[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.

                          ____________________