[Pages H4239-H4244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5631, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 877

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

[[Page H4240]]

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as
read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is
recognized for 1 hour.

General Leave

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
tabular and extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule
for consideration of the House report for H.R. 5631, the Department of
Defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2007. Mr. Speaker, when
the Rules Committee met, it granted an open rule, providing 1 hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill. For the purposes of
amendment, the bill shall be read by paragraph. Additionally, this rule
waives all points of order against provisions in the bill which fail to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, and it authorizes the Chair to accord
priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record. It provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 5631 and
the underlying resolution. In past debates on defense appropriations, I
have spoken of the four challenges I believe we must successfully
address if we are to ensure the security of our country in the 21st
Century. These challenges are, first, addressing the equipment and
readiness needs created by the 1990s procurement holiday; second,
transforming and adapting our forces to use the opportunities and meet
the challenges posed by the new technologies of the information age;
third, increasing the size and changing the force structure of our
forces in order to have more available manpower for deployment and for
combat operations; and, fourth, doing those things necessary to win the
war on terror and succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, the rule and the underlying legislation do much to meet
these four challenges. The bill itself provides $427.4 billion to meet
the needs of our military. That is $19.1 billion more than last year.

{time} 1315

Speaking broadly, the bill provides $84.9 billion for military
personnel, $120.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $81.5 billion
for procurement, $75.3 billion for research and development and $50
billion towards the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The procurement sections of the underlying bill do much to bring on
line new weapons and replace worn-out equipment. I am particularly
pleased to note the $11 billion for naval shipbuilding and conversion,
the $2.9 billion for 42 F/A-22 aircraft and the $500 million above the
President's request for National Guard equipment needs. In addition, in
light of developments in North Korea, the $9 billion for ballistic
missile defense is clearly a prudent expenditure. Additional funds are
available to replace equipment lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On the personnel front, the end strength for the National Guard is
funded at its full projected strength of 350,000. Moreover, all
personnel receive a 2.2 percent across-the-board raise that the
administration requested.
Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go before we make up for the
neglect of our military in the 1990s when we reduced our end strength
levels and failed to replace and update weapons systems and bring on
new weapons. The changing nature of technology poses real threats and
opportunities. Moreover, our forces are involved in a tough fight
against a vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq. They require our
continued support.
No one bill in and of itself can address all these challenges.
However, the Appropriations Committee has brought us a bill that makes
significant progress in all these areas.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill, carefully crafted
by the chairman, Mr. Young of Florida, and the ranking member, Mr. Sabo
of Minnesota. Their professionalism and cooperation in devising ways to
meet the needs of our men and women in uniform is something to which we
should all aspire. I particularly want to recognize Mr. Sabo, who is
leaving Congress after the completion of his current term, for his
distinguished career of service to his district, his State and our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 877 will allow the House to consider
the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill under an open rule. I
would like to thank subcommittee Chair Young and my good friend Ranking
Member Murtha for their hard work to craft a responsible bill for
consideration by this House. It provides robust support to our troops
stationed in Iraq and elsewhere around the globe. In particular, I
would highlight the increased funding to test new jammers for IEDs and
additional funds for troop body armor and Humvees.
Importantly, the bill also focuses significant resources toward
rebuilding our military. This includes addressing the strain placed on
our National Guard. Wisely, the committee provided funding to maintain
the Guard's current force size. In addition, they provided critical
resources to ensure these men and women have equipment necessary to
accomplish their mission.
I appreciate the committee's intense focus to mitigate the effect
Iraq has had on eroding our military readiness.
I would like to highlight a few provisions which I feel are
particularly forward-thinking. Many Members, including myself, felt
that the House missed an opportunity last week to engage in substantive
debate with regard to our policies toward Iraq. For that reason, I am
very pleased that this bill contains a real policy proposal. It clearly
states that it is not the intent of the United States to build
permanent bases in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, intentions matter. For too long this House has passed on
opportunities to clarify our intentions in Iraq. Not only is such a
statement in the best interest of our troops, but it is critical if we
are to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. I would like to commend Mr.
Murtha for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House for
consideration.
This bill also begins to bring funding for the Iraq war into the
regular budget process. Since the start of the war, the majority
leadership has been engaged in a shell game. We pass budget resolutions
that pretend we are not at war, and in doing so, we ignore the idea of
shared sacrifice.
Only a select few are paying for the costs of this war, the men and
women

[[Page H4241]]

in uniform and their families, and those who rely on critical domestic
programs which have been cut to finance the war.
Let us admit we have lost the principle of shared sacrifice. This
bill will be a first step toward again embracing that idea. Commend the
subcommittee for returning to this path.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the bill made in order under this rule
reaffirms our ironclad support for our men and women in uniform in two
fundamental ways. This legislation upholds our part of a solemn pact to
provide our Armed Forces with everything they require, and it fulfills
our duty to act responsibly in our Nation's interests. I commend the
committee for achieving both goals in one bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule as well as
the underlying legislation.
We are a Nation engaged in a global war on terror, and it is critical
that during this time we focus our spending on what we need to defeat
our terrorist enemies. This bill does that. We have learned an awful
lot during this conflict as to the vulnerability of our forces, and
this bill addresses those vulnerabilities.
This bill allocates $1.5 billion to test and field new jammers to
counter improvised explosive devices, which have been such a deadly
threat to our troops.
We also provide an additional $725 million for other force protection
equipment, such as body armor for our troops in the field.
This bill also fully funds the President's request for a 2.2 percent
pay increase for the members of our armed services, a pay increase that
is well, well deserved.
This bill also restores $557 million to the Army Reserve and National
Guard above the requested amount to reflect newly authorized troop
levels. Our troops need to know that the Congress of the United States
is working hard to recognize their needs and to address them
forcefully.
This bill also allocates $50 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq
and in Afghanistan in hopes of avoiding future supplemental
appropriation bills. We are at war, and it only makes sense to
appropriate funds under regular order to pay for the cost of the war.
Mr. Speaker, the news today is that North Korea is threatening to
launch a new ballistic missile which has the capability to reach our
shores. It validates the inclusion of $9 billion in this bill for our
missile defense shield.
Back in the days of the Cold War, people used to call President
Ronald Reagan ``crazy,'' or they called him a ``warmonger'' for even
advocating missile defense. Well, today he doesn't look so crazy.
Actually, today he looks visionary, and we need to do everything that
we can to defend our citizens from terrorist states and rogue nations
like North Korea who threaten world peace and stability.
The news today that our missile defense is on high alert in case of a
launch is very good news, and the American people should know that we
recognize threats to our security, and we will do all that we can to
protect our Nation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, earmarks and various Member projects have come
under question and scrutiny recently. This bill does the responsible
thing by limiting those projects to $5 billion, $2.7 billion less than
last year's bill. And for those projects that remain in the bill, every
Member who advocates for a project or asked for an earmark should not
be afraid to stand up on this floor to defend it.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of those projects that I asked
for in this bill which is centered at Selfridge Air National Guard Base
in my district. As our Nation seeks alternatives for everyday energy
needs, we also need alternatives for the military.
This bill provides $2 million for the second phase of a project to
turn waste into fuel and electricity. NextEnergy, a nonprofit
alternative fuel research cooperative in the great State of Michigan,
is working with the U.S. Army on this important project. This fuel
would help run a generator that would produce high-quality electric
energy that every military unit needs. This is a very important project
to support our troops.
Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule to manage an outstanding bill.
It has the right priorities. And we need to make sure that our military
remains the best trained, the best supported, the best equipped and the
most lethal fighting force that the world has ever seen.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I am here to speak on the rule, because I know that there will be a
great deal of pressure to fill up the agenda for speakers on the bill
itself.
I am here to record what I call a fury footnote, F-U-R-Y. I am
furious at the kind of Neanderthal, backward, primitive thinking
reflected in the bill in one statement. There is one section of the
bill which says, ``National Defense Education Act, $10 million.'' Ten
million dollars, and they call it a National Defense Education Act; $10
million for scholarships for science and engineering students.
Here is a report that recently came out. I don't know whether it went
to all of the offices of all of the Members of Congress. Maybe because
I am on the Education and Workforce Committee, I got five copies. It is
called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
The report is published by the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.
The impetus for this book, the oversight for this book, the push for
this book came from our own STEM Caucus, Senate and House Members
together pushing to get a realistic evaluation of where we are in terms
of education for engineering and science in order to keep our economic
advantage in the world and remain leaders, and that means leaders also
in the area of the military as well.
The National Defense Education Act was one of the first efforts of
that kind put forth by the government in 1957 and 1958 as a result of
the reaction to Sputnik. Some of you are not old enough to remember
Sputnik. When the Russians put Sputnik up, it said they had a rocket
capability which frightened us, because that rocket capability that you
had to have to go into the upper atmosphere was enough, of course, for
an intercontinental ballistic missile also. So we got busy, and the
National Defense Education Act followed that.
The National Defense Education Act in 1958 dollars was given about
half a billion dollars, $500 million. It did not limit itself to a few
scholarships to science and engineering students. It provided money for
laboratories in high schools, money for libraries, purchase of science
books. It went right across the board, in 1958, when we were really not
into large amounts of expenditures for domestic programs.
What flowed from the National Defense Education Act was later on the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education
Assistance Act which took its place, but still there is a deficit.
The deficit was indicated when I first came to Congress by a report
called ``A Nation at Risk.'' A Nation at Risk was commissioned by
President Ronald Reagan. ``A Nation at Risk'' made the same
recommendations being made now all these years later in this ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.''
The fact that there are people in the Defense Department who see $10
million as being significant, that there are people on the
Appropriations Committee, the fact that we have that kind of backward,
Neanderthal, primitive thinking about education and its role in our
military defense is appalling.
I suppose I should not be furious and angry, I should be weeping that
such a great Nation with such great minds would place education on such
a low level.
We need to go across the board, and we need to appropriate billions
for a new National Defense Education Act or

[[Page H4242]]

a National Homeland Security Mobilization Act, which reaches beyond
just the military and understands that in addition to scientists, we
need some people who know how to interpret the Arabic language. We need
some people who know how to interpret other Middle Eastern languages,
we need people who understand cultures that we are at war with.
Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to pause and take a hard look at our
conception of what it means to defend our country in terms of
education.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

{time} 1330

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bill, and from the outset I want to commend Chairman Young
of Florida and the ranking member, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, for
their leadership on this bipartisan bill and for all they do each and
every day for our military and their families.
As my colleagues have noted, H.R. 5631 includes over $427 billion in
discretionary funding, including an additional $50 billion provided in
what is called the very critical Bridge Fund to support ongoing
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 90 percent of this funding
will go to the Army and Marine units that are taking the fight directly
to our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, our committee's allocation is $4 billion below the
President's request. This presented the committee with some significant
challenges. We looked carefully at programs in the President's budget,
and we made selected reductions. We also recommended less funding for
programs encountering technological problems and developmental delays.
With many competing challenges facing our military as we prosecute the
global war on terror, this was not an easy task; but we believe we made
appropriate choices to allow us to deter our enemies and yet enhance
the high-intensity combat capability of our forces.
Mr. Speaker, as we consider this important legislation, we must
remain mindful that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, mind you all
volunteers, regular military, Guard, and Reserve, are literally on the
battlefield as we speak, brave men and women fighting a new kind of war
where everybody literally is on the front line. As we all know, the
Army and Marines are carrying the brunt of the battle in Iraq and
Afghanistan, with an unprecedented level of partnership by their Guard
and Reserve components, and young men and women from the Air Force and
Navy stand with them. Their service and dedication on the battlefields
of these countries are making our Nation safer from terrorists who seek
to do us and other freedom-loving nations harm.
Make no mistake, our success in Iraq is hugely important. Our enemies
in Iraq are thinking enemies; they are adaptable and would like nothing
better than to see us withdraw prematurely, set arbitrary dates for
withdrawal, and then come back after our departure to reinstall another
despot or regime even more oppressive, more fanatical, and more
horrendous and more dangerous than the last.
The bottom line is that we should never forget that the soldiers we
support through this appropriations bill have freed nearly 50 million
people in Iraq and Afghanistan from killer regimes where protest and
dissent were answered by killing fields and genocide, where women were
denied basic freedoms, education, health care, and the vote.
Of course, the loss of any young soldier is heartbreaking; so are the
deaths of innocent civilians killed by roadside and vehicle-borne
bombs, or suicide bombers. We are dealing with Saddam loyalists,
jihadists, imported terrorists, and domestic criminals who play by no
rules and do not hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, mosques, funerals,
and gatherings of children, school children as a common tactic.
Since we are engaged in the global war on terrorism with Afghanistan
and Iraq being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and
marines and others in the military need every possible advantage. This
legislation provides our fighting men and women with the resources they
need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible, more
interoperable, and more lethal in the execution of their missions. It
provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons.
Of course, our bill supports the troops by providing a pay increase,
enhanced life insurance coverage, and housing allowances. Mr. Speaker,
I also welcome increased funding for research and development in this
bill. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.2 billion so we can
speed important new technology from the drawing board to the
laboratory, to the test bed, and into the arsenal of our warfighters.
My colleagues, the global war on terror will not be short. It will
require deep and enduring commitment. And looking down the road, we
face many potential threats and we cannot know what lies ahead, but
this appropriations bill will give us the resources to do the job and
to support our young men and women who do that job of liberty each and
every day.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California
for her leadership, for yielding, and for her work on the Rules
Committee. Her fairness in seeking appropriate rules does not go
unnoticed, and I want to thank her for fighting for fairness in this
whole process.
As the daughter of a veteran of two wars, first let me just express
my profound respect and admiration for our brave young men and women
serving our Nation around the world and on the ground in Iraq.
I also rise to convey my appreciation for the hard work and the
dedication of the distinguished ranking member of the defense
subcommittee, Mr. Murtha, and the ranking member of the full committee,
Mr. Obey. They have both been champions for a significant provision in
this bill, one that would ensure that we are not establishing permanent
military bases in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want an open-ended war and
occupation in Iraq. Congress must be on record supporting this, and the
administration must level with the American people regarding their
long-term desires and designs with regard to Iraq.
My colleague, Mr. Allen, and I offered an identical provision to the
war supplemental bill this past March; but in a gross abuse of power,
the Republican majority stripped it in conference. We must ensure that
the no permanent bases in this bill remains and not be gutted.
While I support this provision, I also believe this bill could be
improved in many ways. First, this bill does not address the waste,
fraud, and abuse in Pentagon spending. GAO has identified cost savings
which, if implemented, could save billions of tax dollars. This budget
should not be off limits to spending cuts, especially where funds are
misspent. Also, this bill continues to fund the unnecessary war in Iraq
without demanding accountability from this administration.
In a larger sense, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Nation is best
defended by funding priorities that truly make our Nation and the world
safer. I am disappointed that this $427 billion bill continues to fund
Cold War-era weaponry for a threat that doesn't exist. We must focus
our security spending on threats that we face today. By getting rid of
outmoded weapons systems programs, we can not only make the much needed
investment in ensuring health care for all of our children, improving
our public schools, ending our dependence on foreign oil, but also
improve our Homeland Security, where of course we must focus because
the real threat involves possible attacks, and we need to protect our
homeland.
That is why I have joined with my colleague Congresswoman Lynn
Woolsey in introducing H.R. 4898, the Common Sense Budget Act. This
bill shows how we can reduce our defense budget by $60 billion without
diminishing our ability to protect our Nation by putting resources into
areas where real threats exist, by protecting our ports, protecting our
transit systems, real homeland security. So we must get our funding
priorities right. The challenge is clear. We must, quite frankly, put

[[Page H4243]]

some common sense into our defense spending.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume just briefly to offer a different perspective, if I may.
I would argue that we don't spend too much on defense, we spend far
too little. Frankly, by historical measures, we spend less now than at
any time since 1940. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we were
spending roughly 50 percent of the entire Federal budget, roughly 9
percent of our gross national product on defense. By 1980, that was
down to 33 percent of the Federal budget and 6 percent of the gross
national product. Today, it is about 17 or 18 percent of the total
budget, only about 4 percent, actually slightly less than that, of the
gross national product.
I would argue we steadily decreased our expenditure even in a time of
danger, and frankly that is a tribute to the professionalism and the
skill of our military and the focus on trying to deliver the best
service as reasonably priced as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for
fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the
underlying legislation. I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and
Young, as well as the ranking member and the staff of the Defense
Committee and subcommittee for their tireless effort in support of our
soldiers, our sailors, airmen, and marines who are bravely defending us
at home and abroad.
Mr. Speaker, this bill most importantly meets the immediate needs of
our warfighters who are fighting and winning the global war on terror.
It is a good bill that provides funding for many important programs
which are our military's top priorities.
Not the least of these, Mr. Speaker, is F-22 Raptor. I am
particularly delighted for the work the Appropriations Committee has
done to fund the F-22 program this year. The full funding of 20 planes
will go a long way toward providing stability for the program and
ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable
future.
In light of emerging military threats globally, the F-22 will
continue to increase in significance, as it is the world's most capable
fighter. I therefore wholeheartedly agree with the Department of
Defense that the F-22 should be fully funded on a multi-year contract
basis, and that the procurement life of the program should be extended
beyond fiscal year 2009.
Further, Mr. Speaker, during this time of conflict as we fight the
global war on terror, the United States must, without question,
continue to modernize and strengthen our ability to support our men and
women in harm's way. Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is
critical to this mission, and I would like to applaud the committee for
their recognition of this in funding 9 C-130Js and the C-5
modernization.
Today, the C-130J is the most modern military transport in service.
Both United States and allied C-130Js are exceeding expectations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The KC-130Js have been deployed continuously to
Iraq dating to February of 2005, and their unprecedented capability,
reliability, and maintainability have been impressive. Over the past
year of deployment, the C and the KC-130J mission capable rates have
been between 89 and 93 percent, which is more than a 50 percent
improvement over legacy aircraft. Similarly, the C-5 has also proven
its ability to provide critical support. While the C-5 fleet has flown
less than 25 percent of all cargo missions in operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq, they delivered nearly 50 percent of all cargo to our troops
on the ground. Clearly, the C-5 has demonstrated its effectiveness, and
therefore further modernization of a C-5 fleet is imperative.
The funds for C-5 AMP modernization will be used to make critical
upgrades of the cockpits with modern avionics and flight
instrumentation that meet both Air Force and congressional mandated
standards.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the funds allocated for the C-5 RERP
program modernization will be used to replace old engines and systems
with newer ones. These replacements represent significant improvements
to the aircraft, making them even more reliable and easier to maintain.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a remarkable job in addressing a
wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services.
I would like to again thank the chairmen and ranking members of the
respective committee and subcommittee for their hard work on this bill.
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I would like
to inquire of the gentleman whether he has any additional speakers.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I too have no additional speakers. I am
prepared to close.
Ms. MATSUI. I am prepared to close. Thank you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized to close for her side.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill is
critical to our warfighters, to our national security, and to our long-
term strategic interests. It reaffirms the unwavering commitment all
Members have for Armed Forces now more than ever.
Once again, I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for
their hard work in crafting an excellent bill that will allow our
Nation to achieve these goals.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, today in closing I again want to
draw attention of the Members to the strength of the underlying
legislation, H.R. 5631. This legislation accomplishes much in terms of
funding our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global
war on terror, while setting the military on the path of further
transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, it must also be noted that this legislation would not
have been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman
from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Ranking
Member Murtha), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and all
the members on both sides of the aisle of the defense appropriations
subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee. The appropriators
have given us a genuinely excellent and bipartisan bill. It does not
shrink from making the hard decisions regarding the funding of the
current and the future force. This is never an easy task, and it is
even harder during a time of war.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Members to vote on the rule and the
underlying legislation.

{time} 1345

I readily admit that no bill, including this legislation, is perfect.
That is the reason why we reauthorize and appropriate for the
Department of Defense on an annual basis. Moreover, we deal with
ongoing contingencies through emergency supplemental appropriations
when and as required. This legislation takes critical steps toward
fulfilling the current and future needs. It is a building block toward
creating a stronger military tomorrow and an essential element in
funding our troops in the field today.
Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to support the rule and
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 877 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on suspending the rules and agreeing to H. Res. 731 and
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5228.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400,
nays 18, not voting 14, as follows:

[[Page H4244]]

[Roll No. 292]

YEAS--400

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--18

Becerra
Conyers
Costello
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Owens
Rangel
Schakowsky
Stark
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Udall (NM)
Watson
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--14

Brady (TX)
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Hunter
Nadler
Napolitano
Nussle
Ruppersberger
Shuster
Sodrel
Strickland
Turner

{time} 1412

Mr. McDERMOTT and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BERRY, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. ROSS, Ms. ROYBAL-
ALLARD, Messrs. CLYBURN, JEFFERSON, PAYNE, and CLEAVER changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 292, I missed this
vote due to attending Maryland State Delegate John Arnick's Funeral.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, I was absent
due to a family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 292, agreeing to H. Res. 877--Providing for the
consideration of H.R. 5631, Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2007.

____________________