Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his work for border security and for our country.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy regarding critical funding that still must be realized in this bill.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his response. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a very important member of our delegation and a real advocate for this border fence and border security.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Lance Bret Taylor of Spring Valley, California. On April 6, 2005, Lance was traveling on a CH-47 Chinook helicopter when it crashed in the desert of Afghanistan, killing all eighteen Americans on board. With the brave military personnel aboard that aircraft, there were three civilians, all noncombatants. Working for Halliburton subsidiary KBR, Lance was responsible for providing U.S. and coalition forces operating in Afghanistan with vital logistics and life support services. A specialist in vector control who was returning to the U.S. base in Bagram from a mission, Lance was, like many Americans, proudly serving his country in other ways besides wearing a uniform. While Lance recognized the dangers inherent to working in a war zone, he was driven by a desire to help improve the lives of others. Lance leaves behind his loving mother Lori, brother Kevin, his beautiful wife Deborah, a ten-year-old daughter, four stepchildren, and a baby granddaughter. He will continue to be remembered and loved by all those who knew him--not just today, but for as long as the U.S. defends the ideas of democracy and liberty throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt sympathy to the members of Lance's bereaved family and loved ones. Lance's dedication and service represents the best America has to offer and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor eight brothers who have distinguished service records worthy of commendation. Although men in the same families have served side by side and generation after generation throughout our nation's history, few families can claim the level of service that is shared by the Castro family. Together, the Castro brothers' military service totals 172 years, an average of nearly 22 years each. As Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, I want to thank the Castro brothers for their distinguished leadership, dedication and service to their country, community and fellow veterans. My fellow colleagues, I ask that you join me in recognizing: Master Sergeant Abe Castro, Sergeant First Class Carlos Castro, Sergeant Jose Castro, Sergeant Juan Castro, Sergeant Erasmo Castro, Captain Julio Castro, Master Sergeant Basilio Castro, and Sergeant Arthur Castro. While each of the Castro brothers served our nation with honor and distinction, I would like to pay particular attention to the service of Abe and Jose Castro. As a rifleman in World War II and Korea, Abe was wounded a total of five times, received four Purple Hearts, two Combat Infantry Badges, a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and seven battle stars. His brother Jose, who served in the Korean War, was wounded 3 times in combat, and recommended for the Bronze and Silver Stars. During this time of conflict, patriotism runs high and many Americans ask what they can do for their country. The Castro brothers, like those on guard today, have made the bold and courageous decision to dedicate a part of their lives to making our nation and the world a safer place for all. They responded to our nation's call by voluntarily offering their service and contributing their very best. In his first inaugural message as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying, ``freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again.'' We will continue to rely on individuals and families, like the Castros, that are willing to uphold the tradition of military service and put their nation before themselves. Family means many things to different people. To the Castro brothers, family means military service. It is a real pleasure for me--both professionally and personally--to recognize and pay tribute to these brothers and their distinguished service records.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Retired Master Sergeant John Irvin Rowland of Montross, Va., who died on March 6th at the Virginia Veterans Care Center in Roanoke at the age of 87. John's daughter, Michelle served on my staff and Michelle often spoke of her father and his commitment to his country. Sgt. Rowland was born September 1, 1917 in Fayette, Alabama and spent most of his childhood in Westbrook, Texas. After graduating from Westbrook High School in 1934, he worked the oil fields of Western Texas for Standard Oil. John Rowland enlisted in the Army in 1940 and served with the 36th ID, 142nd Infantry, Antitank Company (the T-Patchers) until June 1945. In World War II, he fought with allied forces in the Italian/Southern France campaigns and was awarded his first Bronze Star and a Purple Heart for injuries he received while fighting in France. While in Germany, his unit liberated German concentration camps Dachau, Hurlach and Landsberg, and captured Nazi Luftwaffe Commander and war criminal, Hermann Goering. At the end of the war, he returned to Texas and continued working for Standard Oil. But when his country needed him again, John re-enlisted in the Army and earned his second Bronze Star fighting in Korea. Following his training at the Intelligence School at Fort Hollabird in 1951, he served as a special agent in the Army Intelligence Corps in both Okinawa and then Berlin. He was one of the first Americans to observe East German activity as they began construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961. In Berlin, he met Ingrid Anna Zilenski and the two were married on December 30, 1962 and shortly thereafter retired from the Army and returned to Monahans, Texas. After his discharge, he attended electrician training at the National Technical School in Los Angeles. In 1964, John took a job with the Social Security Administration in San Francisco and then for the Department of Defense in Philadelphia. He would eventually retire in 1984 from the DoD Logistics Agency where he inspected security systems for DoD contractors. In all of his 40 years of service to our country, Sgt. John Rowland exemplified the virtues of honor, dignity, and leadership. He is being buried today at Arlington National Cemetery and I join the Rowland family in mourning Sgt. Rowland's passing.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. We started this fence about 20 years ago. We started it by building the first steel fence across that 14-mile segment between the coastal hills of San Diego County and the Pacific Ocean. We did that because drug trucks were running that border at the rate of about 300 per month. We had about 10 people being murdered each year, along with numerous robberies and rapes, to such a high degree that the best-selling book, ``Lines and Shadows'' by Joseph Wambaugh, was written depicting this ``no man's land,'' where nobody wanted to be after dark. So we built that first line, which was the steel fence right on the border. We then built the second fence, that is, the second tier of the so- called triple fence, after we passed a law signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996. And it was President Clinton who signed the bill waiving the Endangered Species Act and waiving NEPA because he thought it was so important that we have security at this, the most porous smugglers' corridor in the United States of America. Now, I can just tell you, as a guy who has worked on this thing from the start, my staff went out and found those 79,000 steel landing mats to build this fence. If the extremists had discovered this fence before we got the first 12 miles built, that would not be built. We stopped those 300 drug trucks a month, stopped them dead. We eliminated the 10 murders a year, mostly of undocumented workers. We eliminated the hundreds of rapes of the people who were coming through there because we built that fence. If the extremists had had their way, they would have gone to a sympathetic Federal court, tied us up in lawsuits and we would not have had the fence. The Secretary of the Navy has written us a letter saying that completion of this project will enhance the security of our naval installations by reducing the potential threat environment created by an unsecured border. A few miles north of this gap in the fence is the biggest naval installation on the West Coast. Through this gap have come and been apprehended people from nations that sponsor terrorists, nations like North Korea, nations like Syria. This is a security issue. And for people to say this is an environmental issue, this is the state of play right now, all these trails you see have been hammered into that ecosystem by the smugglers. None of my colleagues have been out there trying to stop them. They have hammered these trails by the hundreds into the ecosystem, hammered it into the marshlands and the estuary lands. Good biologists say it will take hundreds of years for these areas to be restored, not by actions of the Border Patrol or by our security apparatus, but by the smugglers who come across this particular gap in the fence. We need to secure this gap. The Secretary of the Navy recognizes that, President Clinton recognized that and gave an unprecedented waiver. We need to complete the border fence.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that, if passed, will once and for all protect our unborn children from harm. Over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children--born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, ``If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants'' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.'' Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins. The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution. This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any State or Federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for the distinguished way in which he has conducted the debate and also the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for sponsoring this resolution. Mr. Speaker, let us make this clear. This is not about some social issue. The real impetus for this barring of the American military from our college campuses is because of the left-wing core of administrators and professors who do not like this country. And we could substitute another protest issue for them in this thing and it would not make a bit of difference. These are the same people who in many cases had protests in favor of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. Many of them protested our involvement in El Salvador, protested our bringing democracy to Nicaragua, protested our participation in the first Desert Storm in the early 1990s, and in this recent bringing of freedom to Iraq. They protested all those things. They hate all things military. And the interesting aspect of this debate is that these same left- wing professors and administrators profess to let young people make up their own minds. Free thinking is theoretically their trademark. Let us have some free thinking. Let us allow the military to be on the campuses. Let us allow the students to have access to their information, and let us let them make up their own minds. There is no draft here. This is a volunteer military. They do not have to join the military. But the idea that the left-wing professors and administrators have to protect the students from that very military that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) so eloquently described as the protectors of all of our freedoms including their freedoms to have academic freedoms, to protest and to speak freely, the idea that these students have to be shielded from the guarantors of our freedoms is nonsense.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am submitting the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services for printing in the Congressional Record. These rules were adopted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at a public meeting of the full committee, with a quorum being present. Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Armed Services rule 1. application of house rules The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as applicable. rule 2. full committee meeting date (a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of the Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the ``Chairman''), or by written request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a written request of a majority of the members of the Committee. rule 3. subcommittee meeting dates Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, the other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible. rule 4. subcommittees Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating to Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be organized to consist of six standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions: Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and lift programs, special operations and information technology accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, installations and family housing issues, including the base closure process. Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight, and related intelligence support. Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, military health care, military education and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs. Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense and Department of Energy national security programs (except non-proliferation programs). Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and related systems, and strategic lift programs. rule 5. committee panels (a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to the Committee. (b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman. (c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative jurisdiction. rule 6. reference and consideration of legislation (a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee. (b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of those present and voting. (c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by the Committee. (d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a quorum of the Committee. rule 7. public announcement of hearings and meetings Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee or of any subcommittee or panel shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any committee or subcommittee hearing at least one week before the commencement of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the Committee or of any subcommittee or panel, with the concurrence of the respective ranking minority member of the Committee, subcommittee or panel, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee or panel so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and promptly posted to the internet web page maintained by the Committee. rule 8. broadcasting of committee hearings and meetings Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Committee. rule 9. meetings and hearings open to the public (a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority being present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, may vote to close a hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present. (b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of (a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. A majority of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, may also vote to close the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by letter to the Chairman, a member of that member's personal staff with Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee, or that member's subcommittee(s) (excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff member at such hearings is subject to the approval of the Committee or subcommittee as dictated by national security requirements at that time. The attainment of any required security clearances is the responsibility of individual members of the Committee. (d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the public. (e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five additional consecutive days of hearings. rule 10. quorum (a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum. (b) One-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum: (1) Reporting a measure or recommendation; (2) Closing committee or subcommittee meetings and hearings to the public; (3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; (4) Authorizing the use of executive session material; and (5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. (c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. rule 11. the five-minute rule (a) The time any one member may address the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall be recognized for not to exceed five minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee or subcommittee. (b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the ranking minority member will take precedence upon their arrival. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of either party. (c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, or panel hearings and meetings. rule 12. power to sit and act; subpoena power (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee are authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph): (1) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and (2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers necessary. (b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full Committee Chairman, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chairman, or by any member designated by the Chairman. (2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of Representatives. rule 13. witness statements (a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national security information bearing a classification of secret or higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance of presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a quorum being present. (b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary of his or her argument. rule 14. administering oaths to witnesses (a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman, may administer oaths to any witness. (b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following oath: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the matters now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?'' rule 15. questioning of witnesses (a) When a witness is before the Committee or a subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose. (b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each witness or panel of witnesses until such time as each member has had an opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel of witnesses; thereafter, additional rounds for questioning witnesses by members are discretionary with the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate. (c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration. rule 16. publication of committee hearings and markups The transcripts of those hearings and mark-ups conducted by the Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the Chairman to be officially published will be published in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Any requests to correct any errors, other than those in transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, will be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. rule 17. voting and rollcalls (a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote, division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent. (b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one- fifth of those members present. (c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be cast by proxy. (d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon timely notification to the Chairman by that member. rule 18. committee reports (a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional or dissenting views, that member shall be entitled to not less than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the staff director of the Committee. All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. (b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief description of the question, shall be included in the committee report on the measure or matter. rule 19. points of order No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure reported by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the Committee; except that a point of order on that ground may be made by any member of the Committee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a) timely made and (b) improperly overruled or not properly considered. rule 20. public inspection of committee rollcalls The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition and the names of those members present but not voting. rule 21. protection of national security information (a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security information bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. (b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any national security information received classified as secret or higher. Such procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives who has requested the opportunity to review such material. rule 22. committee staffing The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, and any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to the rules of the House of Representatives, rule 23. committee records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the Committee. rule 24. hearing procedures Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Background As the lead House conferee on those matters before the conference involving support and execution of defense intelligence activities, I find it necessary to offer amplifying remarks on the intent of House conferees on these critical areas of interest. It is unfortunate that the conference leadership saw fit to reduce the customary statement of managers to the most cursory and minimalist of documents. With all the new organizational structures and revamped relationships required by this legislation, it is particularly critical that clear legislative intent be established to guide the executive branch in implementing and executing this legislation for decades to come. Thus, the following remarks represent my attempt to provide such clarifying intent for selected provisions of the conference report on S. 2845 that was approved by the House of Representatives on December 7, 2004. House Armed Services Committee Consideration of Intelligence Reform During the late summer and early fall of this year, the House Armed Services Committee held a series of hearings on the recommendations contained in the 9/11 Commission Report prior to marking up H.R. 10, the House version of this intelligence reform legislation. The Committee on Armed Services' markup of H.R. 10 was limited to Title 1, the National Security Intelligence Improvement Act of 2004, which addresses the core issue of the commission report, namely the organization of the intelligence community. Thus, during the conference between the Senate and the House, I, as Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, focused primarily on Title I provisions and the potential effect of these statutory changes on the ability of the Secretary of Defense to ensure that troops in combat have the intelligence support they need. Since a large proportion of the funding and personnel involved in the national intelligence mission reside in the Department of Defense and exist in large measure to support troops in combat, the committee was concerned that the reorganization of the intelligence community does not in any way deprive combatant commanders of needed full spectrum intelligence. It was clear as we conducted our deliberations on this matter that the 9/11 Commission found no fault with the operation of the DOD elements of the intelligence community and did not intend to affect the ability of these agencies to support the combatant commanders. It was also clear in my deliberations with fellow conferees in both the Senate and House of Representatives that the conferees had no intent to negatively affect these delicate relationships. In other words, all conferees believe that the Secretary of Defense should continue to be able to manage the elements of the intelligence community resident in DOD to provide all necessary support to commanders in the field. So that there is no misunderstanding of that intent, I have prepared a description of how DOD intelligence support operates today, accompanied by a description of how the conferees intend for the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to implement his new authorities with respect to DOD. Department of Defense Support of National Intelligence Mission The Department of Defense operates the majority of the nation's national intelligence apparatus through the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Geospatial-intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. These agencies support the intelligence requirements of both the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Secretary of Defense under a well established partnership arrangement. That partnership works effectively today and was effective before September 11, 2001, according to testimony before the committee by the leadership of the 9- 11 Commission. The reason for this complicated arrangement is that our nation's intelligence assets are a unique and valuable instrument of national security policy that must serve multiple purposes. We do not have two separate intelligence systems. Today, the same national capability and the same satellites that inform the President and senior policymakers are also used by front line military forces to carry out their mission. The use of expensive, complex systems for multiple purposes is both efficient and synergistic to effective intelligence analysis. Our tactical successes in both Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously providing strategic intelligence to national policy makers, demonstrate the flexibility and effectiveness of the current intelligence sharing structure. This integration of national and tactical intelligence and the sharing of information to users up and down the command chain is a proven strategy that the House Armed Services Committee has been developing for well over a decade. Therefore, the suggestion that national and tactical intelligence operations and assets can be surgically split into separate organizations (and budgets) fails to understand the negative impact such a step would have on how we operate and perform on today's modern battlefield. Consequently, the budget authorities assigned to the newly created Director of National Intelligence (DNI) under H.R. 10 were carefully crafted to preserve the ability of the Secretary of Defense to rely on these agencies to supply critical military intelligence to combatant commanders, yet enable the DNI to effectively perform his national intelligence mission. The system works today because of the delicately balanced partnership that exists between the DCI and the Secretary of Defense. Thus, as we codify this new organizational concept that creates a Director of National Intelligence to manage the community, the conferees sought to protect this critical partnership to ensure that we do not weaken those parts of the intelligence system that work well and are critical to the life and death of our men and women in uniform. Conferees' Intent H.R. 10 was crafted in such a way that the prerogatives of senior cabinet officials were preserved and the delicate balance described above was maintained, while the Senate bill provided the DNI with more unilateral authority to manage the intelligence community. As would be expected, the conference agreement resulted in compromises that shifted the balance somewhat. In particular, in an effort to bridge the differences between the two bills, House conferees agreed to alternative language formulations on a broad range of issues, including those related to budget authority, budget reprogramming authority, and personnel transfer authority. Budget Execution First, the new section 1011 provides the DNI with authority to determine the budgets for national intelligence programs operated by the elements of the intelligence community, including the four major national intelligence agencies that are part of the Department of Defense. The conferees clearly intend that the DNI will rely heavily on the recommendations of the Secretary of Defense in the development and management of the appropriations of any Department of Defense element of the intelligence community, and will not involve himself unnecessarily in the budget details of DOD agencies. Clearly, section 1018 of the conference agreement preserves the authority of the Secretary of Defense to operate his department, including and especially in regard to budgetary matters affecting his agencies. In section 1011, the conferees intended to provide the DNI with broad oversight of national intelligence budgetary matters to be able to assure that national intelligence strategic objectives and programs are adequately supported. Again, the conferees did not intend for the DNI to become routinely involved in internal execution of DOD intelligence programs. Classification of Budget Intelligence Topline The Senate bill contained a budget execution mechanism that would have resulted in the declassification of the total funding level provided to the intelligence community, known as the topline. The conferees agreed that topline number should remain classified, and deliberately designed the budget execution authorities in section 1011 to achieve that objective. This was an important negotiating point in conference discussions, and there should be no confusion over the intent of the conferees to preserve the secrecy of the total funding allocated to the intelligence activities of the United States. Budget Reprogramming Similarly, the conference agreement, also in section 1011, provides the DNI with greater reprogramming authority than is found in H.R. 10. H.R. 10, as passed by the House, provides the DNI with unilateral reprogramming authority within the National Intelligence Program for up to $100 million annually per department for ``unforeseen requirements.'' Even though the conferees agreed in the final conference report to allow the DNI to reprogram within the national intelligence program up to $150 million for any purpose that ``increases efficiency,'' it is the firm expectation of the conferees that any large reprogramming should only be made to meet unforeseen requirements and that every effort should be made to execute such reprogrammings with collaboration and concurrence of the affected agency and department heads. As a matter of policy, the appropriate process for efficiency adjustments to an agency's programs is the regular budget process and not reprogramming actions. While the conference agreement provides the DNI with this reprogramming tool, the conferees expect that use of this authority would be exceedingly rare and in times of real emergency. Personnel Transfers Section 1011 also provides the DNI with unilateral authority to transfer personnel out of elements of the intelligence community under limited circumstances. Under the conference agreement, the DNI has the authority to create a new national intelligence center for any reasonable purpose and may transfer up to 100 personnel from anywhere within the intelligence community to the new center, without the concurrence of the head of the agency to which the personnel are assigned. The conferees expect that the DNI will use this authority sparingly and as a last resort. The conferees believe that any emergent need that mandates the creation of a new national intelligence center will be managed in a collegial fashion in any administration, with the DNI and agency heads involved able to jointly determine the appropriate staffing support for the new center. Further, the conferees expect the DNI to develop working agreements with all appropriate Congressional committees of oversight over agencies and departments within the National Intelligence Program to establish necessary notification procedures similar to those utilized for prior approval reprogramming of appropriations. Personnel Management A significant proportion of the personnel working in the intelligence community are assigned to the Department of Defense, and military personnel are a large part of that workforce. The conferees agree that the DNI should have a role in the management and professional development of civilian personnel assigned to the disparate parts of the intelligence community, but do not intend that the DNI have the same authority over military personnel. Military personnel are subject to the personnel management provisions found in title 10, United States Code, and are promoted to senior grades based on meeting statutory requirements for joint service. The conferees agree that it would be inappropriate for military personnel to be managed by both the DNI and the Secretary of Defense, and intend that the personnel management authorities found in section 1011 of the conference report apply principally to civilian personnel. Acquisition Authority The conferees intend that the provision that provides the DNI with joint milestone decision acquisition authority over defense programs contained in the national intelligence program will be used in a spirit of cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, with each official giving due weight to the needs of the other as new national intelligence programs are procured. In no way do the conferees intend for the DNI to have veto power over DOD programs. The Secretary of Defense retains the authority and responsibility to develop and field intelligence assets that will support the troops in combat. The conferees expect that the Secretary will work with the DNI to develop and field systems that can reasonably accommodate both the DNI's national intelligence needs as well as combatant commander requirements, and expect the DNI to fully support the needs of the Secretary and the combatant commanders. DNI Control over Military Programs To ensure that combatant commander requirements were satisfied, H.R. 10 excluded from DNI controls all military intelligence programs within the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) program. The Senate bill provided the DNI with partial control over JMIP programs, including non- national, or military programs. The Senate receded from its provision that would provide the DNI control over non- national JMIP programs, and the conference report provides that the Secretary of Defense will exclusively manage and execute JMIP programs. The conference agreement also goes beyond H.R. 10 in regard to the intelligence tasking authority of the DNI. National intelligence assets provide real time, life and death information to our troops in combat, and must be available to the Secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders when needed. There is broad agreement among conferees that the needs of troops engaged with the enemy shall always take priority in tasking national intelligence assets. I only very reluctantly agreed to this language based on assurances of all the conferees and senior administration officials that the combatant commanders and engaged troops would never be denied the intelligence support they need, notwithstanding the statutory authority of the DNI to direct the assets elsewhere. Furthermore, combatant commanders need intelligence on a continuous basis, not only when engaged in combat operations. The conferees expect that combatant commander requirements will continue to enjoy a high priority for collection and analysis, in times of peace as well as time of war. Authority of Director of National Counter Terrorism Center Section 1021 of the conference agreement, like H.R. 10, provides the Director of the National Counter Terrorism Center with the authority to conduct ``strategic operational planning'' of the nation's counter terrorism operations. Unlike H.R. 10, the conference agreement defines strategic operational planning with a specificity that could be misinterpreted in a manner that suggests the conferees intended for the NCTC director to become involved in tasking internal elements of agencies to perform such missions. To the contrary, the conferees have included specific language stating that the director may not direct the execution of counterterrorism missions and have included section 1018, which clearly preserves the prerogatives of the chain of command in operational matters. Some managers in the other body have made contradictory statements concerning the role of the NCTC in strategic operational planning. On the one hand, it is suggested that the NCTC would operate much like the Joint Staff, planning broad missions but not becoming immersed in the details. This first interpretation is in fact what the conferees intended. On the other, it has been suggested that strategic operational planning would involve the NCTC in selecting specific mission objectives, and possibly directly tasking subordinate elements of the Department of Defense and other agencies. This sort of activity was decidedly not contemplated by the conferees, and was one reason why House conferees insisted on the inclusion of section 1018 preserving the chain of command. In no case may the NCTC directly task an internal element of the Department of Defense outside the statutory chain of command. The use of military force to achieve national objectives is the statutory responsibility of the Secretary of Defense, and the conferees intend that Secretary will be fully and authoritatively involved in any instance where the NCTC or any other outside agency proposes to employ the assets of the Department of Defense. Chain of Command Protection As noted above, the conferees included, with the President's full support, section 1018 that reaffirms the sanctity of the chain of command. The chain of command, by operation of title 10, United States Code, runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander involved. There must be no confusion about who is in charge in the execution of military operations. The conference report provides the DNI with a broad coordinating and integrating role to ensure that the nation does not endure another intelligence failure, but the conferees have not bestowed upon the DNI the authority to independently direct and manage elements of the intelligence community that are part of other government departments, such as Justice, Treasury, Homeland Security, and most critically, Defense. It has been suggested by managers in the other body that section 1018 does not authorize the President or department heads to override the DNI's authority contained in this legislation. That assertion is plainly wrong. The original language that the other body suggested for inclusion in the conference report would have made the DNI's authority in this legislation exempt from existing statutory language concerning the chain of command, such as sections 113(b) and 162(b) of title 10, United States Code. However, that language was not accepted by the conferees. The language of section 1018 that was finally agreed to specifically protects the military chain of command. Assertions that the President and the Secretary of Defense have no authority to override the DNI with regard to commanding and controlling all elements of the Department of Defense are not correct. Further, it is important to note that the President has consistently upheld this principle by endorsing the necessity of a clear ``preservation of authorities'' provision in this legislation. As stated in his letter to the conferees of December 6, 2004, ``Accordingly, in developing implementing guidelines and regulations for this bill, it is my intention to ensure that the principles of unity of command and authority are fully protected. It remains essential to preserve in the heads of the executive departments the unity of authority over and accountability for the performance of those departments. In particular, as we continue to prosecute the global war on terrorism, the integrity of the military chain of command must continue to be respected and in no way abrogated.'' It is critical that there be no ambiguity about the intent of Congress as this legislation is implemented, and I will be particularly diligent in my oversight role to ensure that the intelligence needs of the Department of Defense are fully met as the various complex new relationships provided by this legislation are implemented in the years to come.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work. Mr. Speaker, for the House, walking through this conference report has been largely a defensive action, if you will, a holding action; and I want to compliment all of the great Members of the House who managed to hold off what initially was a political stampede that would have passed a piece of legislation that would have accrued to the detriment of the people who wear the uniform of the United States and, I think, to our intelligence apparatus. We had to walk back things like opening up the top line, the classified top line to the world, letting our adversaries know how much we spend on intelligence. We had to walk back this idea that somehow we were going to send the money for the combat support agencies around the Department of Defense, not allow the Department of Defense to have a normal working relationship with its own combat support agencies. In fact, it took a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, to the conferees to say the House position is the right position, to back off some of those who were stampeding in the wrong direction. Ultimately, we had to address this most important issue: chain of command. Now, interestingly, before this bill was brought up on the other side of the Hill, on the Senate side, the President sent a strong message saying we must have chain-of-command language to make sure that there is no confusion about lines of execution. The authors of the bill on the other side did not put that language in. My counterpart, Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then saying that he was afraid that this bill did violate and intrude on the chain of command, offered an amendment to establish what the administration wanted, to establish strong chain-of-command language that would ensure that a battlefield commander would have all the assets in his area of operation for his combatant commands. Senator Warner's language was rejected by the leadership of this bill on the Senate side. As we got into the conference, the administration sent another message. They said, you know, you forgot something. You forgot the chain-of-command language. Once again, it was not included. When it finally was included, it was accompanied by weasel words which basically invalidated the entire section. On several occasions the conferees on the other side changed the weasel words, but they still had a provision which basically violated the entire section, or invalidated the entire section, and left us with nothing. So, in the end, 17 days ago when we were asked in the Republican conference what we thought about this bill, I and many other people had to speak up and point out that this very important chain of command was not protected in the conference report and needed to be protected. In the end, on Saturday night, we sent to Senator Collins' staff a chain-of-command provision to respect and not abrogate the chain of command, citing the statutes that are relevant, to Senator Collins through her chief of staff. He said she would get back Monday morning. She did get back and approved that section. And we said that when I saw that in writing in an amendment to the conference report, I would then support the conference. We have gotten that today, and I have signed the conference report. This bill, now, with these changes, including classifying the top line, walking back this wild attempt to remove the Department of Defense from its own budget flow to its combat support agencies and, finally, this attempt to keep the chain of command in a position where it was questionable; having walked back all of those attempts to change this bill in a manner that would accrue to the detriment of the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and moving instead to a situation in which they are protected, with a solid insulation in the chain of command so a combat commander in Afghanistan or Iraq can now count on being able to use all of his assets in that theater to protect his troops and perform his mission; having done that, this bill, in my estimation, is now acceptable, and I am supporting this bill. I am going to vote for this bill. I agree fully with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and others who think that the driver's license issue is of great importance. It is of great importance. We need to get that issue up and through as soon as possible.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Rita Thompson upon her retirement from the House Armed Services Committee after 30 years of loyal and dedicated service to the United States Congress. Rita grew up in southwestern Virginia and before coming to work for Congress, she worked for the Department of the Army in the Pentagon for 5\1/2\ years. Rita began her career on Capitol Hill in January 1974 with the House Armed Services Committee. During her years on the committee she has worked on the Personnel Subcommittee, and directly with the General Counsel and the Staff Director. For the past 20 years she has held the position of Professional Staff Member and served as the committee's senior administrator, managing a multi million-dollar annual budget, and organizing Congressional travel, among many other duties. As a result of her position and responsibilities, Rita has regularly interacted not only with Members of Congress, but also with Senators, foreign dignitaries, and high ranking military officials. Rita's committee service has spanned six presidents, seven committee chairmen, and seven staff directors. I speak for myself, past chairmen and ranking minority members, and any and everyone who has had the privilege of working with Rita, in thanking her for her tireless work and dedication to the House Armed Services Committee. Rita's charm has always been a trademark of her personality. In a place where many people come and go, Rita has been a symbol of commitment and dedication from which many of us could learn. I congratulate her on her retirement and thank her for over three decades of honorable service to this Congress and her country. On behalf of the House Armed Services Committee and the United States Congress, I wish you the best of luck as you begin this new chapter of your life.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent, Intelligence Specialist Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephanie A. Storch. Senior Chief Storch is retiring after twenty-one years of dedicated service to the nation. Senior Chief Storch began her career in 1983 as a Mess Specialist. During her initial assignment to Naval Radio Receiving Facility (NRRF) Kami Seya, Japan, her professionalism was first recognized when she was selected a 1985 Junior Sailor of the Quarter. In 1986 she joined the Intelligence field and reported to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron THREE (VQ-3), Naval Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii. Senior Chief Storch served throughout the Pacific Theater and the Middle East in a career that focused on Intelligence training and Naval Special Warfare operations. Her leadership and academic accolades are numerous from her 1993 Navy League Woman of the Year selection to the distinction of graduating in the top 1 percent of her Berlitz Language School Arabic class. Senior Chief Storch's Special Operations and Training expertise merged in March 2000, when she was assigned to Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command as the Force Intelligence Specialist for Naval Special Warfare. Senior Chief Storch culminates her service at the Joint Intelligence Training Activity Pacific (JITAP) where she is the Asymmetric Warfare Branch Head and Senior Enlisted Advisor. She is an Intelligence professional and leader who always put the welfare of her sailors first. Senior Chief Storch's performance reflects greatly on herself, the United States Navy, and our country. I extend my deepest appreciation to Intelligence Specialist Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephanie A. Storch for her 21 years of dedicated military service and wish her and her family all the best in the years to follow. I am glad to hear that upon retirement, Senior Chief Storch and her family, CWO3 Ernest J. Storch, USN and two sons, Adam and Daniel will continue to make San Diego County their home.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Henry Jackson, my friend and fellow paratrooper in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, who passed away last month due to cancer at the young age of 66. Henry was the consummate soldier and retired from the United States Army after achieving the rank of E-7. Even after retirement, he continued to serve his country, working as a civilian security officer on the Naval base near his home in New Orleans. He was immensely proud of his family and had five sons who followed his footsteps by serving in the military. Henry died with dignity in the Veterans Hospital on July 6, 2004. He leaves behind a beautiful family as well as his legacy that will help keep our country strong.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), who chairs a very important committee on readiness.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to come with my partner, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and offer for the consideration of the Members the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, in simple terms, a defense bill for the troops of the United States who are serving in dangerous theaters around the world and troops and Guard together numbering over 2.5 million personnel. This is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that is a joint effort, Democrats and Republicans have come together to put together this legislation, which I think is really a soldiers' bill, a people's bill, in large measure. We have a 3.5 percent pay raise across the board. We have extension of new TRICARE benefits to Guard and Reserve. We have the new survivor's benefits, something we have never had before in our history, that allows a phasing out now of the offset that used to take place between a survivor of a military retiree, where they had to weigh that against their Social Security check. We have an increase in the receipt that disabled veterans will receive on the so-called concurrent receipt of their disability and their retired pay. We have over $700 million worth of armor for Humvees and over $100 million worth of armor for trucks. We have a bill that has freed up the 24,000 housing units that were hanging in limbo for construction starts this year. This bill, very simply, Mr. Speaker, is a great bill, and I hope that we can move the conference report through quickly for the consideration and approval of the Members and move it quickly to the President's desk. I want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for working in a bipartisan manner in putting this bill together, as well as all the Members and all our great subcommittee chairmen who did such a wonderful job, and our ranking members and membership of the full committee. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), a very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 843, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?