Waiving points of order against 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 639 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H. Res. 639.

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported the rule for consideration of House Resolution 639.

Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of the rule for H. Res. 639 and the underlying bill.

Normally in these situations, Mr. Speaker, we focus on matters such as force levels, military capabilities, procurement, pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform, and budgetary concerns, and of course, in the course of this debate and debate on the underlying bill we will. Before we do, however, I think we ought to reflect on the nature, the mission and the morale of our current military forces.

The United States military is the most remarkable, capable and multifaceted armed force in the history of the world, but it is much more than a proficient military force designed to protect our country. It contains our finest and our most dedicated citizens, it embodies and exhibits our best ideals and traditions, and it projects our values as well as our power around the world.

We should always remember that the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States are all volunteers. They represent every race, every ethnic group, every geographic region, every shade of political opinion in this country.

Their mission is not just to defend our country but to spread and defend freedom around the world. While they are feared by our enemies, they are respected by our friends and seen as a source of protection and assistance in time of need and disasters by people all over the world. Their recent performance in the tsunami and the Pakistani earthquake disasters are an indication of that.

Our men and women embody the best of who we are as a people. This was brought home to me when I visited the 101st Airborne in Mosul in October of 2003. I had the occasion to talk to a gentleman who was on the city council of that dangerous and troubled city, and while we were having our discussion I pointed out that his city was one of the most ethnically diverse in Iraq. It had Kurds, it had Sunnis, it had Shiites, it had Turkmen, it had other groups in that country.

I asked the question, which is still pertinent today, how can you get all these different groups to work together. He answered in a rather unusual way. He said first, you did in your country and you have given us an extraordinary example of how it can be done; we see it in your military, again, every religion, every race, every ethnic group, both genders, cooperating for a common purpose. That is what I want for my people, what you demonstrate in your military.

This remarkable force is once again engaged in defending our country, confronting our enemies and extending freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq and other troubled spots around the world.

This mission, as the President noted earlier this evening, is dangerous and difficult. Yet we are succeeding as we have seen in historically unprecedented elections in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And the morale in the forces, despite the challenges they face, is high. Reenlistment rates, as reported in the Washington Post today, are among the highest in our history, and those rates are often even higher among units involved in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our job here in this Congress is to make sure that this magnificent armed force of dedicated Americans has the equipment, the training and the capabilities to defend our country and accomplish their very many important missions.

I believe this bill accomplishes that important mission and keeps faith with the men and women in the uniform who have volunteered to defend our country.

There are many highlights in this bill. It appropriates $97 billion for military personnel and fully funds the pay raises that have been promised for next year. It adds $123.6 billion for operation and maintenance, $76.5 billion to procurement, $72.1 billion for research development test and evaluations, and over $50 billion in emergency wartime appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill directs the expenditures of vast amounts of money. Frankly, I wish the bill were even more generous in that regard as I believe we need to expand the size of our forces in the years ahead.

However, it is important to note and for the American people to realize that our military is by any measure a bargain. It consumes only a fraction of our national wealth, and that fraction has declined dramatically over recent decades.

President Eisenhower and President Kennedy served our country with great distinction at the height of the Cold War. Military consumed almost 9 percent of the national wealth and 50 percent of the Federal budget. Ronald Reagan began to rebuild the military in the 1980s, another critical juncture in the Cold War. It consumed only 6 percent of our national wealth and about a third of the Federal budget, and today, even in the difficult time of war, it consumes only 3.6 percent of the national wealth and about 18 percent of the Federal budget. This suggests our military, by historical standard, is more efficient and less burdensome than at any time than at least 1940.

Mr. Speaker, this Defense Appropriations Act also contains a number of items which, while not usually found in such legislation, are nevertheless important to our security and the welfare of our Nation.

These include the prohibitions that allow for the drilling of oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, where there is an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This measure will generate billions of dollars of revenue for the Federal Government. It is critical to the energy security of America, and it is favored by bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and by the President.

Another item in this bill is over $3.7 billion set aside to deal with the avian flu preparedness initiative. That is only half of what the President requests, but it is enough to get things moving and enough to give Congress the time to come back and more fully consider this appropriation in next year's session.

There is also hurricane disaster relief for troubled and distressed Americans along the gulf coast, $29 billion in all of reprogrammed and additional funds.

Finally, there are offsets in this bill, $23 billion plus, for FEMA disaster relief fund reprogramming, $8.5 billion across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending except in Veterans Affairs, and over $1 billion in other rescissions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a good bill, and it deserves the support of this House of Representatives. To that end, I urge the support of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a couple of quick remarks.

First, I share the gentlewoman's concern about allegations of torture and misbehavior of any kind, and I am pleased that this legislation contains compromise language worked out between the President and Senator McCain that I think will take care of any concerns.

We know that, frankly, any instances of misbehavior, whenever they have been identified, and I can say this from having sat in numerous hearings on the Armed Services Committee, have been dealt with swiftly and severely by the appropriate authorities on our side. We do not ever condone torture.

As for spying and those conversations, I think the President has been well within his power, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, to keep up an appropriate level of surveillance on people who wish to do harm to the United States of America. This body has been informed about that. The ranking members and chairmen of the intelligence committees have been kept apprised of this, according to what I have been told at least.

And finally, on process, we quite often get hung up on this. I hope we spend at least some time talking about the merits of this very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me first address my good friend's concern about ANWR and point out a couple of things. ANWR has been voted on repeatedly in both Houses of Congress. Frankly, bipartisan majorities in each House have repeatedly expressed their support for this measure. The President has indicated he would sign it.

Minorities in both Houses, particularly in the other body, have frustrated that process. I have no objection to that, because they have done that, frankly, under the rules and traditions of the Senate. They have been shrewd, they have been tough, and they have been wily; but they have represented a minority viewpoint on the issue.

I think it is somewhat disingenuous now, when the majority bipartisan proponents of this measure are equally tough and shrewd and wily and find a procedure to pass their measure, that they somehow are engaging in something that is either unprecedented or unfair or untoward in some way. Frankly, this is a matter that has been discussed extensively and debated extensively. People have settled opinions on it, but this is simply a case where the majority of Congress and the President are working their will and passing a very important piece of legislation.

As to the avian flu matter that my good friend discusses, I still would point out that wrongful action lawsuits are still permitted under this legislation. A fund has, as he points out, been established. It has not been filled up yet, but it is in being. And, finally, we are only appropriating roughly half of what the President requested. We will be back and review this issue again, and I suspect we will review not only funding mechanisms but liability protections as well.

So I do not think this is the last time we are going to discuss it; but it is critical that we begin the process so that if, God forbid, something I know all of us on each side does not want to happen, but something should occur, this country is well down the road for preparation, and we can move quickly to meet the needs of our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me quickly make a point that oil and gas drilling is something if you are from Oklahoma you know something about. And, frankly, in the history of my State, we have had over half a million wells drilled.

The technology today is unbelievably different. I sometimes think when I listen to my friends on the other side or friends from States that are not energy States, they sort of have the picture of the old movie ``Boom Town'' with Spencer Tracy and Clark Gable that all oil wells are wooden derricks about 6 feet apart. That is not what modern energy exploration is all about. Frankly, we do it again and again across this country.

As to the fact of this being an unusual method of passing ANWR, I would remind my friends on the other side that ANWR has passed this House repeatedly by large bipartisan majorities. As a matter of fact, I would talk to my good friends on the other side, 30-odd, who have consistently supported them and suggest that a vote against the rule is to vote against ANWR and is to take out your own vote and, frankly, cancel your own interest. So I hope you consider that if you happen to be someone who has previously been in favor of this measure.

Finally, I would like to point out that this legislation adds enormous amounts of new money in addition to LIHEAP to deal with the heating challenge that we undoubtedly will have this winter, and I think that is a wise measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee.

(Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I have no further requests. I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate here today. We have talked a lot about ANWR. And I want to point out to my good friends again, this body has repeatedly passed ANWR. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record the last vote we had in this House on this issue, where 231 of our Members favored ANWR and only 200 opposed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, principally because of the inclusion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I oppose this bill for many reasons including:

1. Bad process--Withholding language so we can't review the bill is anti-democratic. Adding provisions that would never pass if brought to a legitimate vote to a must pass bill is anti-democratic. Trying to use our desperation to go home to see our families to extort us into voting for a bad bill is anti-democratic. This abuse of power is a shameful display by a nation that claims to be a paragon of democratic virtue.

2. Improper Defense spending--The bill spends over $300 billion. Congress could spend tens of billions less and do a far better job protecting our nation.

The bill continues the misguided strategy of buying weapons that provide us no additional protection. Buying ever more expensive fighter jets, massive naval ships, and a missile defense system provides no additional protection for our nation. No other nation has fighter jets or naval ships that can compete with our Air Force or Navy. The claimed ballistic missile threat is grossly over-exaggerated.

Yet, the Army is vastly over-used because of our war in Iraq. To re- establish the Army, we need to cut back of weapon spending. In response, recent press reports indicate the Pentagon wants to cut troop levels and resources for the troops to ensure we can continue spending on unnecessary weapons systems.

In effect, this funding bill forces our troops to fight wars against enemy with the wrong weapons. The F-22, naval ships, and missile defense cannot defeat insurgents fighting a different kind of war. We need a different kind of Army. One that is capable of dealing with the real threats we face. The Soviet Union is gone, and the insurgents of Iraq are not scared of a poorly functioning missile defense system.

3. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--This bill violates the basic constitutional rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the Gwick'in Native peoples. This Bill will not help America Achieve Energy Independence. According to a March, 2004 U.S. Geological Survey--will lower U.S. oil imports by between one and two percent per year and even at peak production in 2025 the U.S. would still import 66% of its oil, up from 58% today.

The Arctic Refuge Has Less Than A Year's Worth Of Oil. According to the most recent figures released by the Energy Information Administration, the United States used over 20.7 million barrels of oil each day in October of 2004. At this rate, over the course of a year the U.S. goes through over 7.5 billion barrels, accounting for more than a quarter of the world's oil demand. However, since the Arctic Refuge contains only approximately 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, it could only sustain the United States for less than a year.

Oil Would Not Reach Consumers For Ten Years. Even if the Arctic Refuge were opened for drilling immediately the oil would not be available for around ten years while the oil companies explored the area and built the infrastructure to transport the oil.

4. Liability exemption for vaccine manufacturers--Liability immunity for pandemic flu vaccines is included in the bill. This giveaway will not result in increased vaccine production, but it leaves consumers with no recourse if they are injured, and it could exacerbate the epidemic. We learned from the smallpox scenario only a few years ago that if the vaccine companies and Congress won't back the safety of the vaccines, people will not accept them and the epidemic could be worse as a result. This is nothing more than another giveaway to big Pharma at the expense of public health.

First, it is said that liability concerns are the reason that pharmaceutical manufacturers do not want to manufacture vaccines. An October study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found otherwise. It found that other more glaring uncertainties, like the absence of a guaranteed market, are the problem. However, the pandemic flu plan appropriates billions of dollars specifically to create this guaranteed market. Chiron, a major pharmaceutical company and vaccine manufacturer, does not need more financial incentives--they have been working on an H5N1 vaccine since 1997. Liability immunity is simply not necessary.

Second, the language could hasten the epidemic. In order for a vaccine to be effective, it must be widely used. But liability immunity like this sends the message that it is expected that people will be injured or worse by the vaccine. If they are, they will have no recourse. Citizens and health workers may refuse the vaccine if neither the vaccine maker nor the government asking them to take it will stand behind its safety. In fact, the American Nurses Association recalled that, ``. . . ultimately, fears about the side effects of the smallpox vaccine and the lack of a comprehensive compensation program discouraged RNs from participating in the program, which caused it to fall far short of its goal.'' Fewer vaccine recipients means that the virus could spread faster.

Third, there is reason to doubt the safety of these vaccines. Chiron, the company responsible for the collapse of half of last year's flu vaccine supply because it allowed contamination during the manufacturing process, is planning to use MF59 in an avian flu vaccine. MF59 is an adjuvant (a vaccine additive used to increase the effectiveness of a vaccine dose) that is highly controversial because a primary ingredient, squalene, is on the list of potential causes for the chronic debilitating illnesses experienced by the veterans of the first Persian Gulf War. The adjuvant is unlicensed by the FDA despite having been a component of vaccines in several clinical trials over the last ten years. Despite these risks, liability exemption language is being forced into the Defense Appropriations bill with no public debate and no vetting in Congress. At a minimum, this decision should be made in the open before the public, not behind closed doors.

The liability immunity is unnecessary, quite possibly counterproductive, and is being passed undemocratically. It is nothing more than another gift to the already enormously profitable pharmaceutical industry.

5. Funding for Avian Flu preparedness. The bulk of the funding is likely to go to stockpiling vaccines and anti-virals like Tamiflu. But, despite months of promises from Roche, there have been no agreements to allow other companies to help quickly build the stockpile to meet our needs. By failing to issue a compulsory license for Tamiflu, we are gambling with public health and the proceeds are going to Roche. If a compulsory license was issued, Roche would still get their royalties. Allowing Roche to control world supply and price is yet another blatant giveaway to one of the most profitable industries in the world.

6. Gulf War Illness funding. Earlier this year, I won an amendment, along with Mr. Shays and Mr. Sanders, to reestablish funding for research into the chronic debilitating illnesses that veterans of the first Persian gulf war are experiencing. The Veterans Administration has finally recently admitted that these illnesses are NOT due to psychological trauma. That means the specific list of causes is shorter than ever which means we are closer than ever to finding treatment. Yet there is no new funding for this research. I hope the conferees have seen fit to stand behind the funding, along with the House and major veterans groups.

Dancing With Ghosts

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

Early in the morning, Monday, December 19, 2005, the United

States House of Representatives will vote on the Defense

Authorization bill which will contain a provision to permit

the drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

(ANWR). I have taken three opportunities on the floor of the

House early today to alert the American people of this

backdoor approach to passing a very controversial bill which

is desecration of the basic human rights of the Gwich'in

people.

When will America get off the treadmill of sacrificing

native rights to greed, territorial ambitions and fear? We

will soon observe a grim anniversary which testifies to our

persistent moral dilemma when it comes to those who were here

first.

One hundred and fifteen years ago, on December 29, 1890,

the US Seventh Cavalry, under the control of Colonel James

Forsyth, directed artillery fire against Lakota men, women

and children. One hundred and fifty Native Americans were

killed in what became known as the Massacre at Wounded Knee

in South Dakota.

U.S. Government troops were drawn to the land of the

Lakotas to enforce a ban on Ghost Dance Religion, a native

mysticism which taught non-violence and included chanting

prayers and dancing one could achieve the ecstasy of harmony

with the paradise of the natural world. The dance was

forbidden out of fear that excitation of religious passions

would turn to Indian violence against the US Government.

The history of the United States' relationship with our

native peoples has been one shame-ridden chapter after

another of expropriation, humiliation, and deception, theft

of lands, theft of natural resources, destruction of sacred

sites and massacres. The U.S.'s relationship with our native

peoples has been an endless cycle of exploitation and

contrition. Massacres and apologies.

Who in the future United States will apologize to the

descendants of today's Gwich'in tribe, whose humble, natural

way of life, religion, and culture are threatened with

extinction by the plan to drill oil in the Arctic National

Wildlife Refuge? The Gwich'in tribe has lived on their

ancestral lands for 20,000 years in harmony with the natural

world.

The drilling for oil in the coastal plain of the Arctic

Refuge, called by the Gwich'in ``the Sacred Place Where All

Life Begins'' will disrupt caribou calving grounds, leading

to the long-term decline not only of the herd, but of the

tribe which depends upon it for survival This will not only

violate Gwich'in internationally recognized human rights and

make a mockery of our founding principles of belief in the

inalienable right of each person to ``life, liberty and

pursuit of happiness.''

Members of Congress will come to the floor today and say we

need to drill to protect our economy, to defend our country,

to keep our way of life. I intend to point out the reciprocal

nature of our moral decisions.

Christian teaching tells us to do unto others as we would

have them do unto ourselves. We learn from other spiritual

insights that what we do unto others we actually do to

ourselves. We cannot in the consciousness of true American

spirit return to a history of slavery, a history where women

had no rights, or a history where native peoples are

objectified and deprived of their humanity, their culture,

their religion, their health, their lives.

We must make our stand now not only as to who the Gwich'in

are, but, in a world where all are interdependent and

interconnected, who we are, and what we will become based on

our decisions today.

When we perpetrate acts of violence, such as drilling in

ANWR, we are damaging ourselves as humans. It destroys the

land, it destroys the herd, it destroys the Gwich'in. It

destroys us alL Another part of the true America will die. We

must not only search for alternative energy. We must search

for an alternative way to live. We must escape this cycle of

destruction. We must reconcile with nature. We must find a

path to peace, with our native brothers and sisters and with

ourselves.

One hundred and fifteen years ago, the Ghost Dancers were

killed. Yet we still meet their ghosts. They are dancing upon

the coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 640 provides for consideration of the conference report on Senate 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this conference report, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration.

This is a historic moment for the House, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it has been a most unusual year for our Nation and for its government. It has culminated in this Congress being in session late into the year. We are here in the final hours of the First Session of the 109th Congress, working to complete the business of the people and ensure that our government provides opportunity and security for today and for future generations.

We are here at this unusual hour on this unusual day to bring to a close what has been a year of remarkable accomplishments for the 109th Congress. We passed major legislation such as the energy bill, the highway bill, and border security, to name just a few. Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee completed passage in the House of all funding bills prior to the July 4 recess. Chairman Lewis kept his promise to complete the appropriations process in regular order and avoid an omnibus bill. I am impressed by and proud of the work of this House and all that it has done this year in moving so much important legislation.

Our Nation also has endured a year of unusual natural disasters. The Gulf Coast States, including my home State of Florida, have faced not one but three major hurricanes that have caused some of the worst destruction this Nation has seen, not to mention the unprecedented destruction that our friends and neighbors in east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have faced. This Congress has stepped up to the task of providing recovery and reconstruction funds for the devastated areas. We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills thus far and are set to provide additional relief when we pass the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The unforeseen events in the gulf changed the focus of the last half of the year and will continue to have an impact on this Nation for years to come.

This change in budgetary focus brings me to the legislation we are set to consider when this rule passes. For the first time since 1997, the congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and slowing the rate of growth of government. This deficit reduction provides a downpayment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs and, most importantly, puts us on a path toward long-term fiscal health.

The Deficit Reduction Act fights back against the out-of-control growth of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total budget in the next 10 years if left unchecked. The conference report will stimulate reform of entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and costly. I am pleased that the legislation begins a longer-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending.

In another unusual occurrence this year, those on the other side of the aisle called for deficit reduction. However, their proposals increased taxes on the American family. I am pleased to say that this House has delivered deficit reduction without raising the tax burden of the working American. Our goal is to control government spending so Americans can keep more of their own money instead of sending more to the government. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions. They did this using their own individual expertise through regular order. And I commend the authorizing chairman and committee members for their aggressive oversight that has yielded $40 billion in efficiencies. The conference report allows programs and agencies to weed out abuse, fraud, and inefficiency so that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and effectively serve their intended populations.

I congratulate Chairman Nussle and Senator Gregg, along with all the members and staff from the Budget Committees, for their hard worked preparing the deficit reduction package. I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington. This conference report is a step forward towards smarter and more competent, responsive government.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is the deficit reduction package, and we will have another opportunity to consider the tax reconciliation package. But their references to the tax cuts or tax reform or tax relief, and I am very proud of the work that the Budget Committee and all the other committees have done, is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a colleague on the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in amongst the theology you would never know that the Department of Education programs have skyrocketed since 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs' budgets have skyrocketed since 1994, investment in our defense continues to go up, support for our troops and their training, as well as their widows and loved ones and the level of support there, continue to go up, and overall mandatory spending in this budget continues to go up.

It is the rate of growth that we are here to discuss, and the fact that it is consuming our overall budget, something that some aspects of the other side of the aisle have expressed concern about, which is getting our arms around the budget deficit. This Deficit Reduction Act offers them the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have run through the gospels and now we are on to Dickens. We have heard it all. We would take away the crutches, the eyeglasses, and the hearing aids from Tiny Tim. I guess the other side would just tax him.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Education and Work Force Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I share the gentleman's concern about the budget deficit. That is why I am proud to announce that the deficit is $134 billion less than what was estimated a year ago, thanks to the strength of the economy.

I understand his concern about the ongoing growth of mandatory programs, which is why we have in place a deficit reduction package that helps us to get our arms around the fact that two-thirds of the Federal budget will be on auto pilot if we do not act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I noted the gentleman's lavish description of the frozen tundra that people find themselves frozen in, and I would point out to him that $1 billion will be put into LIHEAP, something that he failed to mention, that will assist all Americans who find themselves in a low-income situation and need of assistance for paying their utility bills, to make sure they have the adequate protection they need, a record amount of money, $1 billion. That has not been mentioned in amongst all the other comments about the cuts that people are facing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, we have worked our way through Dickens, Dr. Seuss, and the entire New Testament. I wait to see what else awaits us.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I came prepared for the wrong debate. I brought the good economic news that is being told and shared and being invested all across this great land. Productivity numbers up, unemployment at 5 percent, nearly full employment for the country. Record numbers. Robust GDP growth quarter after quarter after quarter. The news that important reforms to Medicaid and Medicare will be moving forward, allowing those programs to continue to grow at, in some cases, double the rate of inflation, double the rate of the CPI that most people use as their common benchmark. And the news that there is a record amount of money into LIHEAP.

We brought those facts and figures to a debate that was about deficit reduction, that was about the future of America. The other side brought Dr. Seuss. The other side brought Dickens and nursery rhymes and enough theology to field an old-time revival, but to do nothing about the fiscal health of this country; to do nothing about the fact that if we move forward with their Dickens economic plan, that if we move forward with their Dr. Seuss approach to economics that two-thirds of the Federal budget will be on autopilot; that if we move forward with their plan, these programs will continue to have the inefficiencies and the waste and the fraud that makes for an unresponsive, unreactive government that confiscates people's money and then does not even invest it back into a program that serves the very people who need it the most.

That is the crime in this, Mr. Speaker, that we have a thoughtful, long-term plan for the fiscal health of this country, something that future generations will say marked the turning point, the first reconciliation bill, the first real attempt at deficit reduction since 1997 to turn that ship of state toward a brighter tomorrow. It cannot be summed up in some cute little nursery rhyme. It is important stuff. Sometimes it is dry stuff; sometimes it is dull stuff. But, by golly, it is important.

It is important to each and every American because it impacts how much money their government takes from them and how wisely that government uses that money for the needs of its people.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 639 and H. Res. 640.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to do something I have never done before and that is talk about the process in the Rules Committee.

I listened to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I really am astonished at the deterioration of process in this House. I want it strictly on the

record for this debate today that those of us in the Rules Committee, the four Democrats, all voted to expunge from this bill the matter of the 45 pages of liability added after the conference was over. I realize that we waive everything in Rules, but I did not think that all the rules of the House back to Jefferson's Manual had just been waived.

We are very distressed about it. The process has been awful. We have been here for 2 days doing suspensions, for heaven's sake. What we are doing here, this is so critical, and I can guarantee every Member here that you are going to spend your whole time home in January and I understand we are working 6 days in February, so we are going to be around the district a lot, you are going to be explaining what was in this bill and why you did not know it and why you did not do something about it.

In doing so, I have to say that probably two of the the nicest people in the House of Representatives, Chairman Young and Chairman Lewis, I think have their names attached to this. I feel badly for them as well.

This bill determines how we as a Nation will spend our resources, at home and abroad, and in order to do the best to protect our fellow Americans, our shared values and our common interests. And in doing so, people around the world will rightly view this legislation as a testament to the values our Nation has chosen to embrace and promote, how we have chosen to define ourselves at this critical moment in history.

Our international credibility and the moral weight of our words continues to be damaged by every new allegation of detainee mistreatment at the hands of our forces and our government. With every new revelation of secret detention facilities operating beyond public scrutiny, we take a perilous step toward that which we wish to defeat.

Stories of undisclosed domestic spying and wiretaps approved by this White House and carried out by our top law enforcement agencies, without congressional knowledge or judicial review, force citizens, here and abroad, to question this Nation's commitment to its own ideals. How determined are we to create an open world ruled by clear and established laws if we are abandoning them at home?

The creation of clandestine CIA facilities beyond the oversight of Congress and the world community, the troubling misuse of American power, undermining the goodwill born of the sincerest efforts of our fighting men and women, that is not the work of my America.

My America won two world wars and faced down fascism without resorting to torture. My America survived those troubling times without abandoning the civil and personal liberties which made us different and made our way of life so worth fighting for. My America practices what it preaches.

I applaud the fact that Senator McCain's torture amendment has been added to this appropriations bill. Mr. McCain understands that torture is not just morally reprehensible. It also gives us bad intelligence, undermines our credibility and endangers our troops by providing their enemies with an excuse to mistreat them if they are captured. I am relieved that most of my fellow Members in this House see the wisdom in Senator McCain's words.

At the same time, there have been reports suggesting that the Army Field Manual, enshrined by Mr. McCain, is being quietly amended in a way which threatens to undermine his efforts. If this is true, this Congress must vigilantly monitor what is added to the list of acceptable interrogation procedures given to our troops, and we must further guarantee that our Nation continues to exemplify the kind of society we hope to encourage.

Today, we fund continued operation of the defense community and all those who are part of it. We do so gladly because we believe, as we always have, that ours is the way of life that should not perish.

But to change the values of our society at the moment we are fighting to preserve them at home and champion them abroad would not just be the height of irony, Mr. Speaker, it would be the height of tragedy.

We have many questions to answer about how the United States will define itself in the years ahead and how we will interact with the world. I hope that we will use the upcoming holiday to reflect on what kind of America we in Congress wish to create for future generations. I hope we take that question seriously in the second half of this session.

I have faith in this body just as I have faith in this Nation that we possess the wisdom to do what is right and the courage to right what is wrong if only we will use it. The very nature of our democracy depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the

ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me take just a second to say I agree with Mr. Burton, and also it does not just include vaccine. It is some other medical devices as well that are indemnified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I recall the last time ANWR was debated that major oil companies said they had no interest in ANWR and it was purely speculative whether there is oil there or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip, to make a good point.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May I inquire how many requests my colleague has?

Let me take my remaining time, then, to close.

Mr. Speaker, let me end as I began, deploring the process. This is the third legislature that I have served in. I am always proud to have been elected by people to represent them and their interests.

We cannot take care of their interests any more, Mr. Speaker. We can only stand here in the middle of the night, when obviously I am beginning to think that is the plot, because we know that nobody is going to be listening to this, not even those who love us most.

But a lot of harm is going to be done here. Not the least of it is the fact that the process was so flawed that even after the conference report was signed, 45 more pages were added to do harm. I deplore that. I look for better days for the Congress of the United States for it to get back to the rules, and that once again, Mr. Jefferson's Manual, and not a Senate and House conference, will rule this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.