Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is

aimed at the company Halliburton. That is very clear.

The papers are awash with Halliburton and have been for several years. Halliburton employs lots of Americans. And I do not have the exact number of KIA, but they, like our soldiers in the field, the people that drive those trucks and work those logistics to support our Marines out in the western area of operations out in Fallujah and our Army personnel out in Mosul and Tikrit and other remote parts of Iraq, those people risk their lives every day.

I will say to the gentleman, as I recall, over 20 of them have been killed in action, people like the Halliburton drivers. People have been captured by the enemy and some of them held hostage, unable to escape. Most of the people, the vast majority of the people that work for this contractor, like lots of contractors that support our American military overseas, are good, hardworking people. And if you look, if you go up and eat with the Stryker brigades up in Mosul, or the 101st in Tikrit or the Marines in Fallujah, and you go into their mess halls and you look at the operation and you see the fuel that is delivered, you see the ammunition that is delivered, you see the treatment, the quality of life for our military people, you will understand then that is primarily a result of American corporations which support the war effort. And that is a fact of life.

Now, the idea that prices have been unreasonable and that there are contracts where they have abused the American taxpayer or abused the contract process, let us take that under the regular order. And if that is true, let's hold people accountable. Let's hold the corporation accountable. But the idea that we single out a group of people which is thousands and thousands of Americans who support our fighting personnel and basically paralyze that operation is unreasonable.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just say to my colleagues here who have stated that we should hold up our contracts and not give new contracts until past contracts are found to be reasonable versus unreasonable, Members have stood on this floor and have called every weapons system since the first Persian tank unreasonable in cost. The B-2 has been called unreasonable. Every ship in the navy has been called unreasonable in the cost. Every fighter aircraft has been called unreasonable in the cost.

The idea that you are not going to have any action on these contracts unless you have a congressional hearing is not true. There is no committee here that has the ability to enforce or not enforce a contract. You have dozens, in fact hundreds, of government lawyers who have every opportunity, indeed have the charge, of going through complex contracts, and where they find that the contract was violated by the contractor, and there are lots of contractors around who are bankrupt to attest to this, that that contract is then acted upon, damages are extracted; and all these are things that we have put in our system of laws.

Now, the idea that you are going to take a major part of the support of an ongoing shooting war and you are going to paralyze it and say, well, it is only for present contracts, the next one that comes up next month, that is going to be different, but you are going to allow present contracts to continue. That could mean that you have got a hiatus in capability, a hiatus in the expertise of these people who have gone out, wearing the uniform of American contractors, put themselves in harm's way and, over the last several years in this war, developed a real expertise.

So I know the gentleman's amendment may play well politically in some quarters, but I think it is bad for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States because the contractors we are talking about are the people supporting them right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

One thing my distinguished friend from California (Mr. Waxman) has not shown us is how American laws, existing laws in contract, that govern the acquisition of systems and the acquisition of services, how those laws are not applicable to this American corporation, and so, therefore, we have to say, stop, we are not going to do anymore business with this corporation.

In fact, all the laws that go toward the enforcement of contracts and the contract itself, of course, are enforceable. Fines can be extracted. Other remedies can be extracted; and if there is, in fact, fraud, and I have heard the term ``fraud'' used in this debate, if there is fraud, that is a crime in contracting. If you commit crime in contracting, you can go to jail. There is no Member of this Chamber who, if a contract is broken between the United States Government and any of our contractors over there, there is no one in this Chamber who is going to say that we should not extract our full remedy under the laws we create and if people are involved in criminal action that they should not be prosecuted.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 361) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, March 20, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 361, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, March 29, 2006.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report now under consideration.

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

To my colleagues who have labored long and hard to get this Defense bill to the floor and to get the conference to the floor, I want to thank everyone. This is a very, very important bill. It does wonderful things for our men and women in uniform.

We have a 3.1 percent pay raise across the board. We have TRICARE expansion. We have an expansion of hazardous duty pay and an expansion of combat pay. We have a very substantial section devoted, some $76 billion, to modernization and some $70 billion to research development and testing. We have a very substantial military construction section that will accrue to the benefit of all of our people in uniform who are concerned about having adequate housing and a good place to work. And most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill moves lots of ammunition, lots of armor, lots of equipment to our people in the warfighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it provides also for a $50 billion supplemental authorization to enable us to bridge the time between now and the next supplemental that we can see coming down the pike next year.

This answers our call to duty, Mr. Speaker, which is to provide the tools to our men and women in uniform to win the war against terror. And let me just say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that we could not have done this, especially in such a short period of time, if we did not have such extraordinary members on the House Armed Services Committee, Democrat and Republican, of whom I am very proud; and a wonderful staff which has worked in some cases 16- and 18-hour days to bring this bill to fruition and to work this conference report with a very, very short time schedule.

I want to point out, first, my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is a wonderful friend and partner in this endeavor to serve our people in uniform. He has just done a great job working with me and working with his members. Our ranking members, our chairmen of the subcommittees all have done a wonderful job, as have all of our members right down through the entire ranks of the members of the Armed Services Committee.

So this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It provides the tools for our men and women to do the job. I also want to point out the fact that we have increased 10,000 Army and 1,000 Marine active-duty personnel in this bill. That is a very important point, Mr. Speaker, because we have cut the Army over the last 15 years from 18 divisions to only 10.

It is important to move additional personnel. Right now we have more people on the ground under the President's license to call up more people; but we think it is important to move the official end strengths, and we have done that in this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have a great bill, and I want to thank all the Members who have participated.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that the report that was just filed is the exact precise same report, without a comma changed, that was in fact signed by all members, Democrat and Republican.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the distinguished chairman of the Air, Land Subcommittee.

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), who has done such a great job as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for a colloquy.

That is correct. As the gentleman knows, I have long supported efforts to protect American businesses and workers from illegal trade practices. Unfortunately, the conferees were unable to come to an agreement that would allow us to include this important language in the final conference report.

Absolutely. Foreign governments should not be allowed to underwrite the risk of corporations involved in developing new airframes, especially when it is at the expense of the American worker. I want to assure my friend that the Armed Services Committee will continue its oversight on this issue, that we are going to revisit it next year.

Let me just leave the formal colloquy to say to my friend that my philosophy is that the American worker pays the taxes that fund these enormously expensive programs that manifest in this bill for $441 billion, that projects American power around the world in defense of the free world and provides an umbrella of freedom for hundreds of countries. It is only equitable and fair that the American taxpayer who pays for the defense of the free world should be able to involve themselves in making the very expensive equipment that we utilize. I can assure my friend that I will continue to work with him to make sure that when those great Americans in uniform come home from places like Iraq and Afghanistan they have some jobs in the American aircraft industry making the aircraft that support the projection of American Armed Forces.

I thank the gentleman for letting me edit my colloquy a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, if you are one of the 2.5 million people who wear the uniform of the United States, you can know that you have got some great people working for you on this Armed Services Committee. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) who just spoke, and also thank and commend a very distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who works tirelessly to serve our people in uniform as well as they serve this country, the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee.

I would be happy to join with my colleague from Georgia in a colloquy.

Will the gentleman yield?

I agree that the language contained in the conference report can both be flexible enough to allow our personnel to protect America's security interests and fair enough to protect our personnel without placing themselves in legal jeopardy when they employ the means any reasonable person would in a given interrogation.

If I might depart from the colloquy just for a bit to explain to my colleagues in the House, the Senate injected the straight Senate detainee language about humane treatment and the House injected and insisted on a section called personnel protections which gave defenses to uniform and nonuniformed personnel in detainee actions. It also provided for counsel to be employed or provided by the government. That was the essence of the provisions that were injected into the conference on the House side.

I thank the gentleman for letting me expand.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is my understanding.

That is my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to yield at this time to the gentleman who chairs the Projection Forces Subcommittee, the wonderful gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who lives on the Monocacy River and spends so much of his time and has spent a lot of time this last year working on the issues of shipbuilding and power projection of maritime forces and he has done a wonderful job.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

No. As the gentleman knows, the ANWR position is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the Iraqi Freedom Fund is a fund that includes money for body armor and lots of other equipment. It is a fund that we supply each year. It is a revolving fund that we keep money in so that the war-fighting commanders can buy what they need immediately when they need it.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, let me just say to the gentleman that is a classified portion that is within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Committee.

That is correct.

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

Just one or two points, Mr. Speaker. Again in the detainee legislation, the House inserted protections for American uniform personnel and nonuniform personnel.

The other point that was mentioned by the gentleman from New York was on probative value of evidence that might have been obtained under coercion. We all know that we have an exclusionary rule in this country domestically, and that means, as in Davis v. Mississippi, which is one of the threshold cases, the fact that the person did have his fingerprints on the threshold of the grandmother that he murdered, was picked out of an unconstitutionally developed lineup; and therefore we said, as a matter of disciplining our process, we would let people go even though we knew they had committed the crime.

This is a different situation, Mr. Speaker. This is a situation where a person may have been interrogated and may have disclosed, for example, a cache of weapons with which he was going to use to destroy American soldiers on the battlefield, the idea that in our review when we determine whether we are going to free him and send him back, having seen some of the people that we freed at Guantanamo show back up on the battlefield intent on killing American soldiers, that we felt we could not go that far. We could still take the probative value, and if that interrogation developed that cache of weapons, we would look at the cache of weapons and say the person who maintained that was in fact a combatant and it is not fair to our soldiers to put him back where he can shoot at them again.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say one last thing before my great colleague winds up on his side. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is our champion on the Armed Services Committee for military education. That is an area in which he has more expertise than anybody else in this body. And I thought, as we move toward the conclusion of this bill, that it was only appropriate that as a gentleman who knows more history than the rest of us, and, in fact, I went over a book that we were going to get him and I found out he was already reading that book, I wanted to dedicate to him and to give to him a book from the committee signed by all the members of the committee, and the ones that have not come to the floor yet will have their opportunity. It is the ``Battle of Vicksburg.'' And for a gentleman who knows every battle that was fought in America and knows it very well, I thought that this would be an interesting tribute to us for a gentleman who really guides us, Democrats and Republicans, in this very important area of military education.

So to the great gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I hope you have good reading, and let me know the high points.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentleman. I thought it would be appropriate for us also to thank this wonderful staff, this great bipartisan staff who put this product together. Let us thank them for what they did.

How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute so the gentleman from Georgia could make a presentation.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago, in fact in 1994, we mandated the construction of a fence in San Diego California, a triple fence. And that fence, with a basic fence on the border, a Border Patrol road, then a secondary higher fence with an overhang, a second Border Patrol road and then a third fence were designed to stop the massive drug trade and the smuggling of narcotics and people across what was the most prolific smugglers' corridor in America, that between Tijuana and San Diego.

At that time we had some 10 border murders a year. We had gangs that roamed that area that they called a ``no man's land'' to the point where Joseph Wambaugh wrote the best seller ``Lines and Shadows'' about the no man's land that existed between Tijuana and San Diego. We had some 300 drug trucks a month crashing that border and running up with cocaine for our children.

We built that fence, Mr. Chairman, and in doing that we knocked down the murders from 10 a year to zero. We knocked down the border drive- throughs from 300 a month to zero. We knocked down the smuggling of both illegal aliens and narcotics to almost zero where that fence was.

I might say that the great Border Patrol chief, Mr. Sylvester Reyes, stood in testimony, even adversely to his administration, and testified to the sufficiency of that fence.

This proposal, Mr. Chairman, is 700 additional miles of fence, and it has a great humanitarian aspect. The first piece of this fence, 361 miles from Calexico to Douglas, Arizona, is the area through which most of the people come who have represented those 400 deaths a year by dehydration in the deserts of Arizona.

If we had 400 college kids or high school kids or neighborhood kids a year dying in a lake in a city, we would immediately fence it. By fencing that area we are going to prevent those deaths. We cannot fence it by the next hot season, which will start in the end of May this coming year, but we have in this legislation directed interlocking cameras so we can see people when they come across the border while we are building the fence and we can respond. We can both deport them, and we can also save their lives, Mr. Chairman.

The second piece that is mandatory here is the 15 miles on each side of Laredo. Across the river from Laredo is Nuevo Laredo where the drug lords reign, where they kill the local law enforcement officers within, some cases, a few hours of their taking office. If we can dry up that massive land smuggling with backpacks full of cocaine coming across that smugglers' jump-off point in Nuevo Laredo by fencing both sides with a double fence, 10 miles on each side of Nuevo Laredo, and we want to have it done and it is mandated by this bill by the end of the year this next year, we will have done great things for the people of America and the good citizens of Nuevo Laredo.

This has a great humanitarian aspect to it, and we costed it out. It is roughly $2.2 billion. That is a fraction of what we spend each year to incarcerate the criminal aliens whom we currently have in massive numbers in our Federal penitentiaries and in our local jails.

That is the essence of this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to mention that Ronald Reagan closed down the border when our agent Kiki Camarena was murdered and the killer was not produced forthrightly by Mexican authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who is a co-author of this legislation and a tireless worker for the border fence in San Diego.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) who has been a major proponent for this fence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), my great cosponsor on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to close to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former Attorney General of the State of California, who understands border control.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just start off by saying that I think this is a somewhat dangerous thing that we are doing right now. We are responding to newspaper articles. We are talking about an issue that is not within the jurisdiction of this committee, and we are implying in this response that, if we have a positive vote that somehow there has been an inadequacy, somehow people have not been briefed about ongoing operations around the world, somehow there is a breakdown in our process. And I think that is precisely the wrong message to be sending.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who chairs the appropriate committee, the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for the purposes of conducting a colloquy with the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. One of the tragedies of this debate over torture over the last several months has been a clear message going out from the media that somehow the United States has gone out, the theme has gone out, carried on in American media, that somehow Americans are debating whether or not to stop torturing people.

In fact, torture is banned. It is under title XVIII, United States Code, I believe section 2348, which says under the word ``torture'' that if you torture someone, whether you are an agent of an intelligence agency or a uniformed soldier or just an average American, if you torture somebody, you can get up to 20 years in prison; and if you kill them while you are torturing them, you can be executed by the United States of America.

So the idea that somehow torture is not banned by American law and it does not carry heavy criminal penalties has been lost on the American media. One well-known reporter asked me does it really use the term ``torture'' in this United States Code. And I showed that person the code and said, yes, it does, right there; and it has been banned for a long time.

It has also been banned in our signatory, the effect of our signature on the anti-torture treaty. So I thank the gentleman for that clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

The gentleman from Arkansas has just discussed the park for Santa Rosa Island and the idea that I wanted to use that great resource for Marines and soldiers and paralyzed veterans and allow them a chance to have recreational opportunities, and I guess I have to plead guilty.

This came about when I was passing that island with a car full of Marines who had just returned from Iraq. They mentioned to me that that is one of the great resources on our coast. It is owned by a family which does charge a lot of money to people to hunt and fish. One of them said, you know, it would be great if they did not exterminate all the deer and elk on that island because the Park Service has a plan, and it is a written plan, and I have seen it, to exterminate with helicopters every single deer and elk on this beautiful island.

The Marines continued, it would be great because that is such a neat place, and it is the kind of place where people in wheelchairs can access that great sport of hunting and fishing, if we could have some kind of a permission to continue to hunt and fish there but not pay the $10,000 that is presently charged but have that when the U.S. government takes it over for paralyzed veterans and disabled veterans and not exterminate every single deer and elk on that island.

That was the intent of this gentleman in placing that provision in the bill, and I find it somewhat ironic that the people who profess to love the wildlife and love the flora and fauna and the environment seem to have no trouble with the National Park Service gunning down every single animal on that island in an extermination operation and not leaving any of that great resource for the people who defend this country.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let us make it clear that this is not a stunt. It is not an attack on an individual. It is a very legitimate question. Jack Murtha is a distinguished veteran. He is a good friend. We have joined together on many more defense issues than we have been apart on, and he has got an excellent background in defense, and he has every right to take the position that he has taken. We are all masters of our own opinion and our own position, and he studied this issue, and that is his position.

The reason I think it is important for this House to speak now before we break for a couple of weeks is because the impression has gone out around the world, carried on international news agencies, U.S. news agencies to friends and foes alike. The impression has gone out that Congress is withdrawing its support of the mission in Iraq. And if we look at the Washington Post and look at the front page, that is precisely what we see. If we looked at the headline on CNN and many other of the electronic news media, that is what we see.

But more importantly, it is not just important as to what our allies think or what our adversaries think. The most important people on this stage are the people wearing the uniform of the United States. And people who are reading the media, watching the media, those 140,000 personnel presently stationed in Iraq are obviously getting an impression about the United States Congress and its position with respect to all of the publicity that has emanated not just from this body and statements that have gone out from this body but also from the other body that happened just a couple of days ago and the headline stories that emanated from that.

Now, all of us, and I can just say as the chairman of my committee, we have held lots of hearings, lots of briefings. We held full House briefings for every Member of the House, Democrat and Republican, where they could ask our intelligence officers, with no handlers from the White House present, every single question that they wanted to have answered. We have had full briefings on armor, on troop deployments, on operations. Everybody here is competent to answer this question: Should we terminate our deployment in Iraq?

Now, of all the issues that we have studied over the last year or so that we have been working on, this is certainly one that we all have a background in now. Nobody can complain now that they have been duped and therefore this is not a real question or a solid question or an important question to answer. So we are going to let every Member answer that, and I hope that the message that goes back to our troops in Iraq, and I know that the message that will go back to our troops in Iraq, is that we do not support a precipitous pullout from Iraq, and that will do more to restore their morale than anything else this Congress could do.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against a precipitous termination of our deployment in Iraq.

But I am going to allow you to vote ``yes.''

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

And let me make this point: that the resolution is written in precisely the way that I think describes the essence of the publicity that has emanated from Washington, D.C. This is a message that has been sent to our troops; and if you look at the e-mails coming in, I think the question is well described, and I think that it manifests what a lot of people now think, especially uniformed people in the Iraq theater, and it is precisely the question before the House that the gentleman will have an absolute right to vote on; and I would hope that this is not Mr. Murtha's position. He will have a chance to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate to my friend, he said this should not be about Mr. Murtha, and it is not about Mr. Murtha. It is about the message that has been sent around the world, as evidenced by e-mails coming back in from our troops now who think that the Congress is pulling the rug out from under the mission.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, let me answer my friend.

This is a letter from an army captain in Iraq. He says in this e- mail: ``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq, and I am shocked and appalled by Rep Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal. Please, please, please convince your colleague to let us finish this critical job. He is correct that the deployments and service and casualties are hard on all of us. He is wrong about what is demoralizing to us. What is demoralizing is a Congress which no longer stands behind our mission.''

That is why we are offering this resolution. That is obviously the message that is going out to thousands of servicemen around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what we are doing tonight is sending a very valuable message. It is not necessarily a message to diplomats or to the President or even to our adversaries; although I am sure that they will read about it. But it is a message to that specialist in Tikrit, to that lance corporal in Fallujah, to that sergeant in Baghdad who feels by looking at the mass of press over the last several days that somehow we are slipping away from our warfighters.

We have an opportunity to do something tonight by very simply voting ``no'' on this question of whether we should leave Iraq immediately to at least cut through that ambiguity, to at least cut through that confusion, and you know, words mean something. Wars have been started because we said the wrong words. Confusion is not something that is good to sow among your enemy or your friends.

In this case, even those who may feel that somehow the troops are not confused by this mixed message that is coming out of the United States must agree that it is right now to send that specialist in Tikrit or that lance corporal in Fallujah or that sergeant in Baghdad a clear and convincing ``no'' vote on the question of whether we leave Iraq immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman who spends so much of his time with our Nation's wounded.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee and does so much for the quality of life for our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who served multiple tours in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and who is a colonel in the Army Reserve and a Gulf War veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) who served as an Army officer in the U.S. Airborne.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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

Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to close on this side?

We have got only one speaker left, so I would ask my colleague from Pennsylvania to close on his side if he could.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes we are going to send a message to our troops. And for our last speaker, we have a gentleman who knows a lot about freedom. He knows a lot about a lack of freedom. He knows a lot about American resolve and sometimes the lack of American resolve. He has been awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star with valor, two Purple Hearts, four air medals and three outstanding unit awards. He is one of our real heroes, Sam Johnson of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) be allowed to have 3 more minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, legislation which I have introduced, H.R. 1101, revoking a Public Land Order for certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in California, was passed by this body on May 23, 2005. Additionally, this legislation was recently reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on September 28, 2005, and referred to the full Senate for consideration.

It is my understanding that the Committee included report language with this bill expressing its intent that the 140 acres H.R. 1101 transfers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management not be viewed as an endorsement for development and that any management changes proposed by the Bureau be made through the appropriate planning process and include the continued protection of natural, cultural, and historical resources located on this land. I rise today to state my concurrence with this report language and encourage the Senate to act quickly on passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, around the world right now American troops are being disserved by a mistake promulgated by the American and international news media to the effect that American law allows torture. That is the lie that is being propagated by electronic and written news media around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we have the law here. It is title 18, section 2340A; and I want to read it. It says, ``Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.''

That law was signed by then President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994.

The United States does not allow torture. It is against the law to torture people, and if you torture someone to death you may be executed.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when I came out to speak about another issue that was very important to me, I did not realize that we were doing 1-minutes on our great friend Ed Roybal.

I just wanted to add my voice as a Californian who came to Congress and was subject to Ed Roybal's kindness and goodness and great sense of courtliness and courtesy, that he will be deeply missed. Because the fabric of Ed Roybal is what makes this House run and gives us civility in difficult times. What a wonderful, fine gentleman and what wonderful treatment he accorded all of us in the California delegation, Republican and Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman. She has done a wonderful job of leading this Special Order, and I want to thank all the Members who participated. They did a great job, and I think our message to all of our troops, to everyone that wears the uniform of the United States is this: you have great value. You are our best citizens. Your cause is just. You will prevail, and we will stand behind you.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to a true American patriot who has maintained a reputation as a protector of American manufacturing--Mr. Roger Milliken. Roger recently celebrated his 90th birthday and, not to the surprise of many, continues to faithfully sit at the helm of Milliken & Company, one of the largest and most successful textile and chemical manufacturing companies in the world.

On the special occasion of his 90th birthday, I feel it prudent to ensure that my colleagues in the House are made aware of Roger's immeasurable commitment to the protection and development of our domestic manufacturing base. Roger has long deflected the enticements of outsourcing and importation, believing the divestment of American industry in foreign markets is not conducive to economic growth and detrimental to our nation's productivity and ingenuity.

Roger's personal success can be credited to his entrepreneurial spirit and his strong work ethic, both professionally and academically. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale University in 1937 and was named President of Deering Milliken in less than ten years. Under Roger's leadership, Deering Milliken officially became known as Milliken & Company and gained its status as a nationally recognized textile manufacturer. He served as President of Milliken & Company until 1988, when he was named Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, the title which he continues to hold today.

Roger maintains an inclusive relationship with his employees and each Milliken associate is encouraged to share their thoughts on how quality and excellence can be achieved. As a matter of fact, much of Milliken & Company's success can be attributed to its network of faithful employees who tirelessly strive for nothing less than perfection.

Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once said, ``My goal is to keep America the premier job-creating nation on Earth and we must unleash the full power of entrepreneurship. We can make our land that of the future, offering unlimited opportunity to all Americans who dare to live for their dreams.'' We are fortunate to have individuals like Roger Milliken, who never relent in their quest to foster and protect American industry, and believe the industrial climate envisioned by President Reagan is achievable.

Roger is recognized as someone who takes pride in the craftsmanship of the American workforce and fights for the preservation of those jobs. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal in 1995, Roger said, ``I'm going to keep on doing what I'm doing. I'm going to die in the saddle, fighting for American manufacturing supremacy.'' While this statement is certainly indicative of Roger's tenacity and entrepreneurial ambition, it more importantly demonstrates the elements of selflessness and confidence that need to be revived within our industrial community. Roger's desire for American manufacturing supremacy is not unrealistic and one in which I believe we can achieve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in honoring Roger Milliken's contribution and commitment to American industry and manufacturing. In celebration of his 90th birthday, I wish him many more years of good health and happiness.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 2908(d) of Public Law 101-510, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res 65) disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time. I also ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to designate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) as controlling our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, tonight marks the end of a long and difficult process for selecting military installations for closure and realignment.

Under BRAC law, the realignment and closure recommendations by the BRAC 2005 Commission will become binding, unless a joint resolution of disapproval, such as the one before us today, is enacted.

For those of us with military installations in our districts, the BRAC process is a trying one. And I might mention we have had four BRAC rounds previous to this one. Every one of us spent the last 4 years making a case to the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission with respect to the military value of our bases. Nevertheless, both DOD and the BRAC Commission have determined that a portion of our military infrastructure should be closed or realigned.

As a result, the final recommendations of the Commission include 22 closures that we would designate as major closures, 33 major realignments, and many smaller closure and realignment actions. According to the Commission, these actions will save more than $15 billion over the next two decades with annual savings of more than $2.5 billion after implementation.

Some of my colleagues have questioned the need for a round of BRAC and the timing of this round. While I understand and appreciate such concerns, I believe that these issues have been thoroughly discussed and debated. In addition, by a vote of 43 to 14, the Armed Services Committee reported this resolution adversely to the House with a recommendation that it do not pass. As such, I intend to vote against House Joint Resolution 65 today, thereby allowing the BRAC Commission recommendations to stand, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.

On a final note, I would like to thank the BRAC Commissioners for their service. Since their appointments this spring, the Commissioners visited more than 170 installations, conducted 20 regional hearings and 20 deliberative hearings, and participated in hundreds of meetings with public officials. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would particularly like to thank the chairman of the Commission, Anthony J. Principi. Tony Principi took on another tough one in chairing this BRAC Commission. It is a commission in which you get beaten up lots of times, second- guessed a lot, and cross-examined a lot. Yet, it is a necessary position, and it is one that requires a guy or a lady with a lot of integrity. Chairman Principi is just such a person.

Also, we had on our committee two former members of the Armed Services Committee who were on the BRAC Commission, Jim Bilbray and Jim Hansen, and Mr. Chairman, they have served us well as senior statesmen in

again what amounted to very, very difficult roles.

I would like to acknowledge the good work of all of the commissioners. It is not an easy job and it is, to some degree, a very thankless job. Nonetheless, it is necessary and they put a lot of time and a lot of sweat into this process. So I want to thank them.

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