[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30389-30418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2863, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 639, 
I call up 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp of Michigan). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 639, the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Defense appropriations bill, 
which this conference report is about, is also the vehicle for a number 
of other issues. Those other issues have been discussed very thoroughly 
during consideration of the rule, so I am going to reserve my comments 
strictly to the area of the Defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is to provide for the security of our Nation 
and to appropriate the funds to pay for the equipment, the training, 
the consumable supplies, but more importantly, for the men and women 
who serve in our uniform, those who make it possible for us to sleep 
tonight, well, not tonight, because we are not sleeping tonight, but to 
make it possible for Americans to sleep tonight, knowing that they are 
secure because of these brave warriors who are prepared to protect 
America at any instance.
  This bill, for example, includes the money for the pay raise for the 
members of our military. The bill provides a bridge fund of $50 billion 
for the conduct of the global war against terror in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and other places. It provides for replacing the equipment that has 
been destroyed or worn out during the conduct of the war. It provides 
additional funding to provide more effective ways to protect against 
and defend against the terrible tragic IEDs. It provides armor for our 
vehicles.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief. I just want to hit some of the 
highlights of what the bill does. I want the Members to know that this 
appropriations bill funds the insurance and death gratuities that we 
have increased for the members of our military. It provides basically 
the President's request for a fairly aggressive shipbuilding program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a really good Defense appropriations bill. It 
was strongly supported when it passed the House 6 months ago, Mr. 
Speaker; but because of other delays, we are just now getting to vote 
on this final package. This is a good bill, and I do not think there is 
any controversy associated with the defense part of this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following tabular material for the Record. 


[[Page 30390]]

TH18DE05.900



[[Page 30391]]

TH18DE05.901



[[Page 30392]]

TH18DE05.902



[[Page 30393]]

TH18DE05.903



[[Page 30394]]

TH18DE05.904



[[Page 30395]]

TH18DE05.905



[[Page 30396]]

TH18DE05.906



[[Page 30397]]

TH18DE05.907



[[Page 30398]]

TH18DE05.908



[[Page 30399]]

TH18DE05.909



[[Page 30400]]

TH18DE05.910



[[Page 30401]]

TH18DE05.911



[[Page 30402]]

TH18DE05.912



[[Page 30403]]

TH18DE05.913



[[Page 30404]]

TH18DE05.914



[[Page 30405]]

TH18DE05.915



[[Page 30406]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that I said 
earlier this evening when virtually nobody was here: the Republican 
leadership has decided that this wartime defense bill is the proper 
vehicle to resolve the debate on ANWR. As I said, this is not the first 
time that substantive legislation has been added to an appropriations 
bill, but it is one of the worst occasions I have ever seen.
  There is something especially outrageous and callous 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 ought to be about 
delivering equipment and supporting our troops. Instead, it is being 
used to deliver a multibillion dollar bonanza to the oil companies.
  That act represents a fundamental corruption of the integrity of the 
legislative process. This legislation allows one Senator to grease the 
skids to allow the passage of ANWR by sprinkling around money in 
selected accounts in this bill to buy enough votes in the Senate to 
assure passage.
  All year long, the Republican majority has squeezed programs for 
working people to pay for tax cuts for those most well off in our 
society. In the process, the House has become an assembly line for 
special interest legislation. This bill continues that practice. It 
slashes crucial activities for the government, cutting $8 billion. It 
cuts $4 billion out of defense. Some people will say, Don't worry about 
it. We will put it back in the supplemental. If that is the case, then 
this bill is a fraud. If it is not the case, then we run the risk of 
not fully funding the needs that we ought to be funding under the 
Defense bill.
  This bill, if you vote for it, will provide $1 billion less than last 
year for No Child Left Behind education programs.

                              {time}  0430

  This bill will cut the Federal share of the support for special 
education. This bill will cut $63 million out of last year's FBI 
budget, slashing new hires for counterintelligence by $750 personnel. 
This bill will cut local law enforcement grants by $315 million below 
last year. The clean water revolving fund, which was previously cut by 
40 percent, is cut another $214 million. Pell grants are cut by $31 
million over last year. The Labor-Health-Education bill overall is $1.4 
billion below last year and this bill, with the across-the-board cut, 
means that that bill will be $3 billion less than we provided last 
year.
  I will be offering a recommittal motion to eliminate that across-the-
board cut, to eliminate those $8 billion in cuts. But I want to make 
two other points. We met for 5 hours today and the Senate totally 
misdescribed the language and the effect of their language as far as 
ANWR was concerned. I asked the Senate seven different questions about 
the effect of their language. They were erroneous in each response that 
they gave to me.
  So after the conference was over they had to go back and rewrite that 
entire section of the bill. Then they told us in writing that there 
would be no language, no language with respect to indemnification of 
the pharmaceutical companies, and then they produced 41 pages, 41 pages 
of language at the last minute at the instruction of the Speaker and 
the Senate Majority Leader. They said, oh, this was just a last-minute 
thing. We did not know we were going to have to do it. However, if you 
look at the documentation, it was prepared at 11:30 yesterday, and I do 
not mean Sunday, I mean Saturday.
  So I want Members of the House to understand what you are doing here 
is to take away anyone who gets sick or dies, you are taking away their 
right to sue. You are telling them instead, you can go to the 
government and get compensation, and then they provide no money in the 
compensation fund. It is an outrageous rip-off and I wish it were not 
in the bill, but it is.
  So all I want to say is I cannot do anything about that, but I am 
offering a motion to recommit, as I have just described, and I would 
urge an ``aye'' vote on the recommittal motion.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I do not know that I have ever voted against this bill, and I am 
not sure I am going to tonight, but I share the view of the ranking 
Democrat on our committee (Mr. Obey) that this bill has been misused. 
This bill, as Mr. Young has said so correctly, is not controversial as 
it relates to the defense of our Nation and the support of our troops. 
This bill has been held hostage to the issue of the abuse of detainees 
for some 3 months. Finally, that was resolved, in my opinion correctly. 
It has been burdened now with very controversial issues, and it has 
been subjected to a cut of the very defense that it seeks to support. I 
know that is not what either the chairman of the committee or the 
chairman of the subcommittee or indeed the ranking member wanted to see 
happen, but it is a sad handling of this bill.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to express my 
appreciation for both my chairman, Bill Young, and for Jack Murtha for 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report funding the 
Department of Defense, hurricane disaster assistance, and avian flu 
preparedness.
  The conference report funds the DoD at $403.5 billion plus a bridge 
fund of $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The conference report also includes a total of $29 billion for 
disaster assistance to hurricane damaged areas as well as $3.8 billion 
for avian flu preparedness.
  The conference report includes no new net spending for hurricane 
assistance and avian flu. Any additional expenditures are offset by the 
following: reallocating previously appropriated funds in FEMA's 
Disaster Relief Fund, rescissions of un-obligated balances, and a one 
percent across-the-board reduction applied to all FY06 discretionary 
spending with the exception of VA funding.
  Let me be very clear: This package is less than ideal in my mind's 
eye, but it is absolutely critical that we pass it.
  As the body knows, the Appropriations Committee has made tremendous 
strides this year in reforming the process of adopting our annual 
spending bills.
  The Appropriations Committee has been strongly committed to bringing 
to this floor individual conference reports for each and every bill.
  Early in this process, I made it very clear to my leadership and to 
our members that the Appropriations Committee would not support an 
omnibus spending bill in any form. This Committee has done everything 
in its power to ensure that did not happen.
  The Appropriations Committee passed each of the 11 spending bills off 
the House floor by June 30th, the earliest that has been done in 18 
years.
  The Appropriations Committee made a commitment to move its spending 
bills individually--in ``regular order''--and within the framework of 
the Budget Resolution. We have done that. My colleagues, the 
Appropriations Committee has kept its word. ``
  Moving our spending bills individually is the only way for us to 
maintain fiscal discipline. Lacking regular order, there is a tendency 
for these bills to become Christmas trees for unrelated legislative 
proposals and for spending to grow out of control. That is simply not 
acceptable. I hope that next year we do not find ourselves in the 
position we are in today.
  The underlying bill in this conference report--the DoD Appropriations 
bill--is the most important of our annual appropriation bills for it 
funds our national security.
  Frankly, we could have passed this bill weeks ago. Our failure to 
enact this bill earlier is a disservice to our men and women in 
uniform. We are at war, we have troops in harm's way, and here we are--
two weeks from the

[[Page 30407]]

end of the year--and we still have not passed this critical 
legislation.
  And now, at the eleventh hour, controversial legislative language has 
been attached to this conference report. My fear is this language has 
the potential to sink the entire package once it reaches the Senate.
  But tonight, with passage of this conference report, the 
Appropriations Committee fulfills its commitment to pass all 11 
individual bills under the parameters of the budget agreement.
  Again, the Appropriations Committee has kept its word and has 
concluded its work for the year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and close my 
remarks by wishing all of my friends on both sides of the aisle a Merry 
Christmas and a Happy New Year.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the negative comments that we 
have just heard from two previous speakers, while they relate to parts 
of this conference report, they do not relate to the defense 
appropriations bill, which is the main vehicle that we are voting on 
tonight. So I would just hope that Members will understand we are at 
war, we need to do a lot for our national security. We need to do a lot 
for the men and women who provide for that national security and wear 
our uniform and who go to war, and I just hope that we can give them a 
strong vote of confidence with a strong vote on this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the FY 2006 Defense 
Appropriations Act today in the House of Representatives, I would like 
to bring to my colleagues' attention the important contributions of the 
Ready Reserve Fleet of U.S. ships that helps to multiply the dollars we 
appropriate each year to the Department of Defense. The Military 
Sealift Command calls upon American shipping companies to assist in the 
deployment of forces overseas, providing a critical supplement to the 
military's cargo transportation capability. These arrangements are most 
essential at times when the defense equipment supply chain extends for 
8,000 miles, as it does with our current deployments in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. Clearly we would not have sufficient capability within the Navy 
to accomplish the enormous task of keeping our troops supplied without 
the Ready Reserve Fleet. I mention this because I have recently 
received a copy of a letter from the Commander of the U.S. 
Transportation Command to a company in my congressional district, Totem 
Ocean Trailer Express, Inc. (TOTE), expressing thanks for the 
contributions made by one of the firm's ships to Operation Iraqi 
Freedom. In the letter, General Norton Schwartz commended the officers 
and crew of TOTE's ``SS Northern Lights'' for making 25 voyages and 49 
port calls during its continuous deployment, which lasted longer than 
any other ship, government-owned or commercial. This is a tremendous 
accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, and as a strong and consistent advocate 
for maintaining our U.S. maritime shipping capability, I am proud to 
submit the TRANSCOM letter for the Record in order to document the 
contributions of the ``Northern Lights'' and of the entire U.S. Ready 
Reserve Fleet.
                                                     United States


                                       Transportation Command,

                          Scott Air Force Base, IL, Oct. 26, 2005.
     Robert Magee,
     Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc.,
     Federal Way, Tacoma, Washington.
       Dear Mr. Magee: As we near the end of our charter for SS 
     Northern Lights, I want to recognize and thank you, your 
     company, and the officers and crew of SS Northern Lights for 
     your superior support.
       Early in the Iraq deployment, the Military Sealift Command 
     (MSC) sought commercial support and your company answered the 
     call. Since 18 February 2003, six weeks after the start of 
     the deployment of forces to Iraq, SS Northern Lights was 
     under charter to MSC. She continuously operated in support of 
     U.S. forces since that time, never missing a commitment. No 
     other ship, government-owned or commercial, has operated as 
     long in support of these critical operations.
       During the charter period SS Northern Lights made 25 
     voyages and 49 port calls. She carried 12,200 pieces of 
     military gear totaling 81,000 short tons and covering over 2 
     million square feet.
       Those statistics clearly demonstrate the value that the 
     U.S. flag shipping industry brings to the Defense 
     Transportation System. At 200,000 sq ft of cargo space, this 
     ship has nearly the capacity of the Fast Sealift Ships, has 
     speeds approaching those of the Navy's Large, Medium Speed 
     RoRo Ships, and had a perfect record of reliability. Having 
     this asset enabled us to improve readiness by keeping ships 
     of the Ready Reserve Fleet available for other contingencies 
     as needed.
       You and your team of professionals showcased the U.S. flag 
     industry at its best. Again, thanks for a job well done.
           Thank you.
                                               Norton A. Schwartz,
                                         General, USAF, Commander.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. let me begin by noting the 
time here in the Capitol. Across our country, people are quietly 
sleeping in their beds. Half way around the world, however, our 
soldiers are awake, patrolling the streets of Iraq, under the constant 
danger of enemy attack. (Iraq is 8 hours ahead of our time.) I don't 
know if they have CSPAN over there, but if so, I hope they will listen 
to this debate and understand what the Republicans are doing here. The 
Republicans are using you, our troops, as a weapon to accomplish things 
that are unpopular with the American people. At a time of war, it is 
outrageous that the Republican leadership would abuse their power by 
holding our troops hostage to sneak in last minute special interest 
gifts.
  Everyone in this house tonight cares deeply about our armed forces, 
and about the security of this nation, but we are being put in a lose-
lose situation. Among other things, H.R. 2863 tucks in a provision to 
provide virtually unlimited liability protection to the drug industry, 
while providing illusory and unfunded compensation to any potential 
victims. An adequately funding compensation program is needed to 
protect all those, but especially health care workers and other first 
responders in case of a flu pandemic, so that they can be ready to help 
the public. The Republican bill uses the threat of a flu pandemic as an 
excuse to push the Administration's agenda of giving unwarranted and 
broad liability protection to the drug industry for a broad array of 
products.
  In addition, the bill does not step up to the plate when it comes to 
aid to Hurricane Katrina families and divisive school voucher plan for 
the Gulf Coast. In a time of much needed help, the bill only provides 
$5 to $6 billion in new funding for Katrina relief--not nearly enough 
to begin the huge rebuilding needed in light of the enormous 
devastation for the Gulf Coast. Any additional funds from last-minute 
negotiations relating to Arctic Refuge and spectrum savings are highly 
speculative. The Republican leaders of Congress are also attaching a 
meager and unnecessarily complicated aid package for Gulf Coast schools 
that includes an ill-conceived, divisive school voucher plan. It 
includes $645 million in aid to displaced students, which can be used 
as vouchers paid to private schools--sending federal taxpayer dollars 
to private and religious schools. Not only does this violate the 
separation of church and state, but it also includes no accountability 
requirements on the part of private schools.
  It is also very important that I make mention of the fact that H.R. 
2863 possibly contains an across-the-board cut totaling more than $8 
billion that will impact all FY 06 discretionary spending, excluding 
veterans. Examples of programs impacted are:
  No child left behind (cut by $799 million); Federal Bureau of 
Investigations (cut by $57 million); Homeland Security Programs (cut by 
$300 million across the board); Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (cut 
by $315 million across the board); Job and Employment Assistance (cut 
by 437 million); Community Development Block Grants (cut by nearly $400 
million across the board).
  Before closing, it is important for me to take a moment to speak on 
the issue of ANWR. For many years I have been a strong proponent of 
exploration and development. As a matter of fact, I was successful in 
having an amendment attached to H.R. 6 (energy bill 1) earlier this 
year that required the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the 
heads of other appropriate federal agencies to conduct a study every 
two years which will assess the contents of natural gas and oil 
deposits at existing drilling sites off the coasts of Texas and 
Louisiana. As a Member representing a district that is full of energy 
companies, I am highly concerned with the energy crisis this country is 
facing. Many factors, ranging from the war in Iraq, to increased demand 
from China and India have caused a spike in prices. While the factors 
may vary, the results are constant. Many Americans are suffering from 
the high cost of gasoline which has exceeded $3 dollars a gallon in 
some areas. In addition, as winter approaches the price of natural gas 
is also expected to be exceedingly high which will further increase the 
burden Americans, particularly those who fall into low income brackets, 
will have to shoulder as they figure out how to pay for gas to get to 
work and electricity to heat their homes.
  All of the just mentioned factors suggest that we need to take 
serious steps to locate new sources of oil in this country. Despite 
this

[[Page 30408]]

fact, I am not sure that ANWR is the way to go, particularly on this 
bill. A majority of Americans believe that we should not sacrifice one 
of our most magnificent places for the sake of, in effect, a thimble-
full of oil--six months' supply, 10 years from now. The Arctic Refuge 
is one of the last, wild, untouched places left in the United States--
with an abundance and variety of wildlife including caribou, polar 
bears, snow geese, migratory birds, eagles, wolves, and muskoxen. This 
is a special interest giveaway that has no place in the defense 
spending bill. We need more open debate on this important issue. This 
Arctic Refuge drilling proposal has no business in the Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my frustration over 
the abuse of procedures in the House of Representatives. For the past 
day we have waited for a chance to debate and vote on the Defense 
Appropriations Bill. Now, in the early morning, we will do so without 
any of us having had a chance to thoroughly review the bill. I will 
vote for the bill--I believe it is right to support our troops as well 
as Hurricane Katrina and Rita relief efforts. However, I do not support 
the last minute moves to open up ANWR for drilling by inserting 
language into an unrelated bill which requires an up or down vote. If 
ANWR has such widespread support as some argue, then why is it being 
pushed through on the 11th hour?
  Our focus should be on how we can best protect our nation and our 
troops deployed overseas. I am troubled that the Leadership would use 
our troops as a weapon to accomplish something which is so unpopular 
with the American people. I have heard this belief on ANWR drilling 
expressed over and over again as I travel throughout the district. Yet, 
somehow, this unpopular provision still found its way into the bill. It 
is a sad day when our troops are held hostage to a last-minute rider. 
It is a special interest giveaway that has no place in the defense 
spending bill.
  We have just a few unspoiled lands remaining in our country and we 
need to protect them. Nobody really knows how much oil ANWR holds, and 
unfortunately, it will require a significant amount of drilling and 
testing to find out. Once the exploration starts, we'll have already 
destroyed part of the environment.
  I realize our country has a fundamental imbalance between supply and 
demand, but drilling in ANWR will provide little relief of that demand. 
We cannot drill our way out of current energy problems. Likewise, we 
cannot conserve our way out of our current energy problems. We must 
diversify our energy portfolio. On my farm, I do not grow just one 
crop. I must diversify my farming operation to be able handle the ups 
and downs of the agriculture markets, and that is also what we need to 
do to with our energy supply. By diversifying our energy portfolio, our 
country can better handle the volatility of the energy markets.
  I know each of us is concerned about how to shape our future energy 
policy. I can tell you that it should not include ANWR and I will 
continue on my mission to promote a diverse energy portfolio, one that 
includes renewable energy sources. It is my hope that we will have a 
chance to revisit this issue in the near future.
  As for the Defense Appropriations Bill, we cannot delay any longer. 
While I have some serious concerns with the bill, it contains critical 
funding for our nation's defense and the safety of the brave men and 
women fighting in our Armed Forces. It would be a disservice to these 
men and women for Congress to adjourn for the year without passing a 
funding bill. It would also be a disservice to our fellow Americans in 
the Gulf Coast Region who have been waiting for months to receive aid. 
Hurricanes Rita and Katrina may have washed away homes and a lifetime 
of belongings, but they did not wash away our compassion for others in 
need. Together we can move forward--together we can do better.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office in 2001 I 
have voted to support every annual defense authorization and 
appropriations bill that has come before this House. Congress has an 
obligation to act responsibly in providing necessary resources to the 
troops to carry out the missions authorized by their government. Our 
troops are under a tremendous strain in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the 
global war on terrorism. They have performed admirably, made enormous 
sacrifices on behalf of their country, and have served longer 
deployments than expected. Congress also should act responsibly to 
provide adequate housing and benefits to military families, and to 
ensure that our veterans returning home to the United States receive 
the best medical care available.
  I am therefore outraged, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership has 
played politics with this bill in a time of war--a bill that is more 
than two months overdue--and has added extraneous provisions to this 
bill that have nothing to do with military spending, the war on 
terrorism, or the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House 
leadership is shamefully using this military spending bill as a shield 
for offensive provisions that could never pass in the light of day, 
such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and more than 
$8 billion in across-the-board spending cuts, including a $4 billion 
cut in defense spending, along with cuts in homeland security, 
education and health care.
  In this breakdown of the democratic process, after midnight we were 
given a few hours to review a 465-page bill. Members cannot possibly 
have a clear picture of what they are voting on in these circumstances, 
and we must read about what is really in this bill in the newspapers 
later this week.
  One extraneous provision that was slipped into this military spending 
bill is a provision authorizing oil and gas drilling in Alaska. I have 
consistently voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. We must establish a comprehensive energy policy that will not 
only help consumers in the short term, but also strengthen our nation's 
long term energy supply while simultaneously protecting our 
environment. The stated rationale for drilling in ANWR is achieving the 
admirable goal of American energy independence, but the oil reserves 
that may lie beneath ANWR would last a relatively short time based on 
current levels of energy consumption. There are also far more effective 
ways to achieve energy independence, through conservation and use of 
alternative energy sources. In the long run, gaining the oil that may 
lie below ANWR simply does not warrant the permanent environmental 
destruction and pollution that drilling would bring to this area.
  This legislation also contains an unacceptable one percent across-
the-board cut for most non-defense discretionary spending. Because of 
the billions of dollars in tax cuts contained in earlier budget 
reconciliation legislation, these budget cuts will not even pay down 
the deficit or cover the costs of rebuilding in the aftermath of 
Katrina. Instead, this bill will make unconscionable cuts in critical 
domestic services, in a bill that is supposed to provide funding for 
our military in a time of war.
  These one percent cuts will have real impact: for example, with an 
additional one percent across-the-board cut, No Child Left Behind 
funding will be cut by $1 billion this year.
  This bill cuts funding for the FBI by $57 million, at a time when we 
need to make additional investments in homeland security. Homeland 
security programs face a $300 million cut from this bill.
  In a winter when home heating costs are projected to soar by 44 
percent for natural gas and 24 percent for home heating oil, this bill 
will cut vital LIHEAP funding by $21 million. The House also rejected 
an effort to add $2 billion in additional funds for LIHEAP.
  While 7.6 million Americans are out of work, this bill will bring the 
total cuts to adult and youth job training and help for dislocated 
workers to $529 million, affecting 2 million Americans who would lose 
critical adult and youth job training, as well as assistance for 
dislocated workers.
  This legislation also omits critical funds needed to meet America's 
commitment to protect human rights. I am disappointed that this 
legislation does not contain, as I have requested to the President in a 
letter last week, $50 million for the African Union (AU) peacekeepers 
that are trying to stop the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of 
the Sudan. The United States has committed to provide these funds but 
has yet to provide them.
  I therefore cannot support this legislation.
  By way of contrast, Mr. Speaker, I will support H.R. 1815, the 
Defense Authorization bill for FY '06. I commend Armed Services 
Committee Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for working on a 
bipartisan basis to produce this' legislation. This legislation 
provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, 
and funds certain special pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. This 
bill also reduces the pay gap between the military and private sector, 
increases payments to survivors of deceased military personnel to 
$100,000 from $12,000, and further increases military health care 
(TRICARE) coverage for reservists and their families.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to 
fund the functions of our Nation's military and our brave men and women 
in uniform, but am deeply opposed to the Republican leadership's 
decision to attach unrelated and controversial language, including 
drilling in the Arctic and school vouchers.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know how vital 
the Defense Appropriations Act is for the security of our Nation and 
the safety of our servicemembers. I

[[Page 30409]]

 would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Young, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Murtha, for their steadfast support for our military and for supporting 
a number of initiatives important to our Nation and to my constituents 
in Rhode Island. The measure contains important force protection funds, 
including $1.2 billion for gear such as body armor; $8 billion for 
equipment such as up-armored Humvees, tactical wheeled-vehicles, and 
night-vision devices; and $363 million for improvised explosive device 
(IED) jammers. The legislation also includes much-needed assistance to 
areas devastated by this year's hurricanes--funds that are sorely 
needed by our Gulf Coast communities.
  However, I must admit that I am greatly disappointed by the House 
Republican leadership's decision to attach controversial provisions to 
this essential legislation, most notably Arctic drilling. Since I was 
elected to Congress in 2000, I have consistently opposed efforts to 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration, and I 
have repeatedly cosponsored legislation to designate lands within the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness to prevent the 
destruction of this environmentally fragile area. Despite claims that 
we have heard tonight, drilling in the Arctic would have no appreciable 
effect on gas prices nor would it improve our Nation's energy 
independence. We cannot drill, dig, or mine our way out of the problem 
we have created for ourselves. Instead, we should be encouraging energy 
conservation efforts, including an increase in vehicle fuel efficiency 
standards and the development of clean and renewable sources of energy, 
such as solar and wind power. The American public recognizes the value 
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has consistently opposed 
endangering it by opening it to oil and gas exploration. However, since 
proponents have never been able to muster the votes to pass the bill on 
its own merits, they have attached it to this vital piece of 
legislation, demonstrating their desire to win at any cost, as well as 
potentially jeopardizing the ability of this bill to be signed into 
law.
  Furthermore, this legislation is reported to contain controversial 
language regarding education assistance for Hurricane Katrina victims--
including the implementation of a national voucher program--as well as 
liability exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry in the section 
intended to guard against avian flu. As the ranking Democrat on the 
House Homeland Security Subcommittee for the Prevention of Nuclear and 
Biological Attack, I understand our Nation's vulnerabilities with 
regard to pandemics and have been working with my colleagues to shore 
up our Nation's defense. However, rather than address these questions 
in the light of day, we must vote on them in the dead of night with 
limited ability to debate the specifics of the measure. I am 
disappointed and frustrated by the majority's refusal to conduct its 
business in an open and forthright manner, instead opting for midnight 
backroom deals.
  It is one of Congress's greatest responsibilities to protect our 
Nation by establishing a well-trained and well-equipped military. For 
that reason, I must support this measure despite my objections to some 
of the extraneous provisions. I will vote for this legislation, but do 
not condone the process that directed it to the House floor.
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the provisions 
in this bill called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness 
Act. This is absolutely critical legislation. It addresses parts of the 
important speech given by the President to address the threat of 
pandemic flu and other bioterror threats.
  The Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee has held 
several hearings on this important threat and the need to begin to have 
the manufacturing capacity to produce pandemic flu vaccine. 
Unfortunately, there is no business model that would have vaccine 
manufacturers take on the tremendous liability risks to produce such a 
vaccine. We must address this concern or we will have none. It's really 
that simple.
  This legislation does not actually provide any liability protection. 
What the legislation does is provide authority to the Secretary the 
ability to declare limited liability protection. The Secretary can use 
these declarations to make sure the vaccine gets developed and to make 
sure doctors are willing to give it when the time comes.
  These are, of course, hypothetical circumstances. So why are we 
passing this legislation? It's simple. We cannot afford not to take the 
important steps of making sure we can get and deliver a vaccine.
  We have also provided the outline of a compensation fund to address 
any adverse serious physical injury that might be caused by a vaccine 
itself. But again, this is a hypothetical. We don't have a vaccine yet. 
There is no pandemic flu yet. And no declaration of liability 
protection has been issued.
  Those who argue we are deficient because we have not yet put money in 
the compensation fund don't get it. You really can't do that until 
there is a reason to do so. If there is no pandemic flu, there will be 
no reason for a vaccine to be administered. Indeed, we can't really 
produce an effective flu vaccine until we have the specific pandemic 
strain. Right now there is no need for any compensation funding at all. 
Those who imply there is such a need are simply not relaying these 
facts properly to the American people.
  So what we have tried to do is think through the issues, provide the 
authority and be prepared, so that the Secretary and any Congress faced 
with the real deal can act quickly and responsibly.
  This legislation also provides billions of dollars in preparedness 
money to prepare for the threat of a possible pandemic flu, including 
upgrading the domestic manufacturing capability for a vaccine.
  This is the call of the President and I am pleased that Congress is 
supporting the President in making the Nation more secure from the 
threat of pandemic flu and other bioterror threats.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the adoption of this conference report will 
allow America to develop the vast oil and gas resources of the Arctic 
Coastal Plain and help ensure our energy security for ourselves and our 
children. It is without exaggeration that I say that the bipartisan 
provision allowing ANWR's oil and gas to flow to would not have been 
included in this conference report without the tireless work of Daniel 
Val Kish.
  Dan has a long history with Alaska provisions, having been Chief of 
Staff for the Resources Committee under Chairman Don Young. He later 
worked for Senator Frank Murkowski on the Senate nergy and Natural 
Resources Committee before becoming my key senior advisors on energy 
policy. Dan was here in 1986 when efforts were first made to embargo 
this important energy resource. Dan was here when we unlocked ANWR in 
1995, only to see it vetoed by President Clinton. These experiences, 
coupled with Dan's keen intellect, his hard work and his charm and wit, 
have helped produce this milestone today. Dan is a modest man, but his 
achievements today are far from modest.
  I thank Dan for his vision, his perseverance, his dedication and his 
loyalty. All of America owes a debt of gratitude to this seasoned 
staffer.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  I am deeply troubled by the process that has brought us to where we 
are today with this important bill. Just hours ago, the final text of 
this bill was made available to members of Congress and the public. 
This has ensured that members will not only not have time to fully 
consider or analyze the provisions within this bill we didn't even have 
time to read it. This is a poor way to govern and I am disappointed 
that the majority has chosen to abuse the process so badly on what is 
traditionally a mostly bipartisan bill.
  I supported the version of this bill that we passed in the House over 
the summer. That version appropriated more than $400 billion for the 
Department of Defense. It would have helped to keep faith with our 
service members by providing them with a much needed pay increase. That 
bill also provided funding for our service members on the ground in 
Iraq and Afghanistan who are waiting for additional body armor and up 
armored HUMVEEs.
  Unfortunately, the majority decided to destroy that bill by loading 
it up with special interests goodies. What they've done is the height 
of irresponsibility. Our service members should have every resource 
they need to do their job to protect, and defend the American people 
and they should be able to rely on Congress to do its job ethically and 
thoroughly. But the Republican leadership has chosen to play politics 
with our soldiers and our country's national security.
  This bill before us now contains important funding for various 
defense related programs, but it also contains a one percent across-
the-board cut in all discretionary spending, except for the Department 
of Veteran Affairs. This means cuts to food assistance programs, home 
heating oil assistance, local law enforcement grants, first responder 
grants, special education programs, the FBI, the No Child Left Behind 
Act, job and employment assistance grants, and environmental clean up 
regardless of the problems they cause.
  Further, it contains a provisions allowing for a voucher program for 
schools, and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 
Both were tucked in this bill at the last moment.

[[Page 30410]]

  Mr. Speaker, we can do better.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
displeasure with the last minute political maneuvering that occurred 
early this morning marring the Defense Appropriations Bill. The 
majority has included in this year's Defense Appropriations bill a 
provision that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) 
to drilling. As bad as that idea is, it pales in comparison to the 
means by which it was brought to the floor for consideration.
  By tying the delivery of appropriations to our troops to a misguided 
oil drilling scheme that failed to pass in the energy bill, the 
majority is holding our troops hostage. Eitllet we must vote to harm 
our environment or to short our troops. We should say `no' to this bill 
and work together to produce a better bill that does not permanently 
damage our environment for ill-conceived short term goals.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of events, I had 
intended to support the Conference Report on FY06 Defense 
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2863.
  I believe America's uniformed men and women deserve the very best in 
training, equipment, communications, logistical support, health care 
and pay.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has decided to include in 
this Conference Report controversial items not related to our national 
defense.
  In addition, other controversial bills have been attached to the 
defense appropriations bill--transforming it into the vehicle for an 
omnibus appropriations bill--that I simply cannot support.
  Therefore, I will cast my vote against the Conference Report on H.R. 
2863, but I want to emphasize my vote is not against genuine defense 
appropriations, but several of the extraneous, non-defense provisions 
and bills that are included in this omnibus measure.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition 
to the Katrina education proposal because it unwisely contains vouchers 
for displaced students attending private schools. While the Supreme 
Court has addressed the constitutionality of school voucher proposals, 
I continue to oppose them because I believe they take away much needed 
resources and attention from our public schools. Even under the 
extraordinary circumstances of hurricane Katrina, I continue to believe 
that vouchers for displaced students to attend private schools is a 
misguided policy.
  I offer into the Record a letter from Americans United for Separation 
of Church and State that further discusses problems inherent in this 
legislation.

         Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
                               Washington, DC., December 16, 2005.
       Dear Senator: Americans United for Separation of Church and 
     State, representing more than 75,000 individual members and 
     9,500 clergy nationwide, as well as cooperating houses of 
     worship and other religious bodies committed to the 
     preservation of religious liberty, urges you to oppose a 
     Hurricane Katrina education proposal that includes private 
     school vouchers and aid to restart private school operations. 
     We understand that this proposal will be attached to the 
     Department of Defense Appropriations bill and we urge your 
     opposition to including it in that measure.
       Originally attached to the Senate-passed Budget 
     Reconciliation legislation, the education package, sponsored 
     by Senators Alexander (R-TN), Enzi (R-WY), Kennedy (D-MA) and 
     Dodd (D-CT), constitutes the first national educational 
     voucher program--authorizing funding at $1.2 billion--and 
     sets a dangerous precedent that undermines America's 
     commitment to fully funding the Nation's public schools.
       The current proposal allows up to $6,000 per displaced 
     student (or up to $7,500 per displaced student with a 
     disability) to be sent to any public, private, or religious 
     school nationwide of the displaced family's choice in order 
     to defray tuition costs. Under the bill, funds from the 
     Federal Government would go through State structures to the 
     Local Education Agencies (LEAs), which would hold the money 
     for distribution. The Federal funds would then be distributed 
     from the LEA to any school educating an eligible child on a 
     per-capita basis. As a result, per-capita funding would go 
     from a governmental entity (the LEA) to public, private, and 
     religious schools, depending on where displaced families have 
     decided to educate their children. This is the very essence 
     of a school voucher program, which allows families to decide 
     where students will be educated and then drives government 
     money to those schools on a per capita basis. As a result, 
     this is a school voucher program, regardless of the 
     terminology used under the bill. There is no analytical 
     difference between the funding structure under this bill and 
     traditional, ``pure'' school voucher programs. It would mark 
     the first national Federally-funded voucher program in 
     everything but name.
       Although Americans United opposed the Senate-passed Enzi-
     Kennedy legislation as attached to the Senate Budget 
     Reconciliation bill, the newly crafted compromise eliminates 
     all religious liberty protections afforded to displaced 
     students in that legislation. The Enzi-Kennedy legislation 
     contained some provisions that attempted to ensure that 
     government funds will not be used for ``religious 
     instruction, proselytization, or worship.'' However, these 
     provisions have been completely removed from the current 
     draft. In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation contained a 
     provision to protect students from being required to 
     participate in religious worship or religious classes. This 
     ``Opt-In'' provision has been replaced with an ``Opt-Out'' 
     requirement, placing the entire burden on the displaced 
     parents to object to any religious proselytization and 
     indoctrination of their children.
       In addition, neither the Enzi-Kennedy legislation nor the 
     new draft contain a requirement to provide both parents and 
     students notice of their rights regarding participation in 
     religious activities. Although both proposals contain a 
     prohibition against religious discrimination as to students, 
     both fail to provide enforcement mechanisms or to ensure that 
     displaced students are informed of their right to not be 
     discriminated against for any refusal to participate in 
     religious activity. The argument has been made that some 
     religious schools are the only option for displaced students. 
     It is all the more reason to ensure that any measure contain 
     strong and effective religious liberty protections to ensure 
     that rights of displaced students are protected.
       This voucher program could also authorize government-funded 
     religious discrimination in staffing. The bill contains no 
     provision barring religious schools from hiring co-
     religionists only or requiring that employees' personal 
     conduct conform to the tenets and teachings of the schools' 
     associated faiths. Vouchers may well result in publicly 
     supported employment discrimination, not only on religious 
     grounds, but also on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, 
     or other protected classes.
       In addition, the Enzi-Kennedy legislation provided $450 
     million in ``immediate aid to restart school operations'' 
     solely for public schools. The current proposal provides the 
     same level of funding but allows--for the first time--private 
     and religious schools to receive aid. These funds are 
     designated for recovery of student data, purchasing 
     instructional materials and textbooks, and rental of mobile 
     educational units with the requirement that purchased 
     equipment and materials ``shall be secular, neutral, and 
     nonideological.'' Although we acknowledge the provision 
     attempts to maintain current law against using Federal funds 
     to buy religious materials, we are deeply troubled by the 
     underlying proposal of allowing scarce Federal dollars to be 
     funneled to private and religious schools for start-up costs.
       Americans United is committed to the protection of public 
     education. However, we strongly believe that the Nation's 
     civil liberties must be upheld even in difficult 
     circumstances, including natural disasters. It is 
     inappropriate to capitalize on the Katrina disaster by 
     attempting to push through Congress a divisive and unsound 
     vouchers policy that would severely undermine American's 
     longstanding commitment to public education. It is the public 
     schools that have long served as the safety net for all 
     displaced school children. Billions of dollars set aside for 
     these voucher and restart programs should be invested instead 
     into our public schools for the benefit of all students.
       If you have any questions about this legislative proposal 
     or would like further information on any other issue of 
     importance to Americans United, please contact Aaron D. 
     Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-3234, extension 
     240.
           Sincerely,
                                               Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
decision to attach drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
the Defense Appropriations Act conference report. This is a clear abuse 
of process and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule, 
which would allow it.
  The Deficit Reduction Act was an inappropriate venue to debate this 
important environmental issue and the Defense Appropriations Act 
conference report is no different. The inclusion of drilling in the 
Arctic Refuge is the determination of a few individuals who are willing 
to put national policy priorities aside for a special-interest agenda.
  Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will scarcely make a ripple on our 
dependence on foreign oil, nor will it increase our national security. 
Even by the most optimistic estimates, oil from the Refuge will never 
meet more than two percent of the energy needs in America.
  The Arctic Refuge represents one of the last large pristine natural 
environments left in our country. I strongly believe that the debate on 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge should be done on its own merits, not as 
a tagalong to the essential funding for our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and for relief to hurricane victims.
  To include drilling in the Arctic Refuge in a must pass defense 
appropriations bill, at a

[[Page 30411]]

time of war, is an abomination. The American people strongly support 
protecting the Arctic Refuge and I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this rule.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, tonight, Congress will pass the Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This comes not a 
moment too soon for our troops serving bravely overseas during this 
holiday season. Passage of this critical legislation will ensure that 
our servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan will receive much 
needed supplies, protective equipment and health benefits.
  While I wholeheartedly support the underlying bill, I vehemently 
oppose a last minute amendment that was added by Senate and House 
Republicans that will open up a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for drilling. This controversial environmental matter should 
never be attached to a defense bill. Surely the Senate is acting in the 
mistrusted tradition the American people call Christmas tree bills. 
This ANWR ramrod fits the description perfectly. Seemingly not content 
to leave town before selling out to Big Oil one last time, Republican 
leaders in both chambers have decided to play politics with this must-
pass bill and attach to it a provision that is soundly opposed by 
majorities in both the House and Senate, and, not insignificantly, by 
the American people. This ANWR ramrod is a mistake. It is a mistake 
procedurally. It is a mistake morally. And it is a mistake 
environmentally. Opening the refuge to oil exploration will disturb a 
delicate environmental balance and threaten a way of life for the 
native peoples whose livelihoods depend on that balance. That is why I 
have consistently supported legislative efforts to ban oil and gas 
exploration along the northern coastal plain of the refuge. Moreover, 
this sets a terrible precedent for the future. America's last remaining 
major oil and gas reserves should not be opened up in this way, nor 
used at this time. They should be preserved for a true national 
emergency. And that emergency does not exist today.
  In my twenty-three years of Congress I have never seen the crucial 
Defense spending bill used as a catch-all for pushing forward 
legislation that would not otherwise pass on its own merits. By 
allowing these unrelated drilling provisions, Republican leaders are 
subverting the will of this House. No Member, including this one, 
should be forced to choose between providing for our troops and 
protecting the environment. No, we should not play politics when it 
comes to supporting our troops. We owe it to the men and women who 
serve our country to provide the best training, equipment services and 
support in a timely fashion.
  Proponents of the plan say that opening ANWR to oil and gas interests 
will help ease our reliance on imported oil and gas. I could not 
disagree more. Opening ANWR is merely a temporary stop-gap--not a 
solution. Congress must pass meaningful legislation to address the 
serious energy crises that face our nation especially our dangerous 
reliance on imported oil and our unwillingness to put ourselves on a 
10-year program to become energy independent again. That would take 
real Presidential and Congressional leadership, and we sure aren't
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to this 
$453 billion defense appropriations conference report.
  As the proud daughter of a veteran of two wars, I believe that our 
nation is best defended by funding priorities that truly make our 
nation and world safer.
  But what does it say about our priorities when Congress puts another 
$50 billion downpayment for the Bush administration's unnecessary war 
in Iraq?
  This is outrageous particularly when the administration has failed to 
articulate a clear strategy for bringing our troops home or conduct any 
oversight on the war or demand accountability for funds spent to date.
  And the Bush administration is set to come back for another $100 
billion war supplemental in January. Where does it end?
  The main purpose of this funding bill is to provide for our national 
defense.
  Yet in the same way that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, the 
funding priorities in this bill are for weapons systems and military 
contractors, and billions of additional funds are unaccounted for in 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  This only undermines our national interest.
  But what's even worse, Mr. Speaker, is not only does this bill fail 
to address our security priorities, with the inclusion of provisions to 
open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to commercial 
drilling, it's also a prime example of how the Republican majority pays 
off its generous campaign contributors in the energy industry.
  Mr. Speaker, we must get our funding priorities right. It's 
incredible to me that we are provoking unnecessary wars and pursuing 
outdated defense paradigms while at the same time we are sacrificing 
the funding needs for our critical efforts here in America like 
housing, healthcare, and education and our environment.
  That's why, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
conference report.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
rule for this conference report and for the underlying conference 
report.
  This bill will make our nation's military stronger, by providing 
funding for the equipment, salaries, and materials we need to prosecute 
the War on Terror around the world and the War in Iraq.
  On behalf of my constituents, particularly those in our armed 
services, I have committed to never cutting off support while they are 
serving in a war zone.
  Congress authorized the President to act, based on numerous 
assurances about the nature of the threat from Saddam. Much of that 
information turned out to be wrong, and as a result, the responsibility 
for the war now rests with the Administration's civilian leadership.
  Congress' role should be to provide the necessary support and conduct 
vigorous oversight of our activities.
  This appropriations bill also provides beneficial hurricane relief 
and improves our national energy security by providing access to ANWR 
for oil and gas exploration and production.
  I want to thank the appropriators for hearing the concern of Texas, 
which has been hit indirectly by Hurricane Katrina and directly by 
Hurricane Rita. We have 150,000 evacuees in Houston, but funding and 
red-tape are still major burdens.
  On the topic of ANWR, our nation's energy crisis this year proved we 
need a more robust supply of petroleum, because hurricanes can disrupt 
vital production in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I encourage supporters of oil and gas exploration and production in 
ANWR to support the rule and support this conference report because 
this is a historic opportunity to finally achieve what many Congresses 
could not achieve.
  This legislation may not be the ideal vehicle, and I would have 
preferred to do this on the energy bill.
  However, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate support 
opening ANWR, but procedural moves in the other body have stood in the 
way of our energy security.
  As a result we need this procedural maneuver to get ANWR done, to 
provide energy and jobs for America.
  I have visited the North Slope on several occasions and I can 
personally attest to the strong environmental protections.
  Unfortunately, ANWR has become a symbolic issue for 
environmentalists, blown far out of proportion to the actual affects of 
oil and gas production on this coastal plain.
  History will likely prove their dire predictions of environmental 
problems to be incorrect.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule 
and support the underlying conference report for Fiscal Year 2006 DOD 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
Conference Report to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act. Earlier this evening, I voted in favor of the FY 
2006 Defense Authorization bill because it was a good bill, 
unencumbered by controversial and non-defense related items.
  I oppose this bill for several reasons. First, evidence indicates 
that this bill does not provide what Defense Department officials 
already know our forces will require in the field. Today, officials in 
our Army headquarters are working on a new request for money from 
taxpayers far in excess of what is provided in this Conference Report. 
Authoritative press accounts indicate that the Department has already 
identified ``urgent'' needs exceeding $100 billion above the amounts 
included in this legislation. This bill only provides half that amount. 
No doubt we will consider additional appropriations in the spring. We 
should have done it here and now.
  Common sense would dictate that the Congress should include these 
funds in a bill not yet passed if the Army already knows its current 
funding request before Congress will fall far short of what uniformed 
Americans in the field need. It would appear that instead, we may pass 
this bill--already known to be inadequate to our needs--and then ask 
for more money under procedures that waive the budget and will 
automatically add every dollar in new appropriations to our deficit.
  Deliberate and stable management of our defense budget demands 
better. So do our men and women in uniform. If we know they have urgent 
needs in the field, it is our duty to meet them.
  I oppose this bill for another reason. The calm, stable 
administration of appropriations

[[Page 30412]]

follows the rules of the House, precedent, and common sense. Our rules 
mandate that matters not germane to a bill be excluded. Hence, this 
should be a defense appropriations bill, nothing else. Our House rules 
normally exclude matters from final consideration that have not been 
attached to the bill in either the House or the Senate. That requires 
elected representatives of at least one chamber to review all matters 
for consideration in a House-Senate conference. This bill includes 
extraneous issues not related to the defense of the Nation. It sets a 
bad precedent that could bog down other defense bills with 
controversial, non-defense issues not considered by either chamber. 
This unusual procedure has prevented nearly all members of both the 
House and Senate from considering these contentious issues.
  A key controversial issue included in this bill authorizes the 
opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It was 
not considered in either the House or the Senate bills. It is not 
germane to legislation making appropriations for national defense. Like 
many ``Green Republican'' members who support the protection of the 
Refuge, I oppose this bill because it includes this controversial, 
unpassed and non-germane attachment to the Defense Appropriations bill.
  This bill does not provide the full funding that the Army already 
knows is necessary for our troops in the field. The bill runs against 
House rules by including controversial matters not attached by either 
the House or Senate. It also has provisions totally unrelated to 
defense issues, opening the door for future defense bills to be slowed 
by unnecessary controversy.
  Mr. Speaker, I have never voted against a defense authorization or 
appropriation bill. My record is still perfect having always supported 
all Defense Authorization bills. As a Member of Congress and a naval 
officer, I have dedicated a good portion of my life to our national 
safety. My hope on the coming vote tonight is that we can redraft this 
appropriations bill to add funds the Army already knows it needs while 
stripping extraneous and controversial provisions from the conference 
report.
  When we do so, we should find a way to pass a defense appropriations 
final bill that does not open the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling and 
does not provide school vouchers to religious schools only because they 
are located in the Gulf Coast region.
  Mr. FRELINGUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2863, 
legislation making appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the programs 
under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Defense. And ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  At the outset, I want to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee, 
Mr. Young of Florida and the Ranking Member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha for their leadership on this bipartisan bill, 
and their staffs.
  As my colleagues have noted, H.R. 2863 includes over $403 billion in 
discretionary funding in the base appropriations bill. An additional 
$50 billion is provided in a critical ``bridge fund'' to support 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over 80 percent of this 
funding will go to the Army and Marine units that are taking the fight 
directly to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funds to 
our Naval and Air Force and Special Forces over there.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the conferees for good work in tight 
fiscal times. Our Committee's allocation was $3.3 billion below the 
President's request. The Senate's allocation was even more difficult 
than that--$7 billion below the level sought by the President. We 
compromised and pegged our top line spending level at approximately $5 
billion below the Administration.
  This presented the Conference with some significant challenges. We 
looked carefully at programs in the President's budget and made 
selected reductions. And we also recommended less funding for programs 
encountering technological problems and development delays. With the 
many competing challenges facing our military as we prosecute the 
Global War on Terror, this was not an easy task. But we believe we have 
made appropriate choices to allow us to deter our enemies and to 
enhance the high-intensity combat capability of the U.S. armed forces.
  Mr. Speaker, as we consider this important legislation, we must 
remain mindful that our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (all 
volunteers--active duty, Guard and Reserve) are on the battlefield, as 
we speak--brave men and women fighting a new kind of war. Everyone is 
on the ``front line.'' There is no ``rear area.''
  And the sooner these new resources reach them, the better!
  As we all know, the Army and the Marines are carrying the brunt of 
the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan with an unprecedented level of 
partnership by their Guard and Reserve components. And young men and 
women from the Air Force and Navy stand beside them!
  Their service and dedication on the battlefields of Iraq and 
Afghanistan is making our nation safer from terrorists who seek to do 
us and other freedom-loving nations harm.
  Make no mistake--our success in Iraq is hugely important. And our 
enemies in Iraq are ``thinking'' enemies. They are adaptable and would 
like nothing better than to see us ``cut and run,'' set arbitrary dates 
for withdrawal and then come back after our departure to re-install a 
new version of Saddam Hussein or a regime even more oppressive, more 
fanatical, more horrendous AND more dangerous than the last.
  We should never forget that the soldiers we support through this 
appropriations bill have freed nearly 50 million people in Iraq and 
Afghanistan from killer regimes where protest and dissent were answered 
by killing fields and genocide, where women were denied basic freedoms, 
education, health care and the vote.
  Of course, the loss of any young soldier from our ranks is 
heartbreaking. So are the deaths of innocent civilians killed by 
roadside bombs.
  But we are dealing with Saddam loyalists, jihadists, imported 
terrorists and domestic criminals who play by no rules and do not 
hesitate to bomb Iraqi weddings, funerals and gatherings of school 
children as a common tactic.
  Since we are engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, with Iraq and 
Afghanistan being countries of conflict and violence, our soldiers and 
Marines need every possible advantage.
  This legislation provides our fighting men and women with the 
resources they need to be more deployable, more agile, more flexible, 
more interoperable, and more lethal in the execution of their missions. 
It provides for better training, better equipment, better weapons, 
paychecks and support for their families at home.
  But this Conference Report also provides funding for new equipment, 
additional trucks, radios, electronic jammers, and up-armored Humvees, 
attack helicopters, warships and fighter aircraft. Most important, this 
bill provides an additional $1.2 billion for personnel protection 
items, such as body armor. As troops rotate in and out of the theater, 
they need the latest equipment and weapons system.
  It is imperative that we support this Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report today--our warfighters are depending on us.
  In this regard I would note that the bill contains nearly $1.9 
billion for the activities of the Joint IED Defeat Task Force. These 
are the men and women who carry the burden of keeping our troops one, 
two or several steps ahead of the terrorist insurgents who murder and 
maim by using lethal standoff roadside bombs and vehicle-borne bombs.
  This bill provides the resources. Now this member will be expecting 
the Task Force to provide effective new tools to our soldiers and 
Marines in a timely fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I welcome increased funding for research and 
development. Our bill exceeds the President's budget by $2.3 billion so 
that we can speed important new technology from the drawing board to 
the laboratory to the testbed and into the arsenal of our warfighters.
  My colleagues, the Global War on Terror will not be short. It will 
require deep and enduring commitment.
  And looking down the road, we face many potential and real threats. 
We cannot know what hostile forces we will face next year, much less 
five years from now! So we must take care to ensure that we have laid 
the proper foundation for a secure national defense. Investments now 
will pay off in more capability in the future.
  In the years ahead, we will have to evaluate and re-evaluate our 
investment in such critically important areas as shipbuilding, aircraft 
procurement, Army weapons systems, and our Air Force and Intel space 
programs and the industrial base that supports them in both the public 
and private sector.
  My Colleagues, this is a critical bill, designed to preserve and 
enhance our Armed Forces critical capabilities.
  I am pleased to support this Conference Report and the soldiers who 
proudly wear our Nation's uniform.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report--and the breathtaking abuse of power it represents.
  The purpose of a Defense Appropriations bill is to fund the fighting 
forces of the United States and to provide our troops with the support 
and equipment they need. At no time is that obligation more solemn than 
when our soldiers are at risk in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page 30413]]

  That is why it is so inexcusable for this congressional leadership to 
put our troops in jeopardy by playing politics with this bill.
  Republicans and Democrats should unite behind a clean, bipartisan 
conference report that supports our soldiers and provides for a robust 
national defense. Instead, this legislation arrives on the floor packed 
with highly divisive, completely extraneous, last minute giveaways to 
special interests--giveaways the Republican leadership knows perfectly 
well could never survive the scrutiny of the ordinary legislative 
process.
  In that regard, I am particularly appalled by the inclusion of Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) drilling in this legislation. And I am 
not alone: Five high profile military officials--including retired 
General Anthony Zinni--recently implored Congress not to politicize 
military spending by embroiling it in the ANWR debate. Senator McCain 
called the ANWR insertion ``disgraceful'' and ``disgusting''.
  Mr. Speaker, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a spectacular 
arctic ecosystem, sustaining wildlife so diverse it is sometimes called 
the American Serengeti. Along with a sizable majority of Americans, I 
continue to believe we should not despoil this national treasure for 
what amounts to six months worth of gasoline ten years from now. 
Instead, we should move expeditiously to diversify the Nation's fuel 
mix away from our reliance on foreign oil and embrace the renewable 
energy and energy efficiency technologies of the 21st century.
  I agree with General Zinni and Senator McCain: It is the height of 
irresponsibility to be playing games with needed defense funds when our 
men and women in uniform are in harm's way--and I am hopeful the Senate 
will reject inclusion of this extremely controversial and unrelated 
environmental provision in this military spending bill.
  Moreover, I strongly object to the eleventh hour special interest 
liability protections added to this legislation. Once again, this kind 
of provision is not germane to the defense appropriations process. 
Furthermore, I am concerned it fails to provide adequate compensation 
to legitimately injured patients.
  Finally, the Defense Appropriations bill is no place to be making 
spending decisions that have nothing to do with defense. Yet this bill 
contains a 1% across-the-board spending cut affecting almost every 
appropriations bill we have passed this year.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today I voted in favor of the defense 
authorization bill to provide the ongoing authority for ensuring our 
national defense. I am particularly pleased that the conferees on that 
bill saw fit to include Senator McCain's language on the humane 
treatment of prisoners held in American custody.
  But on this vote I will not reward the abuse of power dragging down 
this bill. Shame on this House for playing politics with our troops 
during wartime. I urge my colleagues to vote no so we can return 
quickly with a defense bill worthy of our military's service and 
sacrifice.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the legislative process has clearly 
broken down and this conference report reflects that sad state of 
affairs. Included in this bill are a number of critical issues that 
have nothing to do with defense and deserve separate votes. Instead, 
because they cannot or do not want to legislate, the Republican 
leadership has decided to play politics with our troops and use this 
bill as a vehicle to force through harmful provisions.
  It is shameful that this conference report contains, for the first 
time, authority for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. Not only is this bad policy, but it has nothing to do with our 
Nation's national defense. If Republicans were truly serious about 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil for security reasons, this bill 
would contain an increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles 
or a renewable portfolio standard. Instead, it contains an ideological 
victory for the anti-environmental leadership of this Congress that 
would only provide enough oil to meet our country's needs for 6 months 
to a year.
  This bill also contains a significant across the board budget cut, 
which is an unfortunate and easy way out of making smart spending 
choices. These cuts will have a harmful impact on everything from 
transportation to economic development to health care. In addition, the 
bill contains a damaging provision to provide immunity to drug and 
vaccine manufacturers.
  I am disappointed that the conferees were unwilling to include 
fundamental provisions such as $50 million in funding for the African 
Union Mission in Sudan. Without these funds, there will be no U.S. 
support for Darfur peacekeepers beginning in 2006. The African Union is 
the only security force in Darfur that has been able to provide a 
modicum of security. Yet without this funding it will not be able to 
continue its current level of around 6,000 peacekeepers for an area the 
size of Texas, let alone expand its operations to protect more 
civilians and aid workers. To allow Congress to adjourn without 
addressing this issue makes Republican leadership and the White House 
complicit in this ongoing genocide.
  We face significant security and military challenges from the war in 
Iraq to the threat of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. 
Unfortunately, the spending choices in this bill do not reflect these 
threats and challenges. The billions we waste on outdated programs like 
missile defense come at the expense of the less-flashy tools we need to 
wage counterinsurgency warfare in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, 
such as armored vehicles and language training for soldiers. The 
security of the American people and the safety of our men and women in 
uniform demand better than this conference report.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose the use of our 
brave troops as political cover to open the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, ANWR, to oil drilling.
  Adding the totally unrelated and highly controversial ANWR drilling 
provision to the Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 2863) is the most 
outrageous abuse of power I've seen in my 15 years as a member of 
Congress.
  This last-ditch effort to impose oil drilling in the Arctic 
wilderness by converting the Defense appropriations bill into a 
``garbage bill'' is a great insult to our troops and a flagrant abuse 
of the legislative process.
  We should oppose this heavy-handed, backdoor tactic to impose oil 
drilling in one of the Nation's last great wilderness areas.
  We should vote down the conference report so the conferees can remove 
the ANWR provision and bring back a clean Defense spending bill tonight 
for our approval.
  I urge members to honor our troops and stand up for the environment 
by rejecting this conference report.
  Let's not hold our brave troops hostage to Arctic oil drilling!
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly, I rise in 
opposition to the bill making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for fiscal year 2006. Had this bill been limited to providing 
funding for our Nation's defense and our men and women serving our 
country, this bill would have my wholehearted support. But there are 
major sections in this bill that have nothing to do with our Nation's 
defense. They found their way into this bill because it is ``must 
have'' legislation. I refuse to play the game of legislative blackmail. 
These provisions ought to be stripped from this bill. The majority 
leadership profanes the military by adding these extraneous provisions. 
For these reasons, I must vote against this defense-funding bill.
  One of the major problems with this bill is that it will make an $8 
billion across the board cut in all 2006 discretionary spending, 
excluding veterans. I strongly support our veterans but the $8 billion 
in cuts include special education, ``No Child Left Behind,'' homeland 
security, defense spending, low-income heating assistance, job and 
employment assistance, the Women, Infant, and Children Program, WIC, 
and many other programs.
  The sections authorizing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, ANWR, should not be in this defense-spending bill. H.R. 2863 
also exempts drug companies from liability. Drug company language does 
not belong in this bill. Drug companies should be liable when their 
products cause physical harm or death to consumers. I am also opposed 
to this bill because I do not think that the Republican leadership 
should use our troops to accomplish political goals that are unpopular 
with Americans. For these reasons I must vote against this defense 
bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, shame! That is all I can say--both on the 
way the Republican leadership has governed this country this year--and 
on how they are using the troops as a political tool to provide huge 
taxpayer benefits to the oil and gas industry.
  Over 2,100 Americans killed in Iraq, and the Republican leadership 
waits until the last night of Congress--3 months after we needed to 
fund the military--to pass the spending bill for our troops.
  This is called a ``must pass'' bill, as it is one Congress MUST pass 
as if we don't, the military will literally run out of money and not be 
able to pay our troops, buy supplies and give them shelter.
  Specifically, the facts show that without passing this bill, our 
military is slated to run out of money for Iraq operations in January.
  What does this mean? It means the curtailment of training and 
equipment maintenance activities in the United States to better prepare 
our troops.
  It means that contracts will be severely delayed or canceled to 
provide body armor, armored vehicles, jammers, and radios needed in the 
field to keep these guys not only protecting our security but 
protecting their own lives.

[[Page 30414]]

  But the politicians in Washington, many of whom have never worn the 
uniform and have done a heck of a job to avoid service, now stand proud 
and mighty saying they are working for these troops safety.
  And they will again use our troops as a prop to make their so-called 
case.
  But the facts are the troops are the last things on the mind of the 
White House and this shameful Republican Congress.
  This Republican Congress and this Bush White House has continually 
underfunded our troops and used them as a political prop.
  Remember ``Mission Accomplished'' anyone?!?
  If Congress cared about our military so, outside of props and 
campaign commercials, why is this bill 3 months behind schedule?
  Why is this bill being used to provide a multi-billion gift to the 
nation's biggest gas companies, by allowing them to drill in Alaska?
  The Republican Leadership attached the can't pass ANWR provision to 
this must pass bill in the ultimate example of politics gone wrong.
  By not giving us the ability to vote on ANWR alone, this does not 
mean that we approve of this misguided policy.
  I thought they were making enough profits off Americans at the pump 
now--but Congress and the White House think they can make more money 
for the ExxonMobils of the world--this time off the backs and lives of 
our troops fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This is the most shameful act I have seen in the most corrupt 
Congress in American history.
  This year America has seen the Republican Majority Leader of the 
House of Representatives Tom DeLay be indicted on money laundering 
charges.
  America has seen the Republican Majority Leader of the Senate Bill 
Frist under investigation for criminal charges--charges like those that 
sent Martha Stewart to jail.
  America has seen a senior Republican Congressman from California, 
Randy Cunning-
ham, take over $2 million in bribes through war-profiteering using 
information he gathered on the House Intelligence Committee.
  He sold this confidential information to the highest bidder, but this 
Congress won't even seize his 6-figure, taxpayer-financed annual 
pension.
  America has seen the U.S. Congress put up for sale to the highest 
bidder by people like Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon.
  But tonight, we are seeing something far worse and far more depraved, 
the complete politicization of our troops, serving in war time, to 
provide a boon to the oil and gas industry.
  There is more shame to go around Congress now than indictments, and 
that is saying something today in Washington. The Republicans are 
holding funding for our military, funding for body armor, funding for 
security for military personnel hostage to keep the world safe for the 
profits of big energy.
  And for that you pay $2.35 a gallon for gas!
  Regardless of what one thinks of the war, we need to protect our sons 
and daughters fighting over there.
  But again, this bill and this Administration falls short, using 
politics over policy; using political consultants over generals to 
fight a war.
  Who loses? Our troops lose. Their families lose. America loses.
  But this bill again reflects the warped priorities of the Bush 
Administration.
  While I am angry about this process and this bill, I will reluctantly 
vote for it as our men and women in military need these funds 
immediately--even with these shameful additions.
  I won't play the Republicans' game and hold our troops hostage, but I 
hope the Republicans in Congress and the White House who use our 
military as a political sound bite or tool to pass their own unrelated 
items recognize they represent the worst of America.
  The blood of American men and women is on their hands for their 
politics of delay, diversion and division.
  I yield back what shame is left in this corrupt institution.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, America's servicemen and servicewomen are 
the bravest, most valiant and skillful soldiers on earth and because of 
them, our military is the best in history. As the daughter and brother 
of war veterans, I am particularly supportive of our Nation's soldiers. 
The men and women serving America deserve the full support of our 
Nation. This is why it is particularly distasteful and dangerous when 
elected officials in Washington play politics with legislation that 
affects our troops serving right now in Iraq, Afghanistan and 
elsewhere.
  It is tremendously disappointing that the leadership from the other 
side of the aisle has decided to play politics with this bill. They 
have taken a straightforward bill to fund our military, knowing that it 
is destined to pass, and hung politically controversial and 
unacceptable legislation to it. They have given us a withering 
Christmas tree.
  This is politics at its distasteful worst, and it must be rejected. I 
am voting ``no'' on this bill because of the bad governance it 
represents and because of the bad policy attached at the last minute.
  Opening part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling 
creates environmental harm in pursuit of a band-aid for our Nation's 
energy problems. Instead of putting adequate resources into developing 
alternative energy sources, which could solve our long-term problems, 
some in the Congress and the administration find it easier to go 
rushing into a treasured wildlife sanctuary for a short-term stopgap.
  They were unable to get what they want through the normal legislative 
process. So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used a ploy--
they attached their legislation to a defense bill, literally in the 
middle of the night.
  As if that weren't bad enough, this bill has also been saddled with 
an irresponsible gift to drugmakers, shielding them from liability and 
giving victims only phantom protections. This is another proposal that 
did not go through the regular legislative process and could not have 
passed on its own merits.
  Added on to all of that is a one percent across the board cut that 
will affect homeland security, education and health care programs. It 
will even chop $4 billion from the defense budget that supports our 
troops. Again, this did not go through the regular process and could 
not have passed on its own merits.
  Though I cannot vote for this bill on principle, I am glad that it 
includes the restoration of $125 million for sick and injured 9/11 
responders. The money was taken back from the responders at the 
president's request in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill we passed 
recently. My colleagues in the New York delegation and I worked hard to 
ensure that the 9/11 heroes can keep the assistance many of them so 
desperately still need. We were informed shortly before Thanksgiving 
that the Speaker would find a way to salvage the funds, and I thank him 
for following through with this action.
  Despite the positive aspects of this bill, the other side of the 
aisle has attached--literally at the last minute--many unrelated items, 
which makes it impossible to support its passage. Such actions 
shouldn't be tolerated by this House. I wish to be associated with the 
comments of my friend and colleague, Mr. Obey, who has spoken strongly 
in opposition to the process under which this final bill was created.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support for the 
conference report on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  As a veteran of the U.S. Army and as the Representative for Fort 
Bragg, Pope Air Force Base and numerous Guard and Reserve units, I 
strongly support our men and women in uniform and their families. This 
bill contains needed funding for such necessary items as the military 
pay raise, body armor for our troops in Iraq and vehicle armor for the 
vehicles that carry them. The base bill is important legislation, and I 
strongly support it.
  However, I deeply regret that the Republican Congressional Leaders 
have inserted into this bill the extraneous provision to permit oil and 
natural gas exploration in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I 
oppose the exploitation ANWR through drilling for oil, and I have 
repeatedly voted against that provision when it has been considered in 
this House. Unfortunately, the Republican Leaders have decided on a 
cynical strategy to sneak ANWR into the defense bill. This underhanded 
maneuver represents the arrogant abuse of power that all too often 
characterizes the operating style of the current Majority.
  I support the defense appropriations conference report, but I 
encourage my colleagues to defeat the rule so we can take the ANWR 
provisions out and pass a clean defense bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, by including the legislative 
provision to drill and destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR) in this defense appropriation conference report (H.R. 2863), the 
Republican majority has demonstrated their on-going abuse of power, 
their shameless collusion with the oil industry and a distasteful 
willingness to exploit the needs of U.S. troops at war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in order to achieve their policy desires, regardless of the 
cost. This is a cynical strategy to pass a provision designed for the 
oil industry, a provision that has already been rejected by this House 
earlier this year. The fact that the Republican majority is using our 
brave men and women serving in the armed forces as political cover to 
ensure that the provision allowing for oil drilling in ANWR is passed 
by this House shows the

[[Page 30415]]

majority's desperation, their deception and their willingness to 
undermine our democratic process.
  The intended purpose of this bill is to provide the resource for the 
defense of our nation. It is to ensure the men and women serving in the 
armed forces have the training, the protective gear, the equipment and 
all of the necessary support to execute their missions in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Korea, Europe and here at home. The men and women of the 
U.S. Armed Forces comprise the greatest fighting force the world has 
ever known and they not only keep the citizens of the U.S. safe from a 
world filled with very real threats, they are serving the cause of 
peace and security around the world. I commend our troops and our 
military leadership for their service and sacrifice, as well as the 
dedication of their families.
  Of the more than $450 billion appropriated in this bill, much of the 
defense related expenditures are necessary for national security. I 
strongly support the 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel. The 
allocation of more than $7 billion for the ballistic-missile defense 
system continues to be a waste for tax dollars since the program has 
failed many of its critical tests and by all accounts is a boondoggle.
  The language in the bill that bans torture by all U.S. personnel, 
including civilian defense and intelligence personnel, sets the 
appropriate standard by which the U.S. should conduct itself--even in a 
war against terrorism. Senator John McCain should be commended for his 
perseverance and determination not to yield to President Bush and Vice 
President Cheney's demands that torture be permitted under certain 
circumstances. Torture is an inhumane practice that is the antithesis 
of America's values and moral obligations as a defender of 
international human rights.
  In addition to allowing drilling for oil in ANWR, this bill has a 
number of nondefense provisions that are objectionable. The across-the-
board cut included in H.R. 2863 will total an additional $8 billion in 
cuts to services critical to our families. This will result in another 
$28 million cut to No Child Left Behind, bringing the total cut this 
year to $1 billion. This is in addition to the $40 billion this law has 
been under-funded by the Republicans since its passage.
  Also included in this bill are funds to prepare for a possible Avian 
Flu pandemic. While I support providing funding for this work, the 
Republicans have included a provision providing unlimited liability 
protection to the pharmaceutical industry. Instead of having an honest 
debate about the needs of health care workers, public health systems 
and local governments in the case of a pandemic, Republicans have 
chosen only to worry about another of their strong allies--the drug 
companies.
  H.R. 2863 also claims to provide new funding for Katrina relief which 
I support. However, this bill includes only $5 billion--not nearly 
enough to allow families to begin to rebuild their lives and their 
community. And it relies on a complicated scheme of possible revenues 
from drilling in ANWR and sales of spectrum to fund relief. In 
addition, Republicans used this opportunity to push through a divisive 
school voucher plan that was defeated by the Education and Workforce 
Committee. This plan will allow $645 million in taxpayer schools to go 
to private and religious schools that do not have to adhere to the 
accountability requirements of public schools.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support our troops. Overall, this bill 
however, is an example of the shameless and abusive tactics used over 
and over again by this Republican party to force their special interest 
agenda on the American people. It shows again that the Majority does 
not represent the values of American families, but rather values their 
corporate contributors. I urge my colleagues to reject this outrageous 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. 
Specifically, I oppose the avian flu liability provision which provides 
sweeping blanket immunity for the drug companies while again leaving 
American citizens unprotected. This legislation, which appears both 
unconstitutional and contrary to federalism, has not been reviewed by 
any committee of jurisdiction. In fact, this language was added to the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report in the middle of 
the night, long after the conferees approved the bill.
  Under the current provision, punitive damages for any claims are 
barred, allowing for no corporate liability. Drug companies that 
engaged in the worst kinds of abuses could not be penalized by juries. 
In addition, the legislation limits the total liability of any 
manufacturer or distributor. The result is no out of pocket payments by 
reckless corporations and no real recovery for injured citizens.
  Consider this example: The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
declares a potential public health emergency and designates a vaccine 
as a countermeasure. Later production of the vaccine demonstrates that 
the vaccine has vast problems with its potency and may render the 
vaccine harmful. With this knowledge, the company still sends the 
vaccine to thousands of distributors and when it is administered, the 
result is numerous deaths. Under this provision, families who are 
trying to gain compensation for their losses are left without recourse.
  This provision requires that before an injured person can pursue a 
claim, the Secretary of HHS must determine, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that there was willful misconduct on the part of the 
manufacturer, distributor, or administrator of a covered product. 
First, this would insure that no injured person, including first 
responders and medical personnel, would have coverage. Second, it is 
doubtful that ``willful misconduct,'' which is defined as actual 
knowledge that a covered product would cause harm, could actually be 
proven. Third, even if an injured victim proved willful misconduct by 
clear and convincing evidence, the massive tort reform such as no 
punitive damages and capped non-economic damages would severely limit 
any compensation.
  In addition, this portion of the conference report applies to a wide 
range of drugs, vaccines, and other products. The provision does not 
limit its application to only new drugs or vaccines used in a pandemic 
context. Instead, it applies to any ``drug, biological product or 
device'' that is used to treat or cure a pandemic, epidemic or limit 
the harm that a pandemic or epidemic might cause. As drafted, this 
legislation would include drugs such as Tylenol or AdviI.
  Finally, the conference report falsely claims to establish a 
compensation process. This ``compensation process'', under the sole 
direction of the Secretary of HHS, is governed by regulations created 
by the Secretary alone and includes caps on compensation awards. 
Further, no monies have been appropriated for the fund and 
consequently, the ``compensation process'' is whole inoperable. The 
provision has no true compensation program.
  Attached to my statement is a letter from Professor Erwin 
Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor at the Duke University School of 
Law which further outlines the problems and issues concerning this 
preparedness provision. Instead of putting the burden on the victim by 
cutting compensation and protecting the drug manufacturers, we must 
ensure corporate accountability and protection for our citizens. I 
strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

         Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, 
           Duke University School of Law,
                                                December 20, 2005.
       Dear Senator: I understand that the Congress is considering 
     legislation that has been denominated as the ``Public 
     Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act.'' This legislation 
     would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     extraordinary authority to designate a threat or potential 
     threat to health as constituting a public health emergency 
     and authorizing the design, development, and implementation 
     of countermeasures, while providing total immunity for 
     liability to all those involved in its development and 
     administration. In addition to according unfettered 
     discretion to the Secretary to grant complete immunity from 
     liability, the bill also deprives all courts of jurisdiction 
     to review those decisions. Sec. (a)(7). I write to alert the 
     Congress to the serious constitutional issues that the 
     legislation raises.
       First, the bill is of questionable constitutionality 
     because of its broad, unfettered delegation of legislative 
     power by Congress to the executive branch of government. 
     Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may provide 
     another branch of government with authority over a subject 
     matter, but ``cannot delegate any part of its legislative 
     power except under the limitation of a prescribed standard.'' 
     United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P.R. Co., 282 U.S. 
     311, 324 (1931). Recently, the Supreme Court endorsed Chief 
     Justice Taft's description of the doctrine: ``the 
     Constitution permits only those delegations where Congress 
     `shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle 
     to which the person or body authorized to [act] is directed 
     to conform.''' Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 484 
     (1998)(emphasis in original), quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr., & 
     Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928). The breadth 
     of authority granted the Secretary without workable 
     guidelines from Congress appears to be the type of 
     ``delegation running riot'' that grants the Secretary a 
     ``roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery 
     correct them'' of the type condemned by Justice Cardozo in 
     A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 
     495, 553 (1935)(Cardozo, J., concurring).
       Second, the bill raises important federalism issues because 
     it sets up an odd form of federal preemption of state law. 
     All relevant state laws are preempted. Sec. (a)(8).

[[Page 30416]]

     However, for the exttemely narrow instance of willful 
     (knowing) misconduct by someone in the stream of commerce for 
     a countermeasure the bill establishes that the substantive 
     law is the law of the state where the injury occurred, unless 
     preempted. Sec. (e)(2). The sponsors appear to be trying to 
     have it both ways, which may not be constitutionally 
     possible. The bill anticipates what is called express 
     preemption, because the scope of any pennissible lawsuits is 
     changed from a state-based to a federally based cause of 
     action. See Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 8 
     (2003).
       Usually, that type of ``unusually 'powerful''' preemptive 
     statute provides a remedy for any plaintiff's claim to the 
     exclusion of state remedies. Id. at 7 (citation omitted). 
     Here, rather than displace state law in such instances, the 
     bill adopts the different individual laws of the various 
     states, but amends them to include a willful misconduct 
     standard that can only be invoked if the Secretary or 
     Attorney General initiates an enforcement action against 
     those involved in the countermeasure and that action is 
     either pending at the time a claim is filed or concluded with 
     some form of punishment ordered.
       Such a provision raises two important constitutional 
     concerns. One problem is that this hybrid form of preemption 
     looks less like an attempt to create a federal cause of 
     action than an direct attempt by Congress to amend state law 
     in violation of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 
     (1938) and basic principles of federalism. Although Congress 
     may preempt state law under the Supremacy Clause by creating 
     a different and separate federal rule, see Crosby v. Nat'l 
     Foreign Trade Counc., 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000), it may not 
     directly alter, amend, or negate the content of state law as 
     state law. That power, the Erie Court declared, ``reserved by 
     the Constitution to the several States.'' 304 U.S. at 80. It 
     becomes clear that the bill attempts to amend state law, 
     rather than preempt it with a federal alternative, when one 
     realizes that States will retain the power to enact new 
     applicable laws or amend existing ones with a federal overlay 
     that such an action may only be commenced in light of a 
     federal enforcement action and can only succeed when willful 
     misconduct exists. The type of back and forth authority 
     between the federal and state governments authorized by the 
     bill fails to constitute a form of constitutionally 
     authorized preemption.
       The other problem with this provision is that the 
     unfettered and unreviewable discretion accorded the Secretary 
     or Attorney General to prosecute an enforcement action as a 
     prerequisite for any action for willful misconduct violates 
     the constitutional guarantee of access to justice, secured 
     under both the First Amendment's Petition Clause and the 
     Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See Christopher v. 
     Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 n. 12 (2002). In fact, the Court 
     has repeatedly recognized that that ``the right of access to 
     the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment right to 
     petition the Government for redress of grievances.'' Bill 
     Johnson's Restaurants v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731. 741 (1983), 
     citing California Motor Transport Co . v. Trucking Unlimited, 
     404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). First Amendment rights, the Supreme 
     Court has said in a long line of precedent, cannot be 
     dependent on the ``unbridled discretion'' of government 
     officials or agencies. See, e.g., City of Lake wood v. Plain 
     Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757 (1988). At the same time, 
     the Due Process Clause guarantees a claimant an opportunity 
     to be heard ``at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 
     manner.'' Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965). The 
     obstacles placed before a claimant, including the insuperable 
     one of inaction by the Secretary or Attorney General, raise 
     significant due process issues. The Supreme Court has 
     recognized that official inaction cannot prevent a claimant 
     from being able to go forth with a legitimate lawsuit. See 
     Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982). The 
     proposed bill seems to reverse that constitutional 
     imperative.
       Third, the complete preclusion of judicial review raises 
     serious constitutional issues. The Act, through Sec. 319F-
     3(b)(7), expressly abolishes judicial review of the 
     Secretary's actions, ordaining that ``[n]o court of the 
     United States, or of any State, shall have subject matter 
     jurisdiction,'' i.e., the power, ``to review . . . any action 
     of the Secretary regarding'' the declaration of emergencies, 
     as well as the determination of which diseases or threats to 
     health are covered, which individual citizens are protected, 
     which geographic areas are covered, when an emergency begins, 
     how long it lasts, which state laws shall be preempted, and 
     when or if he shall report to Congress.
       The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed 
     that the preclusion of all judicial review raises ``serious 
     questions'' concerning separation of powers and due process 
     of law. See, e.g., Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974); 
     see also, Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board 
     No. 14, 393 U.S. 233 (1968); McNary v. Haitian Refugee 
     Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991); Reno v. Catholic Social 
     Services, 509 U.S. 43 (1993). Judicial review of government 
     actions has long regarded as ``an important part of our 
     constitutional traditional'' and an indispensable feature of 
     that system, Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 
     U.S. 356, 365 (1973).
       The serious constitutional issues raised by this 
     legislation deserve a full airing and counsels against any 
     rush to judgment by the Congress. Whatever the merits of the 
     bill's purposes, they may only be accomplished by 
     consideration that assures its constitutionality .
                                                Erwin Chemerinsky.

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that although I will be 
voting for H.R. 2863, I would like to express my disappointment about 
several of the provisions in the Act. These extraneous provisions 
should not have been included in this important bill that is helping to 
fund and support our troops.
  First, I am concerned about the inclusion of aid for students 
displaced by Hurricane Katrina both procedurally and substantively. 
While I believe that schools serving displaced students must be 
reimbursed for educational expenses associated with these students as 
soon as possible, I am concerned that the system in this bill will 
create a continuing voucher system, which will not be in the best 
interest for teachers, students, or parents. I am not satisfied that 
this program will provide the best relief for students and it is my 
hope that the program will only be utilized in this emergency time and 
will sunset as provided next August.
  I am also concerned about the 1 percent across the board cut 
contained in the bill. This cut will reduce defense spending by $4 
billion. These cuts will affect funding of important homeland security 
programs, such as the Customs and Border Patrol and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, education programs including No Child Left Behind, 
and FBI funding, including a reduction of new hires for the 
counterintelligence/counterterrorism department.
  I am disappointed in both of the above provisions, which I feel 
should have been considered separately. For this reason, I voted 
against the rule that allowed these provisions to be permitted for 
consideration in the Defense Appropriations bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp of Michigan). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. OBEY. I most certainly am. I am not opposed to the defense 
portion of this budget, but I am opposed to the other provisions that I 
described earlier.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. OBEY moves to recommit the conference report H. Rpt. 
     109-359 to the conference with instructions to the managers 
     on the part of the House not to include Chapter 8 of Title 
     III of Division B.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 183, 
nays 231, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 668]

                               YEAS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)

[[Page 30417]]


     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     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
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baca
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Feeney
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kolbe
     McGovern
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Stark

                              {time}  0455

  Mr. MOLLOHAN, Mr. LUCAS, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Messrs. BUYER, BURGESS and 
WHITFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COOPER, GEORGE MILLER of California, RANGEL, MILLER of North 
Carolina and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently absent for the 
rollcall votes on the motion to recommit on the Defense Appropriations 
Conference Report and the Conference Report itself. If I were present, 
I would have voted ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on 
final passage of the conference report for the FY 06 Department of 
Defense Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp of Michigan). The question is on 
the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308, 
nays 106, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 669]

                               YEAS--308

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 30418]]



                               NAYS--106

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Case
     Castle
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Burton (IN)
     Saxton
       

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baca
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Emanuel
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kolbe
     McGovern
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  0504

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________