[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 20, 2006)]
[House]
[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.

                          ____________________