C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the war we are involved in now is not a war against a country or against an armed force that is organized and structured and representing a country. We are in a war against terrorism. We did not start the war. They started it. The terrorists started it when they attacked the World Trade Center, when they attacked the Pentagon, attacked the USS Cole, attacked Khobar Towers, which housed our airmen. They started it in many, many ways. But who would we declare war against for the World Trade Center or for the USS Cole? They were acts of terror. They were not acts by some nation or some organized military. This amendment sounds good. I can almost be persuaded, but it just does not work. Let us suppose our military intelligence detected that an enemy of the United States was preparing to take military action against our country or our troops overseas. We could not take military action to prevent that attack without a specific declaration of war. It might be too late then. Prohibiting initiating military operations could be read to prohibit military action to capture, kill, or pursue terrorists who are operating in a third country, not as part of that country but operating within the country, which is what they do. Even if that country is a friend of ours, they would still operate within that country. Do you really want to say that we should not try to capture or kill Osama bin Laden if we find that he has traveled to a country where we currently do not have ongoing military operations? I think we hunt Osama bin Laden no matter where he is, a friend or a foe or anyplace else. Waiting for formal congressional approval for such military action might mean we miss the opportunity to capture the man who is responsible for thousands of American deaths. On its face, it sounds like a pretty good idea; but it just does not work in the type of world that we live in today, in the type of enemy that we face today, the enemy that has killed so many innocent Americans right here in our own country. This is not a good amendment, and it should be defeated.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to the House that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been a partner in this effort from day one in preparing and presenting this national defense bill. It is a truly bipartisan appropriations bill to provide for the security of our Nation and to provide for the troops who serve our Nation and to provide them with the equipment and the technology necessary to accomplish their mission and to protect themselves while they do that. I extend my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I also thank Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee for the support that he has given us as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. This appropriations bill is a good bipartisan bill, a nonpartisan bill. There are no politics involved at all. It is simply to provide for maintaining our security and to provide for our troops. Copies of this legislation have been available for several weeks now. There have been reports distributed to all of the Members. Although this bill is $3.3 billion less than the budget resolution provided for us, we were able to use some skillful oversight and be able to produce this bill at $3.3 billion less than the President's request and less than the budget had provided. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to come to the floor to present the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This legislation includes $363.7 billion in the base appropriations bill, of which $363.4 billion is new discretionary budget authority. In addition, $45.3 billion is provided in a bridge fund to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; this is consistent with authority provided in the budget resolution, and follows the lead of the Armed Services Committee, which authorized $49 billion for this purpose in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Subcommittee allocation for the base bill is $3.3 billion below the President's request. This presented us with some difficult challenges, but I believe we have made appropriate choices given our allocation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, was a full partner in this process. This bill was developed with bipartisan support and deserves bipartisan support. Let me discuss some of the major funding highlights in the base bill: For military personnel, we fully fund the pay raise of 3.1 percent as requested by the President, and we fully support quality of life and family-oriented programs. To support our soldiers and their families, we have added $30 million for Impact Aid and increased Family Advocacy programs by $20 million. In operation and maintenance, the base bill provides funding for critical training, readiness and I maintenance activities at roughly the historic level for these programs; the overall increase is $3.2 billion over the 2005 level. I In the Army acquisition accounts, we fully fund the request of $882.4 million for 240 Stryker vehicles. We also fully fund the request of $443.5 million for modifications and improvements to the M1 Abrams tank, an increase of $326.5 million over the 2005 level. In Naval aviation we fully fund the request for 130 aircraft, including 42 F/A-18's, compared to 115 total aircraft provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, 8 aircraft are shifted back to the Air Force consistent with the restoration of the C-130J multiyear procurement contract. In shipbuilding we make some significant adjustments to the President's request: We are funding the new construction of 8 ships, as opposed to 4 new ships as proposed in the budget. We continue production of an additional DDG-51 destroyer, which was proposed for termination in the budget. Funds are provided to acquire 2, rather than just 1, T-AKE ammunition ships, consistent with the authorization bill. In addition, we're providing funds for 3 littoral combat ships, 2 more than were included in the President's budget request. For the Air Force: We are fully funding the budget request for procurement of 24 F/A-22 Raptors in 2006, and advance procurement for 29 aircraft in 2007. We are restoring funding for the C-130J multiyear procurement program by transferring funding from the Navy to the Air Force. The Air Force will procure 9 aircraft; the Navy will procure 4 tanker variants. Full funding is recommended for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft, with advance procurement for 7 additional aircraft in 2007. In the research and development accounts: We follow the lead of the Armed Services Committee in recommending no funds for advance procurement for the DD(X) destroyer, but are keeping the program alive by providing $670 million in R&D. We are accelerating development of the CG(X) cruiser, by increasing funding from $30 million to $80 million. Full funding of $935.5 million is provided for 5 V-XX helicopters. We provide a total of $4.9 billion, as requested by the President, for research and development associated with the Joint Strike Fighter program. As I mentioned earlier, the bill also includes $45.3 billion in fiscal year 2006 funding to sustain the war effort in a bridge fund. The 2006 budget resolution reserves $50 billion for contingency operations in support of the global war on terrorism. In addition, the Armed Services Committee proposed, and the House has approved, an authorization of over $49 billion for the same purposes. This bill has slightly lower levels for the military personnel accounts and the procurement accounts based on more recent information we have received from the Department of Defense. I believe the $45 billion bridge fund in this bill for contingency operations is the responsible thing to do to support our troops. It will ensure they face no interruption in funding for the first six months of fiscal year 2006 as they face our enemies abroad. Over 80 percent of the funds in title IX are provided for military personnel, and operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, $2.5 billion is for intelligence activities; $2.1 billion is for fuel and war consumables; and $2.9 billion is for procurement to replace war losses and provide force protection for our men and women in uniform. Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the major elements of the recommendations before you. We have not been able to meet all the needs identified by the Defense Department and by Members of Congress. However, within the budget constraints we faced, I think we struck a fair balance that deserves the support of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this legislation. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.005 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to pay tribute to a longtime staffer of this defense subcommittee. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to bring a defense appropriations bill to the floor without having Kevin Roper sitting here beside me and providing the staff assistance that he has provided so eloquently. He served this committee for 20 years, first as the aide to the then- ranking member, Congressman Joe McDade. Prior to the 20 years that he served this committee in the minority status and the majority status, he served 10 years in the United States Air Force. Kevin Roper is just a very, very special patriot. His knowledge of the defense establishment, his knowledge of the defense appropriations bill is extremely unique. I am just really proud to call him a friend. I am very, very heavyhearted to announce that he is leaving the committee to move on to spending more time with his family, his wife, and his children. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the fact that this Kevin Roper that I am speaking about, everyone on the floor should recognize him. He has been here so long. Kevin Roper, God bless you for the good work you have done. Thank you very much. We appreciate you. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have brought a Defense Appropriations Bill to the floor that I haven't had Kevin Roper by my side as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee and as he leaves the Committee staff to pursue other interests, I wanted to let the record show how much we all have valued his counsel over the years. Kevin served the Appropriations Committee for more than 20 years, and he had a distinguished career in the Air Force for 10 years before that. He came to the committee in August of 1984 when he served as Congressman and Ranking Minority member Joe McDade's associate staff for Defense matters. Joe appointed him to be the Minority staff director in 1988 when our dear friend George Allen, his predecessor, passed away during an official mission overseas. When the Republicans became the majority party in 1995, Kevin became the Majority staff director serving both me and Chairman Jerry Lewis for the past 10 years in that capacity. During that period of time he assisted me and Chairman Lewis in the preparation, passage, and conference of 10 annual Defense Appropriation bills and more than 21 Supplemental and wrap up bills which contained Defense Chapters. Kevin to this day loves his work and worked tirelessly to assist us in providing our men and women in uniform the tools they need to carry out their mission. He joined us when we were at the height of the cold war and assisted us in bringing that era to a successful conclusion. He was at his best when we were at war through two Gulf Wars, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and probably would have left a couple of years ago had it not been for the terrorist attacks before and on September 11th. Kevin always made great contributions and we wish him well as he plans a career which will allow him to spend more time with his family. He doted on his family and our loss is the gain of his wife Klytia and his children Katie, Audrey and Matthew.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that we are willing to work with her as we go to the conference, and in view of her willingness to withdraw the amendment, I withdraw my point of order that I reserved.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment; and I do so reluctantly, because there are some interesting points that he makes. However, the program that his amendment would add money to already has $465 million in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations, so the money really is not needed; and we fully funded the President's request, which is millions over last year. Now, where he would take the money from, again, we have already taken money from the Missile Defense Agency. We reduced funding for the agency in this fiscal year 2006 budget. The President's budget request itself was a reduction of over $1 billion from last fiscal year, and the committee recommendation trimmed that by another $143 million. So we brought down the money that the gentleman's amendment would take away, and we have increased over last year the money that he would add it to. So the amendment really is not necessary, and I think the committee has done a good job in having to very delicately balance the gives and the takes on these various accounts.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I certainly agree to work with the gentleman on this matter to have a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of our chairman. He did such a tremendous job when he chaired this subcommittee for the past 6 years. I want to take now just a minute, because we have, before we can start to vote, we have 2\1/2\ minutes to the 6:30 hour. This subcommittee has worked really hard and on a very bipartisan basis. We had the largest part of the supplemental early this year. We have this very large bill now, which is the largest appropriations bill in the system. And the Members of the subcommittee, with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), we have had an opportunity to be the leaders of the subcommittee. But all of these Members have worked really hard and have paid strict attention to what it was that we were about, to provide for our Nation's security. But I also want to pay tribute to members of our staff. Members of our staff, during the hearing periods and during the markup periods, they do not have weekends. They are here on weekends. They have very few hours at night with their families, because they are here many times all night long. That is when you hear about, something was done in the dark of night. Well, my friend, if we do not do things in the dark of night, we would never get them done, so we knew we worked long days, long hours, long nights. But the staff on both sides are just as bipartisan and nonpartisan as the Members. And this is just a really good positive subcommittee, and the work that it does is very bipartisan. We believe strongly in our country. We believe strongly in those volunteers who serve in our military, and who carry the burden of providing for the security. I just recently attended the burial of a soldier from my district killed in Iraq. And my final comment was that you can sleep in peace tonight, America, because our heroes are out there on the front line standing guard. And that is what this bill is all about.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman makes his statement, I would like to advise him that we have reviewed this amendment. And since you did make a change that was agreeable to both of us, we are prepared to accept this amendment at any time that you wish.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the authorizing committee intended that this penetrator study include exploring the feasibility of various options for penetrators that could hold Hard and Deeply Buried Targets at risk, and as we all know, there are many of those. As the gentleman knows, H.R. 2683 would appropriate $4 million for a study. We want to work with the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), the very strong leader of the authorizing committee, and his colleagues and our colleagues to do our best to reflect the understandings and intent of the Committee on Armed Services on this matter as we move forward to conference with the Senate Appropriations Committee on this legislation. In that regard, I pledge to continue to work closely with the gentleman from California on this issue and many others in the weeks ahead, and I thank him for clarifying the intent of the Committee on Armed Services, which he so ably chairs.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of offending the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, it looks to me like this debate, which is a really good debate and has been back and forth, the only problem so far is that most everything has been said, but not everyone has said it yet. It looks to me like this is going to take more time to settle an issue that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq or the war against terrorism, going to take more time than the bill that does provide for the security of the Nation. We ought to get to the end of this debate and get back to the real business at hand today. Mr. Chairman, I may offer a bit of a facetious statement, but if we cannot get this thing ended, I may ask unanimous consent that the staff can go outside and have their own debate rather than handing stuff to the Members in order to have that debate. I have probably offended both sides. I do not know who applauded, but I probably offended both sides. But we ought to get to the business that we came here today for and that is to provide for the security of the United States of America and to provide the troops what they need to do their job, perform their mission, and protect themselves while they do it.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion on which amendment this is. I reserve a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the concerns of the ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. I know exactly what she is trying to do here, because I understand that the Defense Department also would support suspension of the small business competitive demonstration program. But it is also my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Small Business supports its continuation. To me, this appears to be a dispute between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the authorizing committee. It seems to me that it should be addressed on an authorizing bill rather than on the appropriations bill. The appropriations committee is being asked to referee a program where we do not really have sufficient knowledge of the program. I just wonder how the gentlewoman would react if I suggested that she might withdraw her amendment and work with her chairman on these matters of concern. It seems to me the Committee on Small Business is the proper place to adjudicate this matter.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment, because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, believe me, I understand the gentlewoman's concerns. As I suggested, the Department of Defense understands that concern as well. But it was just a suggestion that maybe we could have the two of them work this out. But, anyway, I have made my suggestion.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Army Specialist Louis E. Niedermeier of Largo, Florida, who gave the last full measure of service to our nation while serving in Iraq. Our nation buried Louis with full military honors this afternoon at Arlington National Cemetery following his death by sniper fire in Ar Ramadi, Iraq on June 1st while serving with his Headquarters Battery, 2nd Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division. He died just 2 weeks short of his 21st birthday. Louis was a soldier's soldier. He wanted to enlist in the Army immediately after the events of 9-11, but he was only 17. His day came though as soon as he graduated from Pinellas Park High School in 2003. He followed in his father's footsteps and enlisted in the Army and a year later found himself serving in Iraq. As a scout, Louis served on the front lines, providing critical targeting information to our air and artillery forces. He served with pride and with courage to bring about freedom in a land far from home. The true testament of Louis' service as a soldier came from the remembrances of three soldiers from his unit who served side-by-side with him in Iraq. The three were wounded in combat and were stateside at the time of Louis' death. They drove 36 hours nonstop from Fort Carson, Colorado to be with Louis and his family this afternoon. They said they did it because if the roles had been reversed Louis would have been there for them. Louis' parents Edward A. Niedermeier and Denise A. Hoy were proud of their son. They were proud that he chose to serve his Nation in uniform. They were proud that he served with distinction to defend the principles of freedom and democracy. And they were proud that despite the fact that he served halfway around the world, first in Korea and then in Iraq, that he never forgot to remember his family and friends back home. Both Ed and Denise marveled this afternoon that before they knew it Louis had grown from a boy into a man. They recounted Louis' love of family and country. And they emphasized that if Louis had it to do over again, they are convinced he would not have changed a thing. Army Sergeant First Class Charles Welsh also attended today's services. He not only had the honor of serving with Louis in Iraq, but he was Louis' uncle. He recalled the day Louis came to him and told him he had enlisted in the Army as one of the proudest moments in this young man's life. The price of freedom is great and in the case of Louis it was a life cut way too short. It was also the tragic interruption of a life together Louis had planned with his fiancee Sarah Hatley. Sarah and Louis were high school sweethearts who both volunteered to serve their Nation in uniform. Sarah is a Seaman serving aboard the U.S.S. Fitzgerald, stationed in Yokosuka, Japan. Her ship was underway off the coast of Australia when she learned of Louis' death. Mr. Speaker, our Nation said goodbye to Specialist Louis E. Niedermeier today at Arlington National Cemetery. We said goodbye to a brave soldier who proudly wore the uniform in defense of freedom here and throughout the world. We said goodbye to a good son, a good nephew, and a good friend to so many people. And we said goodbye to the love of a young girl's life. As the day draws to an end, we can take solace in the fact that America sleeps better tonight and every night because of heroes like Louis Niedermeier who sacrificed all for the love of country and the love of freedom. Mr. Speaker, a grateful Nation said thank you today to a courageous soldier and I join all my colleagues today in expressing our sorrow and our thanks for the life and the service of Louis Niedermeier and to the strong and loving family and friends he leaves behind. His was a life that was all too short in time but full of love and grace.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material and that I may include tabular material on the consideration of H.R. 2863, Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Robert L. Panek, who retired from the Senior Executive Service, in the Department of the Navy, on June 3rd, 2005. Mr. Panek's long and highly distinguished career spans nearly 34 years of Federal Service and eclipses 27 years of dedicated service in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller). A native of Oceanside, New York, Mr. Panek received a Bachelor of Science degree, a Naval Reserve commission, and a Merchant Marine Third Officer's license from the Maritime College of the State University of New York, before entering Federal Service in 1971. Excelling as a management intern with the Naval Ordnance Systems Command, budget analyst in the Anti-Submarine Warfare Systems Project Office, financial management advisor to the Deputy Chief of Naval Material, and budget analyst/branch head in the Department of the Navy (DoN) Budget Policy and Procedures Directorate, Mr. Panek was appointed to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in July 1986. As a SES officer, his breadth of responsibilities grew to encompass nearly every facet of the DoN budget to include setting policies and procedures for the formulation and execution of the DoN budget; directing DoN budget operations; and overseeing Investment, Research & Development, Construction, and Acquisition accounts. In December 1994, Mr. Panek's exemplary career culminated in his selection as the Associate Director, Office of Budget with responsibility for the formulation, presentation and execution of the DoN budget. In this position he achieved the grade of Senior Executive Service, Level 6 and also served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller). Mr. Panek's devotion to duty, financial acumen, and commitment to the Navy-Marine Corps Team have made our Nation safer and our Navy and Marine Corps Stronger. He has been awarded numerous performance awards and citations throughout his career to include the Department of the Navy Superior Civilian Service Award in December 1988, the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in 1993, and the Department of the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award in 2001. His selflessness, exemplary conduct, and commitment to a cause greater than himself is memorialized in his parting email to his shipmates in the Department of the Navy in which he reminded them--``Finally, please always, always remember that we do this for our Sailors and Marines that go in harm's way.'' It is fitting and altogether appropriate to recognize Mr. Panek's contributions to the DoN at the same time that we consider the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act. Our Nation and the Department of the Navy have been made better through the talent and dedication of Mr. Robert L. Panek. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Bob, his wife Susan, and their two daughters, on the completion of an outstanding career. While his service to our Nation will be missed, he has left a legacy of high standards and superbly trained professionals in his wake. We wish him fair winds and following seas!