Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 164 (Sunday, December 18, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 164 (Sunday, December 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H12224-H12233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2863,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 639 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[Conference report will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.]

H. Res. 639

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration

[[Page H12225]]

are waived. The conference report shall be considered as
read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H. Res.
639.
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, today the Rules Committee met and
reported the rule for consideration of House Resolution 639.
Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration and provides that the
conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of the rule for H. Res. 639
and the underlying bill.
Normally in these situations, Mr. Speaker, we focus on matters such
as force levels, military capabilities, procurement, pay and benefits
for our men and women in uniform, and budgetary concerns, and of
course, in the course of this debate and debate on the underlying bill
we will. Before we do, however, I think we ought to reflect on the
nature, the mission and the morale of our current military forces.
The United States military is the most remarkable, capable and
multifaceted armed force in the history of the world, but it is much
more than a proficient military force designed to protect our country.
It contains our finest and our most dedicated citizens, it embodies and
exhibits our best ideals and traditions, and it projects our values as
well as our power around the world.
We should always remember that the men and women who wear the uniform
of the United States are all volunteers. They represent every race,
every ethnic group, every geographic region, every shade of political
opinion in this country.
Their mission is not just to defend our country but to spread and
defend freedom around the world. While they are feared by our enemies,
they are respected by our friends and seen as a source of protection
and assistance in time of need and disasters by people all over the
world. Their recent performance in the tsunami and the Pakistani
earthquake disasters are an indication of that.
Our men and women embody the best of who we are as a people. This was
brought home to me when I visited the 101st Airborne in Mosul in
October of 2003. I had the occasion to talk to a gentleman who was on
the city council of that dangerous and troubled city, and while we were
having our discussion I pointed out that his city was one of the most
ethnically diverse in Iraq. It had Kurds, it had Sunnis, it had
Shiites, it had Turkmen, it had other groups in that country.
I asked the question, which is still pertinent today, how can you get
all these different groups to work together. He answered in a rather
unusual way. He said first, you did in your country and you have given
us an extraordinary example of how it can be done; we see it in your
military, again, every religion, every race, every ethnic group, both
genders, cooperating for a common purpose. That is what I want for my
people, what you demonstrate in your military.
This remarkable force is once again engaged in defending our country,
confronting our enemies and extending freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq
and other troubled spots around the world.
This mission, as the President noted earlier this evening, is
dangerous and difficult. Yet we are succeeding as we have seen in
historically unprecedented elections in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And the morale in the forces, despite the challenges they face, is
high. Reenlistment rates, as reported in the Washington Post today, are
among the highest in our history, and those rates are often even higher
among units involved in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, our job here in this Congress is to make sure that this
magnificent armed force of dedicated Americans has the equipment, the
training and the capabilities to defend our country and accomplish
their very many important missions.
I believe this bill accomplishes that important mission and keeps
faith with the men and women in the uniform who have volunteered to
defend our country.
There are many highlights in this bill. It appropriates $97 billion
for military personnel and fully funds the pay raises that have been
promised for next year. It adds $123.6 billion for operation and
maintenance, $76.5 billion to procurement, $72.1 billion for research
development test and evaluations, and over $50 billion in emergency
wartime appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill directs the
expenditures of vast amounts of money. Frankly, I wish the bill were
even more generous in that regard as I believe we need to expand the
size of our forces in the years ahead.
However, it is important to note and for the American people to
realize that our military is by any measure a bargain. It consumes only
a fraction of our national wealth, and that fraction has declined
dramatically over recent decades.
President Eisenhower and President Kennedy served our country with
great distinction at the height of the Cold War. Military consumed
almost 9 percent of the national wealth and 50 percent of the Federal
budget. Ronald Reagan began to rebuild the military in the 1980s,
another critical juncture in the Cold War. It consumed only 6 percent
of our national wealth and about a third of the Federal budget, and
today, even in the difficult time of war, it consumes only 3.6 percent
of the national wealth and about 18 percent of the Federal budget. This
suggests our military, by historical standard, is more efficient and
less burdensome than at any time than at least 1940.

Mr. Speaker, this Defense Appropriations Act also contains a number
of items which, while not usually found in such legislation, are
nevertheless important to our security and the welfare of our Nation.
These include the prohibitions that allow for the drilling of oil and
natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where there is an
estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This measure will generate
billions of dollars of revenue for the Federal Government. It is
critical to the energy security of America, and it is favored by
bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and by the President.
Another item in this bill is over $3.7 billion set aside to deal with
the avian flu preparedness initiative. That is only half of what the
President requests, but it is enough to get things moving and enough to
give Congress the time to come back and more fully consider this
appropriation in next year's session.
There is also hurricane disaster relief for troubled and distressed
Americans along the gulf coast, $29 billion in all of reprogrammed and
additional funds.
Finally, there are offsets in this bill, $23 billion plus, for FEMA
disaster relief fund reprogramming, $8.5 billion across-the-board cuts
in discretionary spending except in Veterans Affairs, and over $1
billion in other rescissions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a good bill, and it deserves the
support of this House of Representatives. To that end, I urge the
support of the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to do something I have never done
before and that is talk about the process in the Rules Committee.
I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I really
am astonished at the deterioration of process in this House. I want it
strictly on the

[[Page H12226]]

record for this debate today that those of us in the Rules Committee,
the four Democrats, all voted to expunge from this bill the matter of
the 45 pages of liability added after the conference was over. I
realize that we waive everything in Rules, but I did not think that all
the rules of the House back to Jefferson's Manual had just been waived.
We are very distressed about it. The process has been awful. We have
been here for 2 days doing suspensions, for heaven's sake. What we are
doing here, this is so critical, and I can guarantee every Member here
that you are going to spend your whole time home in January and I
understand we are working 6 days in February, so we are going to be
around the district a lot, you are going to be explaining what was in
this bill and why you did not know it and why you did not do something
about it.
In doing so, I have to say that probably two of the the nicest people
in the House of Representatives, Chairman Young and Chairman Lewis, I
think have their names attached to this. I feel badly for them as well.
This bill determines how we as a Nation will spend our resources, at
home and abroad, and in order to do the best to protect our fellow
Americans, our shared values and our common interests. And in doing so,
people around the world will rightly view this legislation as a
testament to the values our Nation has chosen to embrace and promote,
how we have chosen to define ourselves at this critical moment in
history.
Our international credibility and the moral weight of our words
continues to be damaged by every new allegation of detainee
mistreatment at the hands of our forces and our government. With every
new revelation of secret detention facilities operating beyond public
scrutiny, we take a perilous step toward that which we wish to defeat.
Stories of undisclosed domestic spying and wiretaps approved by this
White House and carried out by our top law enforcement agencies,
without congressional knowledge or judicial review, force citizens,
here and abroad, to question this Nation's commitment to its own
ideals. How determined are we to create an open world ruled by clear
and established laws if we are abandoning them at home?
The creation of clandestine CIA facilities beyond the oversight of
Congress and the world community, the troubling misuse of American
power, undermining the goodwill born of the sincerest efforts of our
fighting men and women, that is not the work of my America.
My America won two world wars and faced down fascism without
resorting to torture. My America survived those troubling times without
abandoning the civil and personal liberties which made us different and
made our way of life so worth fighting for. My America practices what
it preaches.
I applaud the fact that Senator McCain's torture amendment has been
added to this appropriations bill. Mr. McCain understands that torture
is not just morally reprehensible. It also gives us bad intelligence,
undermines our credibility and endangers our troops by providing their
enemies with an excuse to mistreat them if they are captured. I am
relieved that most of my fellow Members in this House see the wisdom in
Senator McCain's words.
At the same time, there have been reports suggesting that the Army
Field Manual, enshrined by Mr. McCain, is being quietly amended in a
way which threatens to undermine his efforts. If this is true, this
Congress must vigilantly monitor what is added to the list of
acceptable interrogation procedures given to our troops, and we must
further guarantee that our Nation continues to exemplify the kind of
society we hope to encourage.
Today, we fund continued operation of the defense community and all
those who are part of it. We do so gladly because we believe, as we
always have, that ours is the way of life that should not perish.
But to change the values of our society at the moment we are fighting
to preserve them at home and champion them abroad would not just be the
height of irony, Mr. Speaker, it would be the height of tragedy.
We have many questions to answer about how the United States will
define itself in the years ahead and how we will interact with the
world. I hope that we will use the upcoming holiday to reflect on what
kind of America we in Congress wish to create for future generations. I
hope we take that question seriously in the second half of this
session.
I have faith in this body just as I have faith in this Nation that we
possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is
wrong if only we will use it. The very nature of our democracy depends
on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0130

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume for a couple of quick remarks.
First, I share the gentlewoman's concern about allegations of torture
and misbehavior of any kind, and I am pleased that this legislation
contains compromise language worked out between the President and
Senator McCain that I think will take care of any concerns.
We know that, frankly, any instances of misbehavior, whenever they
have been identified, and I can say this from having sat in numerous
hearings on the Armed Services Committee, have been dealt with swiftly
and severely by the appropriate authorities on our side. We do not ever
condone torture.
As for spying and those conversations, I think the President has been
well within his power, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, to keep
up an appropriate level of surveillance on people who wish to do harm
to the United States of America. This body has been informed about
that. The ranking members and chairmen of the intelligence committees
have been kept apprised of this, according to what I have been told at
least.
And finally, on process, we quite often get hung up on this. I hope
we spend at least some time talking about the merits of this very
important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Conaway).
(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for
yielding me this time.
I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I am proud of the
underlying bill this rule represents, and that is the way we provide
for the defense of this country, with all of the equipment and gear and
training and personnel that we have in place. But I want to speak
specifically to a provision that is in there relating to the drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.
I come from west Texas, where a good slug of the daily production in
America comes from, the area that I represent; and we have been
drilling there for a long, long time in a responsible manner.
America imports crude oil every day in the millions of barrels. To
the extent that we can reduce that dependency on foreign crude, we will
improve the national security of this country. We have drilled in ANWR
three test wells; and with the best science we have and the best
estimates that we have, we should be able to produce between 800,000
and a million barrels a day. Now, if you come from oil country, you
know that until you drill it, you do not know if the production is
going to be there. But let us say for the sake of argument that that
production is there. I believe that our current drilling companies,
drilling operators and contractors can do that drilling in an
environmentally sensitive and responsible manner.
To put the 2,000 acres we intend to drill on in perspective, if you
take the full front page of the Wall Street Journal, every letter on
that page, the drilling in ANWR is the equivalent of one letter on that
page. Now, I am not trying to minimize the responsibility of the
commitment to do this drilling in an environmentally sensitive manner,
but we will do that in this regard.
Drilling in ANWR will improve our daily production of crude oil, it
will reduce the amount of crude oil that we will have to buy, and that
purchase of crude oil from foreign countries obviously aggravates the
trade deficit.
So I speak in favor of the rule and the underlying legislation and
encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the bill
itself.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the

[[Page H12227]]

ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House has
decided that this war-time Defense bill is the proper vehicle to
resolve the debate on ANWR. Now, I know this is not the first time that
substantive legislation has been added to an appropriations bill, but
it is certainly one of the worst.
There is something especially outrageous about the willingness of the
majority party leadership to allow the Defense Department bill, in a
time of war, to be held hostage to totally unrelated special interest
items. The Defense bill should be about delivering equipment and
support to our troops. Instead, it is being used to deliver a
multibillion dollar bonanza to the oil companies.
That action represents a fundamental corruption of the integrity of
the legislative process, in my view. This legislation allows one
Senator to grease the skids to allow the passage of ANWR by sprinkling
enough money around this bill in selected accounts to buy enough votes
in the Senate to ensure passage. I think that ought not happen, but
that is what is going to happen if we pass the rule.
I have another objection to what is happening here tonight. I have in
my hand 45 pages of language which we were told in writing during the
conference would not be included in the conference committee report.
This is language which relates to indemnification of the pharmaceutical
industry and the establishment of a compensation fund.
What happens under this language is that individuals have their right
to sue in case they are made very ill or in case, say someone in their
family dies, they lose their right to sue a pharmaceutical manufacturer
except when the Secretary finds malfeasance. Instead, they are told
that they can have access to a compensation fund, but then there is no
money put in the compensation fund. So that means that if you do get
sick, you lose your right to sue, but you have to lobby the Congress in
order to provide an appropriation in order to provide compensation for
your loss.
We were told in writing that that was not going to be in the
conference report; and yet Senator Frist walked across the Capitol,
walked into the Speaker's office, and Senator Frist and the Speaker
demanded that the Republican leadership on the House Appropriations
Committee insert that language in the bill. So we are here tonight
recognizing that once again the orderly legislative process has been
corrupted by a couple of muscle men in the Congress who think that they
have a right to tell everybody else that they have to do their bidding.
ANWR does not belong in this bill. This language with respect to the
drug companies does not belong in this bill. It ought to be stripped.
This rule should be turned down.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me first address my good friend's concern about ANWR and point
out a couple of things. ANWR has been voted on repeatedly in both
Houses of Congress. Frankly, bipartisan majorities in each House have
repeatedly expressed their support for this measure. The President has
indicated he would sign it.
Minorities in both Houses, particularly in the other body, have
frustrated that process. I have no objection to that, because they have
done that, frankly, under the rules and traditions of the Senate. They
have been shrewd, they have been tough, and they have been wily; but
they have represented a minority viewpoint on the issue.
I think it is somewhat disingenuous now, when the majority bipartisan
proponents of this measure are equally tough and shrewd and wily and
find a procedure to pass their measure, that they somehow are engaging
in something that is either unprecedented or unfair or untoward in some
way. Frankly, this is a matter that has been discussed extensively and
debated extensively. People have settled opinions on it, but this is
simply a case where the majority of Congress and the President are
working their will and passing a very important piece of legislation.
As to the avian flu matter that my good friend discusses, I still
would point out that wrongful action lawsuits are still permitted under
this legislation. A fund has, as he points out, been established. It
has not been filled up yet, but it is in being. And, finally, we are
only appropriating roughly half of what the President requested. We
will be back and review this issue again, and I suspect we will review
not only funding mechanisms but liability protections as well.
So I do not think this is the last time we are going to discuss it;
but it is critical that we begin the process so that if, God forbid,
something I know all of us on each side does not want to happen, but
something should occur, this country is well down the road for
preparation, and we can move quickly to meet the needs of our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Every Member of the House should understand that they are about to
cast the most important environmental vote of the decade. The vote on
the rule on the Defense appropriations bill is a vote to drill in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This provision was not in the House
bill. This amendment was not in the Senate Bill. In violation of all
House rules, this provision has been added to the Defense
appropriations bill. A can't-pass measure has been added to a must-pass
measure in order for the Republicans to give an early huge Christmas
gift to the oil companies of the United States.
It is not enough that the Republicans have already tipped American
consumers and taxpayers upside down all year for the oil companies. But
now, after the oil companies registered $100 billion worth of profits,
now, here on the Defense appropriations bill, the Republicans, waiving
all rules of the House, have taken the number one environmental issue
of the decade and they have slapped it onto the Defense appropriations
bill.
The Republicans have said, or President Bush has said, the war in
Iraq had nothing to do with oil. But here we are at 20 of 2 in the
morning, with the Defense appropriations bill out here for the
Republicans and what are they doing on the Defense appropriations bill?
They are attaching an oil amendment to drill in the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge. This whole myth that the Republicans do not fight wars over
oil, do not corrupt the way in which the rules of the House are
conducted in order to advance the agenda of the oil industry is once
and for all put to rest here where the Members cannot even vote
straight up or down on whether or not they want to drill in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
And let me make it clear to everyone who might have some pangs of
conscience about our fighting men and women in Iraq, which every one of
us wants to help, if you vote ``no'' on this rule, the Rules Committee
in 5 minutes is going to bring another rule back down here without the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in it, and we will be able to fund
everything that we want to do for every single soldier and marine in
Iraq.
So do not let yourself be fooled by that. They just did it. We are
doing stuff for drug companies in this bill that was just added. We are
doing stuff for the oil companies in this bill that was just added. And
if you think for a minute after we vote down this rule because it is
the single worst anti-environmental bill in history that they are not
going to have the bill right back out here in a nanosecond, then you
are kidding yourself.
So that is not the cover. If you want to drill in the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge, you do so. But that is your environmental vote. The next vote
will be on the Defense appropriations itself. This is on a rule that is
banning, barring Members from having a straight up-or-down vote on the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
We reach this point at the end of the year where the House and the
Senate majority, lead by the White House, is contorting the rules of
both institutions in a way which will set precedence for a generation
in order to accomplish a goal which should not in fact be considered on
this Defense appropriations bill. So in order to preserve the integrity
of the rules of the

[[Page H12228]]

House, in order to ensure that we give the full consideration to the
historic importance of voting in this body to drill in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, I urge a ``no'' vote.
And each and every Member should be warned that this will be the
number one environmental vote not just of this year but of the decade.
I urge a ``no'' vote.

{time} 0145

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me quickly make a point that oil and gas drilling is something if
you are from Oklahoma you know something about. And, frankly, in the
history of my State, we have had over half a million wells drilled.
The technology today is unbelievably different. I sometimes think
when I listen to my friends on the other side or friends from States
that are not energy States, they sort of have the picture of the old
movie ``Boom Town'' with Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable that all oil
wells are wooden derricks about 6 feet apart. That is not what modern
energy exploration is all about. Frankly, we do it again and again
across this country.
As to the fact of this being an unusual method of passing ANWR, I
would remind my friends on the other side that ANWR has passed this
House repeatedly by large bipartisan majorities. As a matter of fact, I
would talk to my good friends on the other side, 30-odd, who have
consistently supported them and suggest that a vote against the rule is
to vote against ANWR and is to take out your own vote and, frankly,
cancel your own interest. So I hope you consider that if you happen to
be someone who has previously been in favor of this measure.
Finally, I would like to point out that this legislation adds
enormous amounts of new money in addition to LIHEAP to deal with the
heating challenge that we undoubtedly will have this winter, and I
think that is a wise measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to tell him that he is aging himself
when he talks about Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy in that movie.
Let me start off by saying that I looked at this bill, and 95 percent
of it I agree with; but there is one area I do not. I am probably going
to vote for the rule, but I have a terrible problem with this Avian Flu
Pandemic Compensation Fund, so-called. I think my colleagues need to
know really what is in this language, this 40-some pages that were
added very late in the day.
First of all, I do not believe anybody is going to be able to collect
any money at all. The fund does not have any money in it, number one.
Number two, when you look at the language, it gives carte blanche
authority to the vaccine companies, but it does not provide a mechanism
for people to get compensation if they are damaged or injured.
Let me just read to you what it says. It says: ``The plaintiff,''
that is the person who was injured by the vaccine, ``shall have the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence willful misconduct
by each covered person,'' i.e. the manufacturers, ``sued and that such
willful misconduct caused death or serious injury.'' However, a
manufacturer is presumed not to have engaged in willful misconduct if
they ``acted consistent with guidelines or recommendations by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding the administration''
of the vaccine.
So, basically, the manufacturers are protected no matter what. No
matter what. And then it goes on to say that the Secretary of Health
and Human Services has to decide whether or not they engaged in willful
misconduct, and that is a determination that he would have to make. And
if he does not make that determination, there is no action whatsoever a
damaged person could take.
Now, we had a similar problem with the smallpox vaccination problem
in 2003, and first responders would not be vaccinated because there was
not adequate provisions for compensation in the event they were
damaged. They would not take the vaccination.
Now, what would happen if we had an avian flu pandemic and people
found out there might be damage caused to them by the vaccination and
there was no recourse for them whatsoever, which is the case, in my
opinion? Would they take the vaccination knowing they might be damaged,
or would they risk not getting the avian flu and maybe be a conductor
of this epidemic and spread it all over the country?
I really believe this language should not have been put in this bill.
I believe we should give liability protection to the pharmaceutical
companies, but we should do it in conjunction with things that are
going to protect the American public from vaccinations that hurt them.
And this does not do that. It just does not do that. And I am very
sorry that this was added to this legislation at the 11th hour. I think
it is a tragic mistake and God help us, God help us if we have the kind
of problems that could happen with people being damaged by the
thousands by this vaccination. It will not be checked out. We will not
have time if we have an epidemic for it to be tested again and again.
And you could have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands
people die or hurt from the vaccination itself and they would have no
recourse whatsoever.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me take just a second to say I agree with Mr. Burton, and also it
does not just include vaccine. It is some other medical devices as well
that are indemnified.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong
opposition to this rule because of the inclusion of the drilling in the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It is
indefensible. And the only reason that it is being done is because the
majority has the power to do it. There are a great many Members of the
majority, I can see them right now, that know that the defense
appropriations bill is not the vehicle with which we should be
establishing profoundly important environmental policy. Whether or not
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an issue that has
been divisive and contentious, that is bound to delay this bill and
that has nothing germane to do with this defense appropriations bill.
It should not be here. And yet we are going to do it because the
majority can get away with it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.
We have been debating this for decades, whether or not to allow our
national wildlife refuges to be opened for drilling. Good people of
good intention on both sides can make their arguments, but they should
be made in the authorizing committee, not at 2:00 a.m. in the morning,
not slipped into an appropriations bill when we are sitting in
conference at the last minute just because the chairman can do it. He
figures he can force Members to have to choose between supporting the
troops and protecting the environment. That is a false choice. I do not
believe that the policy is right. To save a penny a gallon, we are
going to establish this precedent, we are going to drill in what is
really the Serengeti of the Arctic meaning that our future generations
will not be able to enjoy this wilderness in the same way because we
have jeopardized the ecology of this pristine wilderness.
Beyond the fact that the policy is wrong is that the process stinks.
It is indefensible to be doing this at this time on this bill, forcing
Members into this kind of a false choice. This policy of protecting our
wildlife refuges has been upheld through four Republican Presidents,
three Democratic Presidents. It should. It is a very important
environmental priority. The process you are using to change this policy
does not show respect for the integrity of this body. That is why this
rule should be defeated. This provision should not be part of the
defense appropriations bill. It does not belong here. We should not be
debating it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. And just because

[[Page H12229]]

people can do it, because they have the power to do it does not mean it
is right, and it will come back to haunt us.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of
the Resources Committee.
(Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, obviously ANWR is a controversial issue and
it is something that this House has debated a number of times. This
House has passed it a number of times. It is somewhat ironic that here,
at 2 o'clock in the morning, as Mr. Moran points out, that we are
hearing that this deserves to be debated again. And I guess we will
debate it again because we have debated it probably half a dozen times
since I have been here, probably 20 or 30 times since the creation of
ANWR. We have talked about what we can do to harness those resources
that exist there. The House has spoken a number of times. It has passed
a number of times through the House in a strong bipartisan vote.
ANWR today represents the largest potential reserves of new energy
resources in this country, and if you look at supply and demand right
now we do not have enough oil, enough natural gas in the world to meet
what the demand is, and that is why the price keeps going up. And the
oil companies do like that. They like the price to continue to go up.
And we have Members coming down here tonight who have always voted
against every new potential energy source. Everything that we have
brought to the floor they are opposed to. They are opposed to ANWR.
They are opposed to anything that creates new energy in this country.
And yet they are still arguing about the high price of energy. It is a
direct result of their votes. It is a direct result of the policies
that they have pushed through for years. And I think it is kind of
funny when I hear people talk about using parliamentary procedural
rules to get this into this particular bill.
A majority in the House supports opening up ANWR to responsible
energy development. A majority in the Senate supports opening it up,
and yet they have used procedural rules for 20 years to stop it from
happening. And now, in this particular bill, it happens to be included
in this. It is not the way I wanted it. I wanted it in the energy bill,
but they used procedural rules in the Senate to stop it from becoming
part of the energy bill, not once, not twice, but three times. They
have used procedural rules to stop it even though a majority supported
it in both bodies of Congress and continue to support that today.
We need to do something about energy in this country. We need to
produce more of our own energy. We continue to be dependent on foreign
energy sources and we as a Congress need to stand up and begin to do
that.
We need to continue to develop new energy sources. There are a number
of new technologies that have been developed, a number of new ways that
we can conserve and get more out of the energy that we produce. But we
have to begin to produce more energy in this country and quit being
dependent on Middle Eastern countries and other countries around the
world for our energy. That is why we are in this mess right now. You
cannot continue to oppose every new source of energy that anybody comes
up with and say that you want to do something about it.
I support the rule. Vote for the rule and vote for the underlying
bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I recall the last time ANWR was debated that major oil companies said
they had no interest in ANWR and it was purely speculative whether
there is oil there or not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for a
unanimous consent request.
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill,
principally because of the inclusion of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
I oppose this bill for many reasons including:
1. Bad process--Withholding language so we can't review the bill is
anti-democratic. Adding provisions that would never pass if brought to
a legitimate vote to a must pass bill is anti-democratic. Trying to use
our desperation to go home to see our families to extort us into voting
for a bad bill is anti-democratic. This abuse of power is a shameful
display by a nation that claims to be a paragon of democratic virtue.
2. Improper Defense spending--The bill spends over $300 billion.
Congress could spend tens of billions less and do a far better job
protecting our nation.
The bill continues the misguided strategy of buying weapons that
provide us no additional protection. Buying ever more expensive fighter
jets, massive naval ships, and a missile defense system provides no
additional protection for our nation. No other nation has fighter jets
or naval ships that can compete with our Air Force or Navy. The claimed
ballistic missile threat is grossly over-exaggerated.
Yet, the Army is vastly over-used because of our war in Iraq. To re-
establish the Army, we need to cut back of weapon spending. In
response, recent press reports indicate the Pentagon wants to cut troop
levels and resources for the troops to ensure we can continue spending
on unnecessary weapons systems.
In effect, this funding bill forces our troops to fight wars against
enemy with the wrong weapons. The F-22, naval ships, and missile
defense cannot defeat insurgents fighting a different kind of war. We
need a different kind of Army. One that is capable of dealing with the
real threats we face. The Soviet Union is gone, and the insurgents of
Iraq are not scared of a poorly functioning missile defense system.
3. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--This bill
violates the basic constitutional rights to life, liberty and pursuit
of happiness of the Gwick'in Native peoples. This Bill will not help
America Achieve Energy Independence. According to a March, 2004 U.S.
Geological Survey--will lower U.S. oil imports by between one and two
percent per year and even at peak production in 2025 the U.S. would
still import 66% of its oil, up from 58% today.
The Arctic Refuge Has Less Than A Year's Worth Of Oil. According to
the most recent figures released by the Energy Information
Administration, the United States used over 20.7 million barrels of oil
each day in October of 2004. At this rate, over the course of a year
the U.S. goes through over 7.5 billion barrels, accounting for more
than a quarter of the world's oil demand. However, since the Arctic
Refuge contains only approximately 3.2 billion barrels of economically
recoverable oil, it could only sustain the United States for less than
a year.
Oil Would Not Reach Consumers For Ten Years. Even if the Arctic
Refuge were opened for drilling immediately the oil would not be
available for around ten years while the oil companies explored the
area and built the infrastructure to transport the oil.
4. Liability exemption for vaccine manufacturers--Liability immunity
for pandemic flu vaccines is included in the bill. This giveaway will
not result in increased vaccine production, but it leaves consumers
with no recourse if they are injured, and it could exacerbate the
epidemic. We learned from the smallpox scenario only a few years ago
that if the vaccine companies and Congress won't back the safety of the
vaccines, people will not accept them and the epidemic could be worse
as a result. This is nothing more than another giveaway to big Pharma
at the expense of public health.
First, it is said that liability concerns are the reason that
pharmaceutical manufacturers do not want to manufacture vaccines. An
October study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association found otherwise. It found that other more glaring
uncertainties, like the absence of a guaranteed market, are the
problem. However, the pandemic flu plan appropriates billions of
dollars specifically to create this guaranteed market. Chiron, a major
pharmaceutical company and vaccine manufacturer, does not need more
financial incentives--they have been working on an H5N1 vaccine since
1997. Liability immunity is simply not necessary.
Second, the language could hasten the epidemic. In order for a
vaccine to be effective, it must be widely used. But liability immunity
like this sends the message that it is expected that people will be
injured or worse by the vaccine. If they are, they will have no
recourse. Citizens and health workers may refuse the vaccine if neither
the vaccine maker nor the government asking them to take it will stand
behind its safety. In fact, the American Nurses Association recalled
that, ``. . . ultimately, fears about the side effects of the smallpox
vaccine and the lack of a comprehensive compensation program
discouraged RNs from participating in the program, which caused it to
fall far short of its goal.'' Fewer vaccine recipients means that the
virus could spread faster.

[[Page H12230]]

Third, there is reason to doubt the safety of these vaccines. Chiron,
the company responsible for the collapse of half of last year's flu
vaccine supply because it allowed contamination during the
manufacturing process, is planning to use MF59 in an avian flu vaccine.
MF59 is an adjuvant (a vaccine additive used to increase the
effectiveness of a vaccine dose) that is highly controversial because a
primary ingredient, squalene, is on the list of potential causes for
the chronic debilitating illnesses experienced by the veterans of the
first Persian Gulf War. The adjuvant is unlicensed by the FDA despite
having been a component of vaccines in several clinical trials over the
last ten years. Despite these risks, liability exemption language is
being forced into the Defense Appropriations bill with no public debate
and no vetting in Congress. At a minimum, this decision should be made
in the open before the public, not behind closed doors.
The liability immunity is unnecessary, quite possibly
counterproductive, and is being passed undemocratically. It is nothing
more than another gift to the already enormously profitable
pharmaceutical industry.
5. Funding for Avian Flu preparedness. The bulk of the funding is
likely to go to stockpiling vaccines and anti-virals like Tamiflu. But,
despite months of promises from Roche, there have been no agreements to
allow other companies to help quickly build the stockpile to meet our
needs. By failing to issue a compulsory license for Tamiflu, we are
gambling with public health and the proceeds are going to Roche. If a
compulsory license was issued, Roche would still get their royalties.
Allowing Roche to control world supply and price is yet another blatant
giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in the world.
6. Gulf War Illness funding. Earlier this year, I won an amendment,
along with Mr. Shays and Mr. Sanders, to reestablish funding for
research into the chronic debilitating illnesses that veterans of the
first Persian gulf war are experiencing. The Veterans Administration
has finally recently admitted that these illnesses are NOT due to
psychological trauma. That means the specific list of causes is shorter
than ever which means we are closer than ever to finding treatment. Yet
there is no new funding for this research. I hope the conferees have
seen fit to stand behind the funding, along with the House and major
veterans groups.

Dancing With Ghosts

(By Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Congressman (D-Ohio))

Early in the morning, Monday, December 19, 2005, the United
States House of Representatives will vote on the Defense
Authorization bill which will contain a provision to permit
the drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR). I have taken three opportunities on the floor of the
House early today to alert the American people of this
backdoor approach to passing a very controversial bill which
is desecration of the basic human rights of the Gwich'in
people.
When will America get off the treadmill of sacrificing
native rights to greed, territorial ambitions and fear? We
will soon observe a grim anniversary which testifies to our
persistent moral dilemma when it comes to those who were here
first.
One hundred and fifteen years ago, on December 29, 1890,
the US Seventh Cavalry, under the control of Colonel James
Forsyth, directed artillery fire against Lakota men, women
and children. One hundred and fifty Native Americans were
killed in what became known as the Massacre at Wounded Knee
in South Dakota.
U.S. Government troops were drawn to the land of the
Lakotas to enforce a ban on Ghost Dance Religion, a native
mysticism which taught non-violence and included chanting
prayers and dancing one could achieve the ecstasy of harmony
with the paradise of the natural world. The dance was
forbidden out of fear that excitation of religious passions
would turn to Indian violence against the US Government.
The history of the United States' relationship with our
native peoples has been one shame-ridden chapter after
another of expropriation, humiliation, and deception, theft
of lands, theft of natural resources, destruction of sacred
sites and massacres. The U.S.'s relationship with our native
peoples has been an endless cycle of exploitation and
contrition. Massacres and apologies.
Who in the future United States will apologize to the
descendants of today's Gwich'in tribe, whose humble, natural
way of life, religion, and culture are threatened with
extinction by the plan to drill oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge? The Gwich'in tribe has lived on their
ancestral lands for 20,000 years in harmony with the natural
world.
The drilling for oil in the coastal plain of the Arctic
Refuge, called by the Gwich'in ``the Sacred Place Where All
Life Begins'' will disrupt caribou calving grounds, leading
to the long-term decline not only of the herd, but of the
tribe which depends upon it for survival This will not only
violate Gwich'in internationally recognized human rights and
make a mockery of our founding principles of belief in the
inalienable right of each person to ``life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness.''
Members of Congress will come to the floor today and say we
need to drill to protect our economy, to defend our country,
to keep our way of life. I intend to point out the reciprocal
nature of our moral decisions.
Christian teaching tells us to do unto others as we would
have them do unto ourselves. We learn from other spiritual
insights that what we do unto others we actually do to
ourselves. We cannot in the consciousness of true American
spirit return to a history of slavery, a history where women
had no rights, or a history where native peoples are
objectified and deprived of their humanity, their culture,
their religion, their health, their lives.
We must make our stand now not only as to who the Gwich'in
are, but, in a world where all are interdependent and
interconnected, who we are, and what we will become based on
our decisions today.
When we perpetrate acts of violence, such as drilling in
ANWR, we are damaging ourselves as humans. It destroys the
land, it destroys the herd, it destroys the Gwich'in. It
destroys us alL Another part of the true America will die. We
must not only search for alternative energy. We must search
for an alternative way to live. We must escape this cycle of
destruction. We must reconcile with nature. We must find a
path to peace, with our native brothers and sisters and with
ourselves.
One hundred and fifteen years ago, the Ghost Dancers were
killed. Yet we still meet their ghosts. They are dancing upon
the coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

{time} 0200

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides sorely needed funds for
our troops and their families who deserve the very best of equipment,
research and development and support services. We should have passed
this bill weeks, even months ago. The administration's puzzling
reluctance to accept a ban on torture, along with the majority's
decision to use defense spending as a shield for passing controversial
legislation, delayed passage of this important measure.
So here we are tonight, poised to push through a measure that would
open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, a
measure so contentious and wrongheaded they had to hide it behind our
courageous troops to get it done. Here we are passing an across the
board cut on all discretionary spending programs. We are wielding the
axe indiscriminately and unmercifully, hurting low income children in
need of reading and math help, seniors who need help paying record
heating bills this winter, local law enforcement officers who need
equipment and training and our Nation's own FBI counterterrorism
efforts.
Here we are passing a landmark package to ready our Nation for a
potential outbreak of avian flu. But we shortchange the President's
request, ignore key priorities like State and local preparedness,
leaving our hometowns woefully unprepared to contend with such a
disaster. We ignore the fact that the best responses is prevention,
dedicating only meager funds to international efforts to detect and
fight avian influenza.
Furthermore, we fail to provide one cent to entice farmers in
affected countries who are on the front lines of detection to report
incidents of avian flu to the proper health authorities. The flu
package included in this bill is riddled with gaps which may undermine
all our efforts, and the overly broad liability provisions and
inadequate compensation programs are simply unacceptable, dangerous,
wrong. Here we are ignoring the blatant need in one of the most
wretched corners of the earth, Darfur, Sudan. While the administration
and the Republican majority each try to earn their fiscal
responsibility stripes by withholding needed funding from the African
Union peacekeeping mission, the genocide continues. $50 million,
miniscule percentage of the total included in the bill, could save
innocent lives in Sudan.
Tonight's shenanigans have demonstrated that this administration and
this majority will ram through whatever legislation they want if given
the opportunity. They are simply not committed to do what we can to
bring peace and stability to Darfur. We should all be ashamed that this
bill is silent on this matter of life and death.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve more from Congress than 11th

[[Page H12231]]

hour gamesmanship and stealth legislating. This dishonest process and
incomplete product should disgust us and our constituents. We can do
better.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, 2005 will be remembered as a year of good
intentions, bad disasters and promises kept. This spring, Congress
adopted the toughest budget since the Reagan years, and the
Appropriations Committee reported one bill after another, on time and
on budget.
Then came the heartbreak that was Hurricane Katrina, 90,000 square
miles of the gulf coast destroyed. Congress responded by speeding
relief and recovery funds totaling $60 billion in 6 days to rebuild the
families and communities destroyed by this storm.
After the storm, many in Washington thought that fiscal discipline
was the last thing Congress should be thinking about, preferring
raising taxes or raising the national debt to making tough choices, but
not this majority.
Seeing that a catastrophe of nature could become a catastrophe of
debt, dozens of House conservatives challenged the Congress to offset
the cost of Hurricane Katrina with budget cuts. And I will always
believe that their effort, which came to be known as Operation Offset,
helped spark a national debate that propelled us to this moment
tonight.
The American people wanted Washington to pay for Katrina with budget
cuts, and Washington got the message. In direct response to President
George W. Bush's call for offsets, Speaker Dennis Hastert unveiled a
bold plan we consider tonight, to find budget cuts from every area of
the Federal Government. The Hastert plan with the across the board cut
included in this bill and the more than $40 billion in entitlement
savings in the Deficit Reduction Act will become a reality today. This
legislation includes $33.5 billion in spending offsets, $23 billion
reallocated of unspent FEMA funds, a 1 percent across the board cut,
saving $8.5 billion and $1.6 billion in additional rescissions.
But with a national debt of $8 trillion, Mr. Speaker, nearly $26,000
for every American, completing the task of putting our fiscal house in
order will take time. But tonight, the task begins.
In 1994, the American people said yes to a vision of fiscal
discipline, limited government and reform. Some called it the
Republican Revolution. With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act
and the across the board cut in spending in this legislation, I say
with great sincerity the Republican Revolution is back.
By showing that we can make tough choices even during tough times,
Congress is renewing our commitment to the principles of fiscal
discipline and limited government that minted this majority. And in so
doing, we are beginning the task of ensuring the continued prosperity
of our Nation and our national government for future generations.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, so
does oil. And the continued lust, the continued rapacious grab for oil
in one of our most pristine areas in this country has corrupted this
body absolutely. We stand here in the middle of the night tagging on in
this scheme, something that could not pass this body tonight in any
other way other than through this subterfuge. And yes, those artificers
who tried to run this scheme recognize it is difficult to ask Members
to vote against any defense bill because all of us, Republican and
Democrat, stand for our troops. But I hope we take a little bit of
inspiration from our troops. Mr. Cole and I went and visited Baghdad a
few weeks ago, who are standing late night sentry duty, and it does get
cold in the desert this time of year. Alone, away from the holidays,
they are doing a little tough duty. And maybe we can have a few
Democrats and Republicans do a little tough duty tonight and call foul
and blow the whistle on this corruption of the Armed Services
appropriation process on a bipartisan basis.
Whatever you think of the Arctic drilling, and for those who think it
is such a great thing I will just tell you, I went out to the
Washington Mall. I went for a walk tonight. It is a beautiful night.
Saw these beautiful monuments. People were out enjoying the Lincoln
Monument tonight, even in the cold. And they feel the same way about
the Lincoln Monument as they do about the wildlife, the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. We should not drill in the Yellowstone, in the
Glacier, in the National Mall or the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
Why? Because it is not an answer to our problem. We can solve our
problem with 2 miles a gallon fuel efficiency. You can believe in Santa
Claus, but you cannot believe the Arctic is a solution to our energy
problems.
Vote no on the biggest environmental vote, which is on the rule
today. Vote no against corruption of the Armed Services appropriations
process. Vote no to restore integrity of this situation and vote no on
this rule.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, who
also grew up in an area where they knew about drilling for oil and gas.
You know, it is important that this be part of the defense budget. It
is a matter of national security. It would have been better to be part
of the energy. It should have been, but by maneuvering that did not
happen. But it is a matter of national security that we can provide oil
and gas.
Go back through history. Why did the Germans fail in the Battle of
the Bulge? Because they ran out of gasoline. And there in East Texas
where I grew up, man, they were just pumping that oil and gas right out
as fast they could to help the Nation survive.
Now, what kind of arrogance and hypocrisy says, you know, I want my
car, I want my jet ride, I want my air conditioning, electricity, but I
do not want to drill anywhere, well, except in like Texas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, places we do not care about. But not anywhere else we care
about.
Folks, it is a matter of national security. We need every part of the
solution in order to conquer our energy needs. All the alternative
energy needs to be pursued.
The majority has passed this time and again out of our subcommittee,
out of our committee, and to the floor. This is the thing to do.
And I just submit, in conclusion, for anyone whose transportation is
a bicycle that you yourself made, without the use of any plastic or
metal, you have a right to complain. Everybody else is a hypocrite.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip, to make a good point.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, Lewis Carroll continues to write their
material. Mr. Pence, your Republican leadership has taken us $1.5
trillion into deficit over the last 60 months. That is the so-called
revolution. Seventeen years you have controlled the presidency. You
have taken us $4 trillion into debt. Bill Clinton was President of the
United States for 8 years, $62.5 billion surplus. This time you cut $50
billion. But when we cut $250 billion not one of you had the guts to
vote for it.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are so many needs that
we have to confront and the defense appropriations bill seems to be the
place where every one is running to. As I look at the resources that
have been designated for disaster assistance, and look at a whole
region that is suffering, although I am grateful for the $29 billion, I
would have hoped that we would have been able to put in new money. In
our own community in Houston, our school districts, many of them are
spending large sums of money in a welcoming manner for many of the
students who have come into our system. Our State schools, who have
taken college students, are not being reimbursed for those students,
and many of them do not have resources to

[[Page H12232]]

pay. One school district in particular is spending $186,000 a day to a
total of approximately $30 million. They have received reimbursement of
$164,000. It is obvious that we will need to provide more funding in a
very short order.
The levee money has not been put in, and we will need more money for
the levees. We have not put in enough money for the wetland
restoration, which is crucial for the entire gulf coast region.
Many of our constituents will be, in essence without funds for
housing in the first quarter of the new year. Many of the travel
trailers are not placed because the electricity cannot be in place
because the companies are bankrupt. And so I hope that my colleagues
will look at this as a serious responsibility that requires further
study, further assessment and more money.
Might I also say that our troops need these dollars. And I would
imagine that we want to give these dollars. And with that in mind, we
would have hoped that there would have been a free independent debate
on the ANWR question so that we could move forward with this defense
appropriation without the addition of ANWAR. This is an untimely,
inappropriate unfair misuse of this legislation and the environment.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May
I inquire how many requests my colleague has?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I have no further requests. I am prepared to
close.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me take my remaining time, then, to close.
Mr. Speaker, let me end as I began, deploring the process. This is
the third legislature that I have served in. I am always proud to have
been elected by people to represent them and their interests.
We cannot take care of their interests any more, Mr. Speaker. We can
only stand here in the middle of the night, when obviously I am
beginning to think that is the plot, because we know that nobody is
going to be listening to this, not even those who love us most.
But a lot of harm is going to be done here. Not the least of it is
the fact that the process was so flawed that even after the conference
report was signed, 45 more pages were added to do harm. I deplore that.
I look for better days for the Congress of the United States for it to
get back to the rules, and that once again, Mr. Jefferson's Manual, and
not a Senate and House conference, will rule this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here
today. We have talked a lot about ANWR. And I want to point out to my
good friends again, this body has repeatedly passed ANWR. As a matter
of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the last
vote we had in this House on this issue, where 231 of our Members
favored ANWR and only 200 opposed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 231, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 122]

AYES--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--231

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Andrews
Emanuel
Kelly

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 2209

Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H12233]]

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. Speaker, the other body also has had a bipartisan majority in
favor of ANWR. Indeed, this Congress, if I recall correctly, actually
passed ANWR in the 1990s, and President Clinton vetoed it. So this is
an issue that is well known, well discussed, well explored.
I have no complaints that my friends on the other side of the aisle
who oppose ANWR have been very successful, very skillful and very
consistent in using the legislative process to their advantage. They
have every right to do so. I am surprised at the outrage now that the
proponents, who, after all, do represent the majority in both bodies,
and have a President who shares their view of this issue has finally
managed to use the legislative process to its advantage.

{time} 0215

We would not be dealing here with ANWR if our good friends on the
other side had not resorted to every single expedient to keep us from
getting it passed. Having done that, I do not think they can claim with
any legitimacy when we finally are able to do that.
I am very proud it is on this bill. I think it is important for the
country's energy security, and I appreciate the Appropriations
Committee working in this fashion to get it on.
We have also talked a great deal tonight about avian flu, and that is
an interesting topic and an important topic and one, frankly, where we
could face a very difficult situation in our own country.
I would just point out to my friends that we do continue to reserve
the right for people to sue if wrongful action takes place. We have
only appropriated, as was pointed out, half of what the President has
requested so that we can come back, frankly, and consider this again.
And I suspect we will look at this issue not only in terms of finance
but liability and administration of the programs as we move forward. So
I do not think our debate is final, but I do think it is important that
we move ahead, that we appropriate these funds, that we send a signal
that we are serious about this and we begin to prepare the country.
However, as important as ANWR and avian flu funds are, they are
secondary to the nature and purpose of the legislation, and I regret we
did not have more discussion on this tonight. This bill is
fundamentally about supporting our troops in the field; supporting our
husbands, wives, sons, and daughters as they prosecute a war against
hardened terrorists who would not blink at killing innocent civilians
and, frankly, thousands and potentially millions of Americans. This is
about supporting our military while overseas, on deployment, and
engaged in combat. This is a critically important piece of good
bipartisan legislation. This is legislation, frankly, that sends a
powerful signal to our adversaries around the world and a powerful
signal to our friends as well.
More importantly, it is a recognition and a signal to the men and
women that wear the uniform of the United States that not only defend
us each and every day but also spread and represent our values around
the world in a way that is quite unique in world history and one which,
on both sides of the aisle, I know, we are extraordinarily proud of. It
is a good bill. It is an important bill. The rule allows the bill to
move forward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we support the rule and support the
underlying bill.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, if anyone needed evidence that this Congress
is being managed in an incompetent and corrupt fashion, tonight's
debate is it.
At 2 o'clock in the morning we are finally taking up some of the most
important defense bills of the year, only to find them burdened with
irrelevant, special-interest measures that have nothing to do with the
underlying legislation. Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, and
Lord knows what other special interests are probably smiling at this
late hour, but the average taxpayer back home should be ashamed of what
we are doing tonight, especially in the name of our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines.
We have just learned that many of these special interest provisions
were added in the dark of night, with no notice even to the conferees.
What are they afraid of? Why don't they want us to read and understand
the added language? Why not let the public see what is really going on?
It was not enough for the Republican leadership to almost completely
exclude any real bipartisan discussion or debate in conference, and to
so radically short-circuit the democratic process that this year's
process may mark an all-time low in the history of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, as our troops risk their lives to promote democracy in
Iraq and Afghanistan, we should not be degrading our democracy here at
home. I strongly support the troops and the many excellent provisions
in the defense authorization and appropriations bills on their behalf.
We should honor their sacrifice by passing legislation for them, not
using them as a shield for special interests. We should also honor them
by refusing the $4 billion cut in the defense budget that was inserted
in this bill in order to fund the extraneous provisions. You didn't
hear about that defense cut, did you, while the Republicans were
bragging on their efforts on defense.
The only reason these special interest provisions have been added is
that Republican leadership knows that they could not pass in the light
of day, when the public is allowed to see what we are doing. These
provisions could not pass on their own strength, in either day or
night.
Given the few minutes that we have been allowed to read these
conference reports of many hundreds of pages, no one on the House floor
tonight really knows what is contained in these bills because all
normal House procedures have broken down. Rumors are rampant that other
embarrassments have been added to worthy defense bills, simply because
they are viewed as ``must pass'' legislation. We simply don't have time
to verify or debunk these rumors. The only safe vote tonight for the
American taxpayer is a ``no'' vote. Let's stay in session a few more
days, even though the Christmas holiday approaches, and do the job
right. Our troops deserve no less.
Mr. SCHWARTZ of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter
of our Armed Forces, a strong supporter of our troop's efforts in the
war on terror and a member who believes we can and will achieve victory
in Iraq. However, the amalgamation with the DoD Appropriations Bill of
the act allowing exploration and drilling in the Artic National
Wildlife Reserve is an act which raises disingenuousness to an art
form. There are, apparently, no limits on the maneuvers the proponents
of ANWR drilling will attempt in order to despoil one of the last truly
wild and unsulllied wilderness areas in the United States. For those of
us who are legitimately concerned about the Abysmally low opinion the
people of the United States hold of their Congress, they need look only
at this attempt to admix the question of oil drilling in a pristine
wilderness with the funding of our armed services. If it is the sense
of the Congress that it is appropriate to open ANWR for oil
exploration, put the issue to an up or down vote, a vote on ANWR only,
not a vote that can only be described as a murky obfuscation. Oppose
this rule so we all have the opportunity to vote on a clean defense
appropriations bill.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. 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 (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________