Floor Statements

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 16 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, December 16, 2005, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 614, on suspending the rules to agree to H. Con. Res. 196. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act included a provision authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to work in cooperation with the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District (COMCD), and local entities to initiate a Water Supply Augmentation Feasibility Study at Lake Thunderbird near Norman, Oklahoma, and appropriating $300,000 to the Bureau to initiate this study. Unfortunately, due to current fiscal constraints and the difficult decisions that had to be made in light of these constraints, the conferees were forced to remove this provision in the final conference report.

Mr. Speaker, since its construction in 1965, Lake Thunderbird has served as a reliable source of municipal and industrial water for three communities in my district, including Norman. Preliminary findings by the OWRB and the City of Norman indicate that the City's water demands will exceed its current combined supply from groundwater and Lake Thunderbird within 5 years. In fact, since 1988, Norman has exceeded its proportional allocation 12 separate years. Today, all projections show that the annual allocation afforded Norman will always be exceeded without additional supplies being made available. It is anticipated that the two other communities served by Lake Thunderbird may also need additional water in the future.

Appraisal level studies initiated by the Bureau of Reclamation in Fiscal Year 2003 support the need for additional water supplies to meet the region's future needs. This provision was included in the Senate bill to enable the Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with the OWRB, the COMCD and its member cities, to initiate a more in-depth feasibility-level study of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the COMCD and its member cities. I look forward to working with the Chairman and the Bureau of Reclamation to identify any unobligated balances within the Bureau's budget that may be released to initiate this study.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1894, the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005.

This legislation makes a technical change to current law, which will allow foster care maintenance payments to any public or private agency that assists families who care for foster children. This will allow for-profit agencies to operate on the same footing as all other such agencies, but States will continue to decide which agencies to use based on their best judgment about what is in the interest of the children and the families they serve.

The Fair Access Foster Care Act will ease the administrative costs to States that already elect to work with nonprofit agencies, allowing the focus and the money to be concentrated on what really matters.

Speaking for my own State, in Oklahoma there are 15 agencies that provide therapeutic foster care. Five of these agencies operate under a for-profit business model.

Mr. Speaker, I will again note that this legislation does not require any State to contract with for-profit agencies. Individual State agencies charged with the oversight of custody children will continue to create their own rules for licensing child-placing agencies within the State. This legislation is identical to legislation I authored, H.R. 3008, so I am very grateful that this legislation was scheduled for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Herger), the gentleman from Washington (Ranking Member McDermott), and also to the staff of the Ways and Means Committee for guiding this bill through the legislative process.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks to my friend, Dr. Laura Boyd of Norman, Oklahoma. Dr. Boyd and I belong to different parties and have even been on the opposite sides of each other in various campaigns over the years, but we have always had the ability to work together across the aisle when it counted.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Boyd did a commendable job in raising awareness of this issue, and she was an effective proponent for this needed change in the law. She is a very big reason why we are at this point today.

I urge the Members to support the passage of this bill, S. 1894.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 439 and in support of the underlying resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the minority objects to House Resolution 437 on the basis that the bipartisan committee it creates will be inherently unbalanced and unfair. One suspects they believe it will be unfair largely because while they will have full rights of representation on the committee in question, they will inevitably be the minority on any panel that fairly represents the composition of both the House of Representatives and the other body.

It would be easy and entertaining to lampoon the consistency of the so-

called Party of the People rejecting a committee composed of the elected representatives of the American people in favor of one made up of individuals who are both unelected and unaccountable to the voters of this country, but I will avoid that temptation.

Frankly, there are deeper issues here. The first is our faith as individuals in the efficacy of democracy itself. As the minority in this House for 11 years, I fear my friends on the other side of the aisle have lost their faith in the American people, because of the choices they have made at the ballot box in recent years. Having served as a member of a seemingly permanent minority in the Oklahoma State Senate earlier in my career, I understand the frustration on which that sentiment is based.

However, as adherents to the ideals of democracy, we should trust that over time the people will get it right and that if our views are sound, they will prevail. In the meantime, our job is to argue our point of view in the court of public opinion and accept the outcome at the polls when the verdict is rendered.

The second issue at stake here is the wisdom of empowering people who are neither elected nor accountable to perform the task our Constitution assigns to the elected representatives of the American people. Frankly, I share the sentiments Winston Churchill famously voiced when he said ``democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.''

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally unsound and undemocratic to turn over the function of congressional oversight to a group of individuals who have neither been elected by the people nor accountable to the people for their actions or recommendations. Appointing a commission is the easy way out. It is a way for us, the representatives of the people, to avoid our responsibilities. Its members, however expert and well-intentioned, did not design or create the agencies and processes we wish to examine in connection with Hurricane Katrina. We did. Similarly, they will not be responsible for reforming these agencies or finding the solutions to our current problems. Those duties belong to the elected representatives of the American people.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often complain there is insufficient congressional oversight. This is our chance to exercise that oversight, and the voters will surely hold all of us accountable for how well we do the job.

My fellow Members, let us have faith in the American people, our democratic institutions, and ourselves. Let us do the job we were elected to do, rather than hand it off to those who were neither asked nor chosen by the American people to govern their affairs. I urge support of House Resolution 439 and the underlying House Resolution 437.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of quick points, and then I will reserve the balance of my time.

I would disagree very strongly with my good friend from Florida about the 9/11 Commission. There were, in fact, many investigations in this Congress about the tragedy that took place on 9/11, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence amongst them. We did actually do oversight.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, and I respect the opinion of my good friend from Florida, but I think there was oversight.

But I would actually agree with his fundamental point in the sense that I think oversight is more effectively done by the elected representatives of the people, by the appropriate people who are responsible for implementing the solution. I do not think we should take that model and follow it again here.

I also would suspect that the situation between a deliberate attack on the United States and a natural disaster are very different.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 25, 2005, I was unavoidably detained on official business overseas.

I respectfully request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 417: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.J. Res. 59); Rollcall No. 418: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 181); and Rollcall No. 419: ``Yes'' (On motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 376).

Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 2005, I was unavoidably detained during a vote on H. Res. 344. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 316.

Mr. Chairman, on June 22, 2005 I was unavoidably detained during votes on H.R. 2985. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: on Rollcall vote No. 299, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 300, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 301, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 302, I would have voted ``nay''; on Rollcall vote No. 303, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 315 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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 315.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the House Report for H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, when the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. This rule 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 in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record. It provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the committee believes this rule will provide ample opportunity for Members to fully debate the funding of our national defense.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 2863 and the underlying bill. This important legislation takes dramatic steps to further prosecute the global war on terror, enhance our security, and improve the lives of our servicemen and women. It is a bill that fundamentally addresses many of the transformative challenges faced by our military in the future and implements many measures needed to meet those challenges.

Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee have presented us with an excellent bill. This bill provides us with a way to meet many of the current challenges that we face by addressing the immediate requirements of our forces as well as the ongoing need to transform our military through the adoption of new technology, advanced methods of warfare, and innovative changes in military doctrine.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 2863, one must understand the four long-term challenges that we seek to address in this legislation.

The first long-term challenge is a direct result of the procurement holiday that was taken by our country in the 1990s. To understand the consequences of shortchanging our military during this era, one need only to recall the ammunition accounts as they were funded, or perhaps better described as not funded, during this period. The failure to maintain adequate stocks of ammunition is a shortcoming we are only now beginning to overcome. Additionally, one can see the adverse effects that a constant surge in deployments in the 1990s had upon the maintenance levels of our hardware. This bill takes important steps to rectify that problem associated with the procurement holiday.

Mr. Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a continual basis is related to the transformation of our military forces. The

famous Goldwater-Nichols legislation of 1986 altered the manner in which we organize to fight wars and committed us to transforming the nature of our forces, transformation demands an ongoing strategic, operational, and tactical review of our needs in relation to technology, procurement and the development of joint warfighting capabilities.

Each service, all our units and all our equipment must complement one another and contribute to the increased effectiveness of our forces. Transformation is not a goal in and of itself. It is a process of continuous change and adaptation that makes our forces more effective. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 2863 does just that.

Mr. Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is related to our force structure and manpower requirements. This legislation, while meeting the request of the President's budget, also continues to fund additional forces required to prosecute the global war on terror. This is a good start. In future years, we will need to closely examine and, I believe, increase the size of our forces. There is no short-term easy solution to recruiting and maintaining the larger forces I personally believe we will need in the dangerous world in which we live. Still, H.R. 2863 is a good interim step and one which we should take and support and build on in the coming years.

The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. We are not fighting a nation state. We are fighting the adherents of a fanatical ideology that transcends national borders and takes root whenever and wherever it can. We are involved in a generational war against these fanatics that will last for decades. It will require a wide range of diplomatic, developmental, intelligence, communications, and civil affairs tools and activities to win.

The military component of this effort will be expensive and ever- changing. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step when we added $45.3 billion in bridge funding in ``Emergency Wartime Appropriations'' to this defense bill. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face and our determination to commit the resources needed to be successful.

Today, some Members may wish to have a broad discussion on the situation in Iraq. I welcome that debate, and the open rule attached to this legislation will allow that discussion. However, in the end, this bill is not about Iraq. It is about providing the men and women who defend our country with the tools they need to prevail against those who would do harm to the United States. After the collapse of the old Soviet Union, we took our security for granted and we underfunded the military for a decade. September 11, 2001, taught us the folly of our assumptions in this regard.

Since that time, the administration and the Congress have made the tough decisions needed to rebuild our military and expand its capabilities while waging a war on terror. This bill is another step in that process. It is well crafted, essentially bipartisan, and moves us in the proper direction. Once passed, this legislation will enhance our security, enable us to fight the war on terror, and improve the quality of life for 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 am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My main purpose here, obviously, was to focus on the bill and the rule for the bill, but I want to discuss some of the concerns that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have.

Frankly, I do not doubt their patriotism for a minute, and I welcome the discussion and debate. I think it is a very good one and a very important one for the national purpose. But I think we ought to go back and recall a little bit the situation in Iraq. We ought to remember who and what Saddam Hussein was. This was brought home to me very dramatically on my first visit to Iraq in October 2003. I have since gone back on three additional occasions, plus to Afghanistan.

I was talking with a young American soldier. At that point we, like every other intelligence service in the world and most people in the world, thought there were WMDs in significant quantities in Iraq, although I do hasten to point out the capacity to acquire and to develop those was still very much there and Mr. Hussein was still working himself out of U.N. sanctions and placing himself in a position to do that.

So I still think we were right to have acted early. But this young soldier that I was visiting with, I asked him: We've been here a considerable amount of time. We've not found the quantities of WMDs we expected. Do you think it was a wise decision to come?

He was quiet for a moment and looked at me and he said: Yes, sir, I will tell you regardless, and I still think they had the capacity, but regardless I think it was a good decision to come.

I said: Why?

And he answered my question with a question of his own. He said: Sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site?

I said: No, I haven't.

He said: I have. He said, Until you've seen hundreds of wailing women as bodies are coming out, one after another, trying to identify, is that a father, is that a son, is that a husband, is that a brother, you don't know what terror really is. He said: My question is why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago.

That is a very interesting question to ask. Because we of all people had the ability 10 years previously to have done that. We had just won a war with Saddam Hussein, we stopped at the border, and we actually urged people on the other side to rise up, and they did. And 50,000 of them were killed by Saddam Hussein and neither we nor our coalition allies did anything to help.

So I think looking at what was going on in Iraq, looking at the 400,000 deaths, looking at the 263 identified mass grave sites and looking, frankly, at our responsibility to have done something when, indeed, for a decade we did nothing is something that we ought to think about and, frankly, something that the whole world ought to think about.

Just 2 weeks ago, or last week, actually, the New York Times ran an article on another mass grave site that had been located, was being frankly explored, if that is even the appropriate term, in preparation for Saddam Hussein's trial, and in that there were 2,500 people, almost all of them women or children, some of them as young as 3 or 4 years of age. That is the type of thing that American intervention in Iraq stopped. My friends on the other side say, Well, are there any signposts? Any hope?

I think that is a very legitimate question to raise, too, because there is no doubt this has been a rough road that we have walked down and no doubt, and I think my friends are appropriate when they raise this, that it has not gone as predicted and as planned and it has been a very, very difficult process.

But I think we ought to stop and look at the Iraqis on the ground and see what they are doing, the fact that a constitutional government has been established or is being established, the fact that 8 million people came out to vote under the most difficult of circumstances, the fact that we have elections scheduled for October and again for December of this year, an extraordinary achievement by very brave Iraqis under very difficult circumstances to set up what we most need in that part of the world, which is a functioning democracy.

That would not be possible without the sacrifice and the service of the brave men and women of the United States military. That is one of the things they are accomplishing. Their first accomplishment, of course, is to make us more secure. I think it is always legitimate to ask, are we more secure or less secure as a result of the war in Iraq? I would argue we are more secure. I would argue that anybody that believes somebody like Zakawi would not be busy trying to kill Americans someplace in the region or in the world probably is missing the point. Our troops are engaged there and are engaging an enemy that, left otherwise free to operate, would be busy trying to kill other Americans as they demonstrated pretty dramatically on 9/11.

I would also argue that over time the best way to transform the region is exactly the one that the President suggests, that is, to establish a functioning democracy. I have a lot of faith in the Iraqi people. I have met the political leaders there. I saw the courage of people going out. I talked to a young soldier on the way back just after the elections actually in March of this year who had been wounded at Mosul.

I asked him: Were you there for the elections?

He said: Yes, sir, I was. It was the proudest moment in my 15 years of service to my country. I was never so proud of my unit, my Army or my country for what we accomplished. And, frankly, I was enormously proud and impressed with the Iraqi people who came out and demonstrated their determination with our help to establish a free society.

So I think we should have this discussion. I think it is a good discussion for us to have. But I think we should remember the horror that was there before the Americans intervened, the process that is under way that will not only improve the lives of the people in Iraq but is essentially the manner in which we hope someday to be able to leave a self-governing and free country.

It is not going to be an easy task. It is not going to be a simple task, but it is a noble task and it is one I think that the men and women engaged in it that wear the uniform of the United States can be extraordinarily proud of and, frankly, something that all of us can be grateful to them for accomplishing and running such great risks to achieve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

I have great respect, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their passion and their commitment, but I think they are make a fundamental mistake in their argument about Iraq. I think what they want is a timetable, not a strategy.

We have a strategy. It is called getting an elected government up and operational that can defend itself. We have made important steps along the way in succeeding in that strategy. We have turned over power to the Iraqis. The Iraqis have had an election. They have an elected government that, as we debate here, is debating there about the constitution that they want to have, that they want to live under, that they want to put in front of their people to approve of in October, followed by scheduled elections in December for a government.

I remind my friends that while they call for an exit strategy and a date certain, our friends in Iraq want exactly the opposite of a date certain. Repeatedly, the elected leaders, the elected leaders in Iraq, the people who have the voice, the mandate of the people behind them, have said, Our biggest fear about the United States is that they will not stay the course, that they will quit and run.

I tell the Members that some of the most surprised people that I met when I was in Iraq came in two categories when I was there in March after the elections. First, I met with a group of the newly formed United Iraqi Alliance, basically a group of Shia and other people who are now the majority. And we were visiting about the political process there, and one of the individuals I was visiting with, now a leader in the government, made the point that, We were not sure that you would actually allow free elections to occur, and you did, and we are astonished and pleased and committed to staying the course. So our next question is, will you stay here and help us against the people that want to take us back to the era of Saddam Hussein, back to that regime, because we are going to need your help in this transition process?

That is a very legitimate question. Do we have the political will to stay while the people that are elected put together the government that they need to succeed? So we are going to see that in the course of the coming time. But I think we should be more understanding that there is a strategy and that there is a process under way that is producing good results for the Iraqi people, that is giving them actually a government for the first time that they choose.

I also met with a group of Sunnis who were dissidents, who were not particularly supportive of the process, and in the course of our discussion, a number of them made the point, We made a big mistake. We should have participated in the last elections. The situation in the country would be different. We would be at the political table. We would be in a position to affect what is happening. But we also did not have faith that the United States was serious about democracy. But we look at the outcome of the election, and we understand that indeed you were, and we intend to participate as we move forward.

I think the gentleman from Florida made a very good point. We need to recognize that most people in Iraq are on the same side we are. Most people in Iraq want a democracy, and most people believe that our presence there is important in ensuring that that process take root and actually succeed. I think if we stay the course, frankly, in time we will be very pleased with the result, but, more importantly, we will have restored faith.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say people question our intention about staying long term. I can tell them from my personal experience it is exactly the opposite. They doubt our willingness to stay. I would suggest that setting dates certain would sound more like a surrender strategy than an exit strategy, more like we can count on at this particular point that the Americans will not be here anymore. That is a nice thing to know if one happens to be in the insurgency. It is also a pretty worrisome thing if one happens to be part of the forces of democracy. At that point whether we have succeeded or not, whether or not the government is able to deal with the insurgency on its own, the Americans are saying, sayonara, we are out of here, good- bye. That is a catastrophic mistake. That, in my opinion, would undermine the sacrifice, the effort, and the service so far.

So, again, I welcome the debate. And I hope at some point in the discussion on the rule we can get back to this excellent piece of legislation, which I think really is important, and where, frankly, there is bipartisan unity in terms of the things we need to do to move our military forward.

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

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 take this opportunity to differ with an underlying assumption that has been made by a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is that we are somehow paying an extraordinary amount of our national wealth for defense. I would actually argue quite the opposite.

In 1959 and 1960, at the height of the Cold War, this country spent 50 percent, 50 percent, of the entire Federal budget on defense, almost 9 percent of the gross national product, an enormous sum of money.

1980, fast forward, Ronald Reagan, we are spending about 6 percent of the Gross National Product and about one-third of the Federal budget on defense.

1990, 4.8 percent of the gross national product and a significantly lower percentage of the Federal budget.

Today, about 3.7 percent of the national wealth and about 18 to 19 percent of the total Federal budget.

I could make a pretty good argument that either, one, we are very efficient because we are actually defending the country for considerably less of its national wealth than we have done at any period in the postwar period; or we need to be doing more. I would argue toward the latter, actually. I think we should be doing more, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.

The second assumption that I want to disagree with is that we are somehow less safe today because of the Iraqi war. That is asserted, never demonstrated.

The reality is, I think, if you asked most Americans on September 12, 2001, did they expect other incidents inside the domestic confines of the United States, they would have said yes, and they would have expected them in rather short order. It is a little short of miraculous that we have not had that horrific incident occur again. It could occur at any moment. As the President has said repeatedly in recent months, America is safer; America is certainly not safe.

But I would argue, again, the engagement of the enemy a far distance away from the United States and in a method that keeps them tied down has actually contributed to the security of our country. This excellent piece of legislation will enable our military to continue to do the outstanding job it is doing. Again, on that piece of legislation, at least, I am delighted there is bipartisan unity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

We have had an excellent and interesting discussion here this morning on the issue of Iraq, and we will continue to have those discussions undoubtedly as we move forward.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to again draw the attention of Members to the strength of this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it was not discussed very much during the course of our exchange.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2863 takes many important steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems of the United States military, and increasing its end strength, and providing $45.3 billion in supplemental ``bridge funding'' for the war on terror.

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 California (Mr. Lewis), and the members of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and the members of the full committee. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House will undoubtedly agree is a good product.

Mr. Speaker, no legislation is perfect, and, as I said in my opening statement, the defense appropriation bill takes important steps in an ongoing process that does not end; that is, the defense of our country. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 2863, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

Therefore, I, once again, urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying concurrent resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 293.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Madam Speaker, the rule is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and waives all points of order against the rule. 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 and waives all points of order against the amendment. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides that amendments shall be considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, and shall not be subject to amendment. Additionally, it allows the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to offer an en bloc amendment consisting of amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1815 and the underlying bill. This bill will enhance our security, increase the capabilities of our military, and improve the lives of the brave men and women who defend our country. Since September 11, 2001, our military has proven its mettle and validated its doctrine, plans, and programs during the ongoing war on terror.

Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Committee on Armed Services has presented us with an outstanding bill that addresses many of the challenges our troops face on a daily basis. However, it is important to remember that this yearly authorization is at root an ongoing transformative process that occurs on an annual basis. This year we have taken important steps in the improvement and transformation of our existing forces during an era that is dangerous, demanding, and filled with challenges that our country neither anticipated nor prepared for during the 1990s.

To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 1815, one must understand the four long-term challenges we seek to address in this legislation. The first long-term challenge stems from the procurement holiday that our government voluntarily took during the 1990s. In those years, neither the President nor the Congress funded the procurement needs of our Armed Forces. As one example, during the 1990s the ammunition accounts of our military were woefully underfunded. As a result, even after radically increasing the productivity of our ammunition plants in the last few years, we are still struggling to keep pace with our current and projected needs.

The same is true of equipment, which was neither acquired nor replaced in sufficient quantities during the years between the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror. As a result, our military is still dealing with the shortages of equipment and munitions that were created in the 1990s and that have yet to be fully resolved. This bill helps address these shortages.

Madam Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a continual basis is related to the transformation of our military forces. With the passage of the Goldwater-Nickles reforms of 1986, our military began putting an increased emphasis on jointness. Over the years, increased jointness has generated different requirements for our forces. Those requirements demand procedural, bureaucratic, and technological changes within our Armed Forces. The principle of transformation has affected everything that our military does, from how we fight to how we deliver services to those who serve in our Armed Forces. Properly used, joint planning, procurement, and operations are an effective combat multiplier that creates the critical edge that our forces need to defeat our adversaries. However, transformation comes with a substantial cost. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing basis. H.R. 1815 does just that.

Madam Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is the need to expand the size of our military. Over the past few years, it has become clear that we went much too far in downsizing our military forces after the end of the Cold War. To begin to address our manpower shortage, the Committee on Armed Services increased end strength by 10,000 soldiers for the Army and 1,000 Marines for the Marine Corps. This is on top of increases made in the last 2 years. It is also in addition to reforms allowing us to use a greater percentage of our military personnel in a combat capacity.

Unfortunately, even these steps are not enough for our long-term needs, but they are at least a start and responsive to the heavy demands we are placing on our military forces. Over the next several years, we will be forced to look more carefully at manpower needs and come up with a more realistic assessment of what is actually required. Still, H.R. 1815 is a good next step and one which we should support and build upon in the coming years.

The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. It is a generational war which will take decades to win. We need to remember this when approaching the needs of the military in the authorization and the appropriations process. Hence, I believe we took a wise and important step in this direction when we added $49 billion to the defense bill to offset a portion of the costs of this conflict next year. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term nature of the challenge we face.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1815 is not a perfect bill; but it is a very, very good piece of legislation. We must remember that the National Defense Authorization Act moves us in the direction we need to go. For that, all of us should be grateful. Ultimately, this bill is not about programs, weapons, or research and development. It is about our soldiers and their ability to defend the United States.

Today, some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are superfluous to the war on terrorism and the long-term military challenges that we face. We owe it to the sons and daughters of America who are on a global battlefield in the war on terror

to address the real issues and challenges our military will confront today and tomorrow. This legislation is a step in a continuing process of enhancing our military capabilities in a dangerous world.

I would ask Members to support these prudent steps taken in this thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the other side, I would simply point out that most of the speakers are actually members of the authorizing committee and passed out this bill 61 to 1, had opportunities to offer those amendments at the committee level, presumably did so, and if they did so, were not successful, and still felt the bill was worthy of being sent on to the floor for further consideration.

In addition, the Rules Committee actually considered and has allowed 29 amendments, a majority of which are Democratic amendments. There is always going to be a judgment debate as to what should or should not be considered and how much time should be devoted in a process to any particular piece of legislation. So I respect the gentlewoman from California's opinion, but obviously we have a difference on this.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

That is correct.

I am aware of that.

Reclaiming my time, I am also aware that the item the gentleman mentioned was actually stricken on the parliamentary question.

I would like to submit for the Record the chairman of the committee's letter to that effect and also the statement from CBO upholding that decision.

Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Dear Armed Services Committee Colleague: This morning the

Congressional Budget Office informed me via letter (copy

attached), that the amendment agreed to during the

committee's mark-up of H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, extending TRICARE

coverage to all reservists will result in additional direct

(or mandatory) spending. As a result, the inclusion of this

provision would cause the bill to exceed the mandatory

spending allocation provided under the Concurrent Resolution

on the Budget. Exceeding the mandatory allocation will cause

H.R. 1815 to violate the Congressional Budget Act and subject

the bill to a point of order against its consideration on the

House floor.

I have consulted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee

on this matter and he informs me that if the bill is brought

forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will

exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of

order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor.

Accordingly, after informing Mr. Skelton and the sponsor of

the amendment, I am exercising the authority granted to me by

the committee to remove this section in order to bring the

bill back into compliance with the Budget Act and eliminate

this impediment to its floor consideration. In summary, if

this action is not taken, a point of order will be raised and

sustained against the bill and its consideration will be

blocked.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter,

Chairman.

Attachment.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.

Hon. Duncan Hunter,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, we are

sending you this letter containing our preliminary estimate

of a provision in H.R. 1815, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as ordered reported

by the committee on May 19, 2005. The provision would provide

access to TRlCARE health insurance benefits for reserve

component personnel. Implementing that provision would have

significant effects on both spending subject to appropriation

and direct spending.

The provision would affect direct spending by increasing

mandatory expenditures in the Federal Employees Health

Benefits (FEHB) program. On a preliminary basis, CBO

estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct

spending for the government's share of FEHB premiums for

retirees by $5 million in 2006, $94 million over the 2006-

2010 period, and $269 million over the 2006-2015 period.

Under the provision, all reservists in the Selected Reserve

would be eligible to enroll in TRlCARE, the health insurance

system for the Department of Defense (DoD). Based on

information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 120,000

reservists work for the federal government. CBO expects that

some of these reservists who are currently enrolled in the

FEHB program would leave that program and enroll in the new

TRlCARE for Reservists program because the premiums would be

lower than for FEHB and the coverage would be more generous.

Generally, TRICARE premiums are lower because medical costs

are highly correlated with age--the average reservist is age

34 while the average for enrollees in the FEHB program

(including retirees) is closer to age 60.

Because the estimated health care costs for reservists

switching to TRICARE are likely to be lower than the average

per capita costs for all other enrollees in the FEHB program,

average costs for the FEHB program would rise, even though

its total costs would decline. Thus, CBO expects premiums for

the remaining enrollees in the FEHB program would rise to

cover the higher average cost. The government's share of

premiums for annuitants (about 72 percent) is direct

spending.

In addition to the direct spending effects, this provision

would affect spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates

that implementing this provision would increase spending by

DoD for this new benefit by about $230 million in 2006, and

$4.6 billion over the 2006-

2010 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

In addition, we estimate that spending for reservists in the

Coast Guard would increase by $2 million in 2006 and $46

million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of

the estimated amounts. Finally, under this provision,

spending by the federal government for active workers in the

FEHB program would decline by an estimated $340 million over

the 2006-2010 period.

If you have any questions, the CBO staff contact is Sam

Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

Director.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of the Members to the strengths of H.R. 1815. It takes many steps forward in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems, increasing end strength, and provides $49.1 billion in supplemental funds for the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond just briefly to some of the concerns expressed on the other side of the aisle. First, about the process by which the Committee on Rules operated.

I remind my good friends that this bill was again reported out of the House Committee on Armed Services by a vote that was nearly unanimous, only one dissent; that 29 amendments have been made in order; that the majority of those amendments are Democratic amendments; and that we will, obviously, have an additional opportunity to debate the full merits of the bill as we move forward. I think there is more than ample time for discussion and debate.

Second, on the Reservist health care issue. This is a difficult issue, to say the least. It is an emotional issue and an important issue. I would like to point out that under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Committee on Armed Services has made important progress in this particular area. It has extended the amount of time that members that are going to be deployed are eligible for TRICARE. It has extended the amount of time that those who are leaving service are able to enjoy the benefits of TRICARE. It has allowed additional time granted for time served in deployment and combat situations. So I think the Committee on Armed Services has expressed a continuous desire to keep looking at these issues.

I have personally visited with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the subcommittee chairman responsible for this particular area; and he has assured me he wants to continue the progress that has been made over the last several years.

Again, I remind my good friends there were many opportunities when they were in the majority to address these type of issues. While we have been in the majority, we have addressed concurrent receipt in a step-by-step process that is moving us in the right direction. We have addressed survivor benefits in a step-by-step process moving us in the right direction. And now we are addressing the critical issue of health care as well. So I think important progress is being made on all these fronts, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I would like to note that this legislation would not have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the committee; and the other subcommittee chairmen, and finally the members of the Committee on Armed Services themselves. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House should be able to agree is a good product. H.R. 1815 passed in the committee, again by a vote of 61 to 1. It deserves the same strong bipartisan support on the floor, as does its underlying rule.

Mr. Speaker, many today have complained about what they consider to be critical shortcomings in this legislation. No legislation is ever perfect; and as I said in my opening statement, the defense authorization specifically is more of an ongoing process than a final product. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 1815, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

I would urge the Members on the other side of the aisle to consider carefully what a ``no'' vote would mean and say to our servicemen and - women in the field. Therefore, I once again 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.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 11 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, May 25, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about the need to reform our immigration laws to curtail abuse, make Americans safer, and uphold the rule of law. In short, we need an immigration policy that works for America. Although I will vote against the amendment, by drawing attention to this issue, Congressman Tom Tancredo is performing an important service.

I supported the REAL ID Act which makes it harder for terrorists to take advantage of our immigration laws. And I have cosponsored legislation, H.R. 98, authored by Chairman David Dreier that would make it harder for employers to hire unauthorized workers.

While I agree with the general intent of this amendment, I must reluctantly oppose the amendment because I believe it would have the unintended consequence of making Americans less safe. Our immigration laws need to be enforced. But denying homeland security funds to local governments, which in turn use the money to prevent future terrorist attacks, is something I cannot support.

Mr. Chairman, in the future I hope we will look at other measures that will encourage local authorities to support and enforce federal immigration laws. Such measures must encourage local compensation without endangering the lives of innocent Americans that we are charged to protect.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to congratulate Rear Admiral Gregory J. Slavonic upon the completion of his career of service in the United States Navy and Navy Reserve. Throughout his 34- year military career, Rear Admiral Slavonic served with distinction and dedication, ultimately

becoming the Deputy Chief of Information and Director of the Navy Reserve Public Affairs program, responsible for the training and readiness of more than 500 public affairs reservists.

In June 2004, Rear Adm. Slavonic was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Noble Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom II, Baghdad, Iraq. He was assigned to the Multinational Force--Iraq (MFN-I) staff. He served as the senior public affairs officer for Army Gen. George W. Casey, Commanding General for MNF-I, and the Director, Combined Press Information Center (CPIC).

From June to November, Rear Adm. Slavonic led a 65-person team responsible for ensuring more than 500 national and international media organizations received timely and accurate information concerning daily combat operations throughout the Iraqi theater.

Rear Adm. Slavonic began his Navy career in 1971, as a Seaman who enlisted after graduating with a Bachelor of Science degree in advertising from Oklahoma State University. After completing boot camp at Navy Training Center, Great Lakes, Ill., and attending Signalman ``A'' school in Newport, R.I., he received orders to the aircraft carrier USS Constellation (CVA 64) and completed two western Pacific deployments.

Upon separation from active duty, Rear Adm. Slavonic affiliated with the Navy Reserve Command in Oklahoma City. He received a direct commission as a restricted line officer in public affairs and, in 1976, earned a master of education degree from the University of Central Oklahoma.

In November 1990, Rear Adm. Slavonic was recalled to active duty for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He was assigned to the staff of General H. Norman Schwarzkopf at U.S. Central Command and served at the Joint Information Bureau in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. During his tour in the Arabian Gulf theater, Rear Adm. Slavonic served as a Chief of Navy News desk and combat media escort officer, which included escorting media pools on board USS Curts (FFG 38) to document processing and interrogation of more than 40 Iraqi prisoners of war.

He was serving as media escort officer with a media pool on the 18,000-ton amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli (LPH 10) in the Arabian Gulf when it struck an Iraqi underwater tethered mine.

Rear Adm. Slavonic has served four commanding officer tours, twice with Navy Office of Information Southwest Detachment 111 Dallas-Fort Worth and twice with the Office of Information Detachment 411 Oklahoma City. He also served as executive officer of 01 Det 411 and staff public affairs officer for REDCOM Eleven.

Rear Adm. Slavonic's Oklahoma City unit earned the Rear Adm. Robert Ravitz Award for Public Affairs Excellence and was a finalist for the Readiness Command Ten Admiral Robert Natter (small) Unit Award. In 1984, Rear Adm. Slavonic was the first recipient of the Navy Reserve Association's ``Junior Navy Reserve Officer of the Year'' Award.

A native of Great Bend, Kansas, Rear Adm. Slavonic was raised and resides in Oklahoma City where he is an account executive with NBC affiliate KFOR-TV. He is a life member of the Navy Reserve Association as well as Oklahoma State University and the University of Central Oklahoma alumni organizations.

Rear Adm. Slavonic has also served as president of the Navy Reserve Association (central chapter); president of the U.S. Navy League (local chapter); minority owner of the Oklahoma City Cavalry (Continental Basketball Association team); and as an adjunct professor at the University of Central Oklahoma. He is also active in the Oklahoma City Advertising Club and Leadership Oklahoma City.

Awards earned by Rear Adm. Slavonic include the Bronze Star Medal; Meritorious Service Medal (two awards); Navy Commendation Medal (two awards); Navy Achievement Medal (three awards); Presidential Unit Citation; Combat Action Ribbon; Vietnam Cross of Gallantry; Vietnam Service Medal (one star); Republic of Vietnam Service Medal; Southeast Asia Service Medal (two stars); Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia); Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; and the Joint Service Unit Citation, as well as other service and campaign awards.

Mr. Speaker, I know Rear Adm. Slavonic personally. We first met when he was assisting veterans of the USS Oklahoma, obtaining the financial and civic support necessary to create a permanent memorial to their lost ship and fallen comrades. This told me a great deal about his appreciation of Americans of every generation who have worn the uniform for their country and placed their lives at risk for their countrymen. My second opportunity to see Rear Adm. Slavonic was in Baghdad, where he was serving professionally, capably, and courageously in the combat zone. This more than anything else demonstrates that Rear Adm. Slavonic lives according to the values he professes. Like every other American, I am grateful for his service.

I asked the Rear Admiral to call upon me when he returned from Iraq because I was interested in his candid appraisal of our country's efforts there. Upon his arrival in Washington, he visited my office, and our exchange was so productive that I asked him to join me for a breakfast meeting to continue our conversation. He graciously complied, and as a result I had the benefit of his profound expertise, professional judgment, and keen insights into the challenges our country and our military face in Iraq.

On every occasion on which I have encountered and interacted with Rear Adm. Slavonic, he has impressed me with his professional courtesy, his commitment to our country, and his wise counsel. He is an able and honorable sailor who embodies the finest traditions of the United States Navy.

His family and fellow shipmates can be proud of his service. Rear Adm. Slavonic, his wife Molly, and children Kara, Maggie, and Blake, and Blake's wife Kasey and grandson Hogan have made many sacrifices during his Naval and civilian careers, and we appreciate their contributions of conscientious service to our country. As he departs the Pentagon to start his third career, I call upon my colleagues to wish Greg and his family every success, and the traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.'' It is a pleasure to recognize this gentleman at the conclusion of a distinguished career of service to the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 23rd to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported late last night and is expected to file its report in the House tomorrow, May 20.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy with a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24.

Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Armed Services which should be available tomorrow for their review on the Web site of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) for bringing forward a bill that I believe addresses many of the critical issues for the Department of the Interior.

It is impossible not to note that this budget environment creates genuinely tough challenges for the Department of the Interior. With that said, I believe the subcommittee has done an excellent job in crafting a bill that addresses those major problems.

Several years ago this committee provided funds for a new visitors center at Chickasaw National Recreation Area in my district. The bids came in high due to the rising cost of materials. Before the project could be downsized the Department of the Interior had to reprogram these funds for emergency wildfire suppression.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking that you consider restoring this project in conference should funds become available.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), our distinguished chairman, for offering to work with me and the committee to resolve this through the conference process.

I believe that this is an important and critical step toward addressing what has been a very real injustice. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).