern regarding the environment, much has been said. My own view is this: With this legislation, we are faced with the choice of whether we have more of our energy production done overseas or whether to have more of it done in the United States. This choice has real environmental consequences. We can have more oil production occur here where it is done under the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, using the most sophisticated technology, or we can have more oil production done overseas where, in many cases, far weaker environmental regulations prevail.

True environmentalists think globally, not nationally. On this basis, we should produce as much energy as possible in the well-regulated confines of our own country.

I would urge Members to support this important legislation that would provide our Nation with a secure new source of domestic energy for many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important amendment that will aid the outstanding work of the Shadow Wolves.

The Shadow Wolves, who were recognized by Congress in 1972, patrol the international land border within the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation in the State of Arizona. The Shadow Wolves' officers are Native Americans who combine modern technology and traditional Native American tracking techniques. Their unit includes the Blackfoot, Cheyenne and Pima tribes. Their motto is: ``In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight, for I am the Shadow Wolf.''

Mr. Chairman, these agents, numbering only 16, have combined to seize an average of over 100,000 pounds of illegal narcotics annually. In some years, they intercept as much as a third of all the marijuana stopped by Customs officials in Arizona.

This commonsense amendment is budget neutral. It will merely transfer the Shadow Wolves' unit funding from Customs and Border Patrol to Immigration and Customs enforcement.

Funding for the Shadow Wolves should not be held hostage by internal power struggles within the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, they should be funded and allowed to operate to their fullest potential.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this excellent amendment to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation.

Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 148: ``no'' (On Agreeing to the DeFazio of Oregon Amendment to H.R. 4200).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5386, the Department of Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the distinguished chairman, Mr. Taylor, and his committee for including funding in the Indian Health Service facilities budget for joint venture projects. I believe the Service should take advantage of opportunities like the joint venture program to leverage tribal dollars with Federal dollars.

In my State of Oklahoma, I am pleased to note that the Chickasaw Nation has pledged an unprecedented $135,000 million in tribal funds to design, construct, and equip a new state-of-the-art medical center to meet the needs of its people, its community, and neighboring tribes.

Congress and the Indian Health Service should look favorably upon tribes willing and able to make those investments back into their community and provide the necessary supplemental resources.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of H.R. 5386.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 811 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and to insert tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a second rule for consideration of the House Report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this rule is a structured rule and provides for further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5122. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the resolution.

The rule provides that amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read.

It provides that each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report and those amendments en bloc as described in section 3 of the resolution. Additionally, it authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, or his designee, to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of, which shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their designees, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole.

The rule provides that the original proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.

The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to recognize for consideration any amendment printed in the report out of the order printed, but not sooner than 30 minutes after the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee or his designee announces from the floor a request to that effect. Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. Yesterday, I believe we had a good discussion about the importance of the underlying legislation, and the rule passed overwhelmingly. The same facts that were true yesterday remain so today.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud about the way the rules for the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act have been structured. Let's have a minute to review the facts here. The underlying legislation had broad bipartisan agreement, passing the committee by a vote of 60-1.

Between the subcommittee and the full committee, the Armed Services Committee passed 75 amendments, 36 of those by Republican authors, 38 by Democrats, and one bipartisan amendment. Out of the 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, we made 31 in order, 15 Republican, 13 Democrats and two bipartisan.

In addition, six amendments were incorporated into the manager's amendment.

Today, we may well hear that the amendment process was arbitrary and unfair, but the facts do not support the claims. This legislation proceeded through regular order. We will have a vigorous discussion today, and the amendments in order will allow either side to improve and perfect the defense authorization further.

As usual, minority rights are protected by allowing a motion to recommit with or without instructions. This process has been open, thorough and fair. While not every amendment was made in order, all were considered. Only nine of the 60-odd amendments that were not included were actually raised by the minority for consideration in the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke about the importance of four long-term challenges relating to national security and how this bill addresses them. Additionally, I drew attention to the fact that our deployed servicemen and women rely on this legislation to directly support their efforts in our Global War on Terror.

Nothing said today will change these facts. Today is really the day we should be focused on uniting as Americans and supporting our troops in the field. No one piece of legislation is ever perfect. Today is no exception. But today we have a very good piece of legislation that was crafted in a bipartisan way through regular order.

At the end of this debate, the House will have considered over 30 percent of all submitted amendments on the floor. The others were previously considered at the committee level. There are no irregularities here.

While we will no doubt have some spirited disagreements on some amendments, including some not brought to the floor, this bill is, at its core, an example of bipartisan cooperation and consensus.

The Members of the minority who serve on the House Armed Services Committee have praised the committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for its inclusiveness and have said that the legislation we are considering today deserves to pass. When all is said and done, it will pass by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. That is something in which this House, the American people and, more importantly, our men and women in uniform can take pride.

Mr. Speaker, realizing the facts surrounding the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying bill.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not. Those matters can be dealt with on a motion to recommit.

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

I want to begin, if I may quickly, by reminding my friends on the other side of the aisle the basic nature of this bill.

It was a very bipartisan bill. It was universally praised as being bipartisan by Members of both parties. In particular, Chairman Hunter was singled out for operating inclusively, in a bipartisan manner.

There were 88 amendments offered in the House Committee on Armed Services. Seventy-five of those passed. Of those passed, 38 were Democrats, 36 were Republican, one was bipartisan. There were over 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, 31 were made in order, an additional six were dealt with in the manager's amendment. Only eight amendments were brought up for reconsideration in the Rules Committee by the minority.

Now, I understand that not everybody is pleased with every aspect of the bill, but to characterize the bill as anything other than bipartisan, and bipartisan in process, I think is to not recognize the nature of the process we have gone through.

With respect to Mr. Skelton's amendment, nobody in this House, I can assure you, respects Mr. Skelton more than I do. I have served with him on his committee. I publicly praised him yesterday, and that praise is fully and well deserved. He is one of the distinguished Members of our body.

I do point out his amendment was, in fact, considered in the House Committee on Armed Services. It did fail. There were bipartisan members for it and bipartisan against it, although it was largely a party-line vote.

At some point you have to ask yourself, why do we have committees, if not to make these decision? When a matter is dealt with fully by a committee, who are well-versed in it, I think that should carry heavy weight in determining whether or not we move on and consider a particular amendment on the floor; and in this case, I think that was thoroughly vetted and thoroughly discussed although, of course, my friends still have the opportunity to include that provision in a motion to recommit.

Let me conclude by just quickly going on and going through some of the things that were included in TRICARE.

Under the bill that was fashioned by our distinguished chairman and ranking member, working in a bipartisan fashion in the House Armed Services Committee, H.R. 5122 will prohibit until December 31, 2007, the Department of Defense's ability to increase TRICARE Prime, Standard and TRICARE Reserve Select cost shares.

H.R. 5122 calls for an independent analysis to determine the appropriate cost-sharing formula for the TRICARE program.

H.R. 5122 zeros out the costs for generic and formulary prescriptions for participants in the TRICARE pharmacy and mail order program.

H.R. 5122 also adds $735 million to the Defense Health Program to restore funding cuts included in the DOD budget request in anticipation of increased beneficiary cost shares which, as mentioned, H.R. 5122 prohibits.

H.R. 5122 includes TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations following sexual assaults and domestic violence.

H.R. 5122 provides TRICARE coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs for dental care provided to young children and to mentally or physically challenged beneficiaries.

I say this simply to make the point that we have had several years, frankly, where this committee has worked diligently to improve the TRICARE system to enhance the benefits available to our men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

If I may, again, I want to thank my good friend from Missouri. There is nobody who cares more about men and women that wear the uniform of the United States than Mr. Skelton.

I do wish to point out again the amendment was considered by the full House Armed Services Committee. It did not succeed.

I also want to point out again we made considerable progress in TRICARE, many millions of dollars spent.

And, finally, something which maybe many Members may not be aware of because they don't serve on that committee, active duty family members actually get most of their prescriptions free from military hospitals. Only 11 percent of prescriptions are obtained through a TRICARE retail pharmacy. So we are really not talking about a great deal of money. And we have a study authorized in this legislation under way to look at what the appropriate distribution of the cost of these types of items should be. I actually think the House Armed Services Committee has gone a very long way in trying to address this very, very important issue; and I have no doubt we will revisit it next year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.

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

I just wish to quickly point out, again, the record which seems to get lost in the rhetoric: 88 amendments considered in the House Armed Services Committee, 75 accepted; 100 amendments dealt with by the Rules Committee, 31 brought to the floor; six others dealt with during the manager's amendment.

If my friends had their way, it wouldn't matter how many times amendments were defeated along the way. Every single one would come to the floor of the House of Representatives. If we were going to operate that way, we simply could do away with the committee system all together and simply operate by Committee of the Whole. I don't think that makes good sense.

So we are very pleased with the manner in which this bill has been dealt with. Members of both sides have regarded it as a very bipartisan piece of legislation. I will make a prediction it is going to pass with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I would love to have the chairman take a drive in my district any day. We have Fort Sill Army Post, Tinker Air Force Base, and he loves soldiers, so that is fine by me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that all of these matters can be dealt with in a motion to recommit. I would invite them to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my good friend from Washington again. We actually visited Iraq together. I know how strongly he feels about this issue. I respect that. I would also point out, though, that we have discussed Iraq on many occasions in this House. We have in the past, we will in the future.

In addition to that, again I just wanted to remind my friends of the simple numbers: 88 amendments considered by the House Armed Services Committee, 75 accepted, about evenly split; 100 amendments proposed to the Rules Committee, 31 accepted, 6 considered or incorporated in the manager's amendment. Frankly, all the other matters where folks are disappointed or have a different point of view can be dealt with in a motion to recommit. I suspect they will be.

The reality is, we have had a very bipartisan process. We agree on 98 or 99 percent of the issues that will be incorporated, I suspect, on the final vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

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

No, I am prepared to close.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good chance to debate the issues in the process today. After this debate, I am convinced that the process worked as it should. There can be no debating the basic facts. The House Armed Services Committee considered 88 amendments; 75 of those amendments, 38 Democrat, 36 Republican, one bipartisan, were incorporated into the legislation.

The House Rules Committee received over 100 amendments; 31 of those were made in order. They were about evenly balanced between the two parties. An additional six were incorporated into the manager's amendment. Numerous minority amendments were accepted and moved through regular order. The ranking members of the subcommittees and the full House Armed Services Committee all support the underlying legislation.

Ultimately, there can be no dispute that the process followed for this legislation was fully the regular order. It was fair and protected minority rights.

I think that we should focus, as we come to the conclusion of this debate, on what unites us instead of what divides us. The fact is that we agree on both sides of the House with 97 or 98 percent of what is in the actual legislation.

This is actually a model of bipartisan cooperation, a consensus, despite some of the rhetoric that we have here today. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 806.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 806 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 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 Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, the rule is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

Additionally, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution.

Furthermore, it provides that the amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule provides that after disposition of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5122 and the underlying legislation. This important legislation takes a number of dramatic steps to better the lives of our servicemen and women, increase our defense capabilities, and more aggressively conduct operations in the generational global war on terror that is now under way. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges for the future and provides many of the interim steps to meet those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, as a member on leave from the House Armed Services Committee and a member of the Rules Committee, I firmly believe that this legislation takes the appropriate and necessary steps to better secure America's security and more successfully prosecute the war which we were drawn into on September 11, 2001.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 5122, one most understand the four long-term challenges that we face in the 21st century security environment. Briefly put, these challenges are, first, responding to the dramatic procurement holiday we took in the 1990s; second, responding to the operational demands for the transformation of our forces; third, responding to the operational and strategic demands for increased end strength; fourth, shaping our military for a generational war, the global war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, these challenges are not options. They are requirements that the Armed Services Committee must address on a continuing basis. I am happy to report that there is a bipartisan agreement that the committee has done precisely that in H.R. 5122.

The gentleman from California, Chairman Hunter, and the gentleman from Missouri, Ranking Member Skelton, have worked in a good, bipartisan

way to bring forward a legislative package that we may all be proud of. Now it is important that we collectively, as the House, support our deployed servicemen and women by supporting the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that this legislation responds in a dramatic way to all the long-term challenges that we face. Being specific, the underlying legislation increases the procurement accounts by approximately $9 billion over fiscal year 2006 and effectively replenishes several historically underfunded accounts.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation also takes dramatic steps forward in transforming the nature and the structure of our operational forces by funding the Brigade Combat Team conversions for the Army, addressing the needs of the Navy's future shipbuilding program and increasing the end strength of the Army by 30,000 soldiers and 5,000 Marines to the Marine Corps to better support the war on terror.

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation takes dramatic steps to better ensure our long-term success in the global war on terror. Specifically, this legislation includes a $50 billion allocation of supplemental funding to support ongoing war-related costs and procurement of replacement equipment.

It significantly increases personnel protection efforts with respect to improvised explosive devices and authorizes support for shipyards to maintain the long-term operational success and stability of the shipping industry critical to all of our services.

Also, the underlying legislation supports troop morale and welfare by ensuring a 2.7 percent pay raise and blocks the Department of Defense's proposed TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Standard fee increases and zeroes out copayments for generic and formulary mail order prescriptions for military beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, over the next 2 days, we will hear arguments in favor of specific amendments that do not relate to our four long-term challenges, nor do they address the subject matter of the underlying legislation in any real way.

We will also hear arguments attacking the executive and our progress in the war on terror. Those discussions are appropriate, but they do not really relate to the purpose of this legislation.

I would caution those who would like to politicize the defense authorization bill that this legislation is absolutely essential to our servicemen and women deployed overseas in a wartime deployment. The operational situation will not change through continuing attacks on the choices that we collectively as the House have made in the past.

Our focus should be to advance our Nation's and our servicemen and women's interest by providing them with the tools they require to be successful. The underlying legislation does just that.

Mr. Speaker, additionally, some Members may want to engage in debate that is essentially tangential to the issue at hand. What we must remember is that this bill is a finely crafted piece of legislation that attempts to bridge the policy and political divide to do what is best for our servicemen and women.

Fundamentally this legislation moves us in the proper direction. No bill is perfect. However, this bill is a very good piece of legislation that increases our security, assists in prosecuting our global war on terror, protects our troops and enhances the lives of our servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, to that end I urge support for 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her recognition of the National Guard. I share her admiration and appreciation for that splendid service. I certainly appreciate her remarks and the bipartisan way in which we arrived at a common agreement on end strength, and also appreciate her praise for the committee's strong bipartisan work on TRICARE, while recognizing she would prefer to go a little bit further. But I think we certainly went much further in both those areas than the original administration proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out simply for the record that this bill was reported out of committee by a 60-1 margin, a very strong bipartisan indication of support and appreciation for the main points in the bill.

As to the point on missile defense, I think the activities in Iran and certainly North Korea indicate that we would be prudent to think about developing missile defense. So I am very pleased with the bipartisan nature of this legislation. Frankly, I suspect most Members will vote for it in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island's bipartisan remarks about the legislation.

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

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

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to remind our Members that this rule and the underlying legislation is not about us or our interests. It is fundamentally about the long-term interests of our Nation, the security and stability of our military, and the welfare of our deployed servicemen and women.

Mr. Speaker, no generation undertakes a war lightly. Certainly, the World War I and World War II generations and the Cold War generations did not do so, and it is clear that historically there is always dissent. That is good and it is American. However, the previous generations understood that if they were not firm in their commitment, unwavering in their support for the troops and sure in their convictions, America would be the worse for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, we face the very same challenges as these previous generations. Today is the day that we must support our forces to secure the peace for our progeny and to spread freedom around the globe.

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate at this particular moment in our history to have men like Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Ike Skelton heading and cooperating so closely on this very important committee, one in which whatever our differences may be, we come together as Americans to support those Americans who defend our freedom and who put themselves in harm's way for our benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. It is critical for America, for the cause of freedom, and for the success of the brave men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States.

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

The previous question was ordered.