Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

Amendment No. 1: At the end of section 346 (page 98, after

line 11) insert the following new subsection:

(e) Exception for Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon System.--This

section does not apply with respect to the obligation of

funds for systems development and demonstration of the non-

line-of-sight cannon system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend an important community in Oklahoma's Fourth Congressional District. It is often said that the media in general does not run enough positive news, and I am afraid that this is especially, and unfortunately, the case for American Muslims. Many have associated the terrible events of September 11, 2001, with the millions of law-abiding, good-hearted Muslims in the United States. I wish to set the record straight about those decent Americans who work to make their communities and our Nation a better place to live, work, and worship.

A poll conducted in 2004 uncovered some troubling numbers, Mr. Speaker. Those consulted were asked to give the first thought that came to their minds upon hearing the word, ``Muslim.'' Two-thirds had a neutral reply: ``religion'' or ``mosque,'' to give two examples. A little less than a third, 32 percent, had negative replies: ``violence,'' ``hatred,'' and, I am sorry to say, epithets unsuitable for polite company. Only two percent of respondents had comments considered positive.

Numbers the following year, 2005, were more promising. Negative comments had fallen six percent to total 26 percent. Positive comments had tripled from two percent to six percent. Still, the sum of positive comments is far too low for such a vibrant community. Further, these numbers mean that the negative comments outnumber positive comments by a little more than four-to-one.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers were as startling to me as they were to the many Muslims I know, respect, and represent. My home state of Oklahoma has a dynamic and growing Muslim community. Given public perceptions of the faith by Americans at large, much of their activity is directed at educating the public about themselves and their beliefs. Education about the Muslim community is clearly important as less than half of Americans claim to be ``very knowledgeable'' or ``somewhat knowledgeable'' of Islam.

I am pleased to report that in my home state of Oklahoma, Muslim groups are among the first to respond in times of crisis. Oklahoma's Muslims gave generously to the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, to earthquake victims in Turkey, and to those who suffered from the tsunamis along the Pacific Rim. They came to help when Hurricane Katrina struck, adopting and helping resettle displaced families. Three days after September 11, 2001, these men and women hosted a blood drive for victims in Washington and New York.

Oklahoma's Muslims also do much within our state. They host a free medical clinic in my state and often pay bills and rent for the needy. They adopt highways and contribute to public libraries, reach out to students and to other faiths. They host T-ball teams and Scout troops. In short, they are valued members of our communities.

Like all Americans, Oklahoma Muslims want good schools for their children, talk over the dinner table about how to pay the bills, and want to balance their work with their home life. The values and common interests that they share with their fellow Oklahomans far outweigh any differences in matters of faith. I urge my colleagues, and my fellow Americans, to get to know their Muslim neighbors next door. They help make America the vibrant, tolerant country it is. After all, whatever one's faith, in this land of liberty we are all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment and thank my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly Mr. Miller and Mr. Berman, for working with us; and, of course, my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Lungren, whose leadership has been so critical on this, Mr. Flake, and, of course, Mr. Hastings, chairman of the Ethics Committee.

This really is a moment where we have come together and thought about what is best for the institution instead of trying to score political points against one another. I think we have taken a dramatic step.

I agree very much with my friend, Mr. Miller. This offers the opportunity for real scrutiny and a real look at the entire travel issue; and I look forward to working with Mr. Berman and Chairman Hastings on the Ethics Committee, to come back with a scheme that both sides can have confidence in and the American people can have confidence in.

In conclusion, I thank the chairman, Mr. Dreier, and certainly the Speaker. This would not have happened without their help and without their active cooperation so we could resolve what was a knotty issue. They, too, deserve a great deal of credit for working in a bipartisan manner and allowing this to come about.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Mayor Eddie O. Reed, who is retiring as Mayor of Midwest City after many years of public service.

In this country we are fortunate to have public servants of Mayor Reed's caliber. All too often we take such individuals for granted. Most of the rest of the world is not so lucky, so I take this opportunity to praise a man who as Mayor of Midwest City has been an excellent public servant who has made life better for his community and its people.

Eddie Reed has been Mayor of Midwest City since 1993. As Mayor, he has improved public safety, city streets, and drainage in Midwest City. Indeed, building on the work of his father, who also served as Mayor of Midwest City, Eddie Reed has transformed his city, making it an engine of economic growth in our state. All of his many successes have resulted from his skill at building partnerships and bringing people together.

Mr. Speaker, under Mayor Reed's leadership, many quality of life improvement projects have been completed. These include the Marion C. Reed Baseball Complex, the new Senior Citizens Center opened in 1999, and the renovation of the John Conrad Regional Golf Course. Mayor Reed has also improved Midwest City's infrastructure including a new water tower, a widened Post Road between SE 29th Street and 15th Street, and a reconstructed intersection at East Reno and SE 15th Street.

Perhaps the most important accomplishment of Mayor Reed's, over the course of his distinguished career, was his successful role in the BRAC process. The importance of his work in protecting Tinker Air Force Base, and the impact that has for the economy of Midwest City and for all of central Oklahoma, simply cannot be overstated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by giving the Mayor the highest compliment anyone can ever give a public servant: After 13 years as Mayor, Midwest City is in even better shape at the end of his term than it was at the beginning. That is the best monument to his achievements. I wish him and his wife, Julie, the best in their new life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill. And I want to first, Mr. Chairman, commend you. I have watched this process unfold in front of us as we have worked, as you and the Speaker committed we would, through regular order, through five different committees, over 4 months, entertaining dozens of amendments.

I have watched you struggle with the numerous amendments we had, and yet try to get them down to a manageable level, things that actually counted and made a difference in the legislation that let us debate things.

I have watched as you and the Speaker and others have tried to craft a bill that moved us forward, and indeed this bill does move us forward. After all of the smoke and all of the rhetoric and everything is said, the real basic question is simply this: Will we be better off with or without this bill? There is no question we will be better off with this bill. We will be more transparent, we will have more reporting by lobbyists, stricter supervision, higher penalties for those who transgress, whether they be those amongst us or others in the lobbying and the political community.

We have a measure of campaign finance reform that could be triggered by this legislation. And indeed as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this is simply the first step of a long journey. And it is very important. I appreciate the way that you have dealt with the dilemma of having some who want to go further than we are able to go, and actually enact legislation, and those who do not want to do anything at all.

And it is always easiest to take one of those two positions, because you are always right. You never have to answer for anything. But at the end of the day, the Speaker and the chairman have to craft a package that will pass and will put them in a position to negotiate with the Senate. I think they have done that.

I also wanted to highlight just briefly an amendment that may come up later in this debate, which is indeed bipartisan in nature, and which I think takes us in the right direction in appropriately regulating private travel, something that has been an abuse, and where I have had the good fortune of working with my friends across the aisle, Mr. Miller, Mr. Berman. I had the opportunity to also work with Mr. Hastings and Mr. Lungren, and we think we have crafted an amendment that everybody in this House can be pleased with.

That would not have happened without your help, Mr. Chairman, and without your support. Let me conclude by saying, I am very proud to have worked with my friend, the chairman on the Rules Committee. I appreciate his support as we have worked through difficult issues.

I know we are at the beginning of a long debate. I am very confident at the end of the day we will have a legislative package that will be a marked improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the 527 Reform Act. This legislation will strengthen our political parties while subjecting 527s to the same regulations as other actors under our campaign finance system.

One of the most important provisions in this bill is the elimination of the limit on expenditures coordinated between party committees and candidates. That limit as it currently exists is unquestionably one of the worst features of our campaign finance system. It creates a needless barrier between parties and their candidates. The first step towards a better, cleaner campaign reform system that places candidates in control of their own campaigns is repealing of that provision as this bill does.

Mr. Speaker, political parties, other than perhaps the candidates themselves, are the most accountable actors in our campaign finance system. They have to answer to their members, to their donors, to the media, and most importantly of all, to the voters. Their activities are disclosed and well documented. National parties in particular seldom violate either the letter or the spirit of the law. They are responsible participants in the political process, unlike many 527s.

Additionally, parties serve a very useful role in our political process. One essential thing they have historically done is to rechannel factions of narrow special interests into broader, more public-spirited coalitions. Although not foreseen by our Founders, it is impossible to imagine the success of our democracy without the vital role parties have played.

As Clinton Rossiter, the scholar of American politics, once put it, No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, and no politics without parties.

Past efforts at reforming the campaign finance system often have had the unintended consequence of weakening political parties. The understandable desire of citizens to influence the outcome of elections does not go away with campaign restrictions.

Instead, the money they contribute sometimes flows from candidates and parties to unaccountable actors like 527s. This bill will help impede that process.

In 2004, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, there was more money in politics than ever before, with just 25 wealthy individuals accounting for $146 million raised by 527 groups to influence that year's elections. That is not removing big money from politics. That is the manipulation of the political process by a wealthy elite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word to those who spoke so eloquently in favor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. If that law was not intended to limit the influence of money from unaccountable actors like 527s, then what was its purpose? And yet, many who voted for the McCain-Feingold bill will today vote against reforming 527s. That is, to put it politely, inconsistent.

Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a fine American, many of the opponents of 527 reform are effectively saying: ``I voted for campaign finance reform before I voted against it.'' Today, the supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill have an opportunity to pass real reform in a bipartisan way. McCain-Feingold supporters can choose between the principles they profess to hold or they can vote for what many believe is to their own short-term, partisan political advantage. And if they vote for the latter, after previously claiming to vote for the former, they will set off a political finance ``arms race'' that will flood the American political system with tens of millions of dollars from a few fabulously wealthy individuals.

That is an outcome we should all seek to oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on March 30, 2006 for rollcall vote No. 80, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present, on rollcall vote No. 80, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of S. 2120. Although I acknowledge there is merit to the original intent of this bill, I am unable to ignore the harm it may cause for the small business dairy industry in light of recent developments. As this industry is an integral economic contributor to my district, and indeed Oklahoma as a whole, it would be negligent of me to endorse this bill and rely on good luck to protect my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, the dairy industry is complex and there are many legitimate competing interests. With this in mind, I commend my colleagues in both bodies of Congress who diligently worked to build a rare consensus while crafting this bill. I have no doubt in my mind that the original intent of this bill was narrow in scope, focused on regulating aspects of the milk industry in certain western states. In addition, I have no doubt that the crafters of this bill believed they were protecting smaller dairy farmers, processors, and producer- handlers outside of those states from falling under similar regulations in the future.

However, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Agriculture acted before Congress, issuing a final rule on February 24, 2006, establishing similar regulations as would be established by S. 2120. I must admit Mr. Speaker, this begs the question: Why is it necessary for Congress to now duplicate what has already been legitimately addressed by the USDA? I fear the only outcome may be to codify this regulation, thereby inherently suggesting that Congress will endorse similar such regulations in the future. This is a precedent which I can not support. I believe in our government's regulatory process Mr. Speaker, and as such, I believe there is no longer any need for Congress to act upon this particular issue. Had the USDA not taken this action, I also have no doubt I would have felt much more comfortable with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2120, although originally well-intentioned and carefully crafted to insulate dairy farmers, processors, and producer- handlers outside of these particular western states from unintended consequences, has been outdated by the regulatory actions of the USDA. Should Congress pass S. 2120, it may only serve to set a dangerous precedent which could severely harm an important part of America's dairy industry in the future.

Offered By: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma

Amendment No. 3: Page 129, beginning on line 13, strike

subsection (c) of section 402 and redesignate the succeeding

subsections accordingly.

Page 139, line 24, strike ``as amended by section 402(c)

and''.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 725 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert tabular and extraneous material.

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. Speaker, on March 14 the Rules Committee met and granted an open rule on House Resolution 725, with 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

The bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule and waives all points of order against the bill. Additionally, when the reading for the amendment reaches title II, such title shall be considered as read. This rule accords priority of recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to be able to manage this rule. The rule provides for an emergency supplemental funding package to sustain our troops in the ongoing war on terror and to assist in providing emergency relief for those affected in the Gulf States by last year's tremendous hurricanes.

However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill is being brought to the floor under an open rule should not be overlooked. This means that anyone in the majority or the minority may bring to the floor any amendment that is germane to this legislation.

As one of the most important bills that will be brought to the House floor this year, we should all be able to agree that an open rule is the right thing to do and will allow the House to work its will.

The supplemental appropriations package is the sixth supplemental since September 11 that focuses on meeting the challenges imposed on us by the global war on terrorism. Specifically, this supplemental provides for replenishing of those accounts that the military has exhausted during sustained operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world. Additionally, it provides important funding to assist in our efforts to address the disastrous results of the hurricanes in the gulf coast communities. Finally, these are important measures dedicated to improving the benefits due our soldiers and their families who have often been asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Among the important provisions in this bill is a $2 billion effort at the suppression of technology for so-called IEDs, improvised explosive devices, in Iraq and other areas. IEDs, rather than direct engagement with enemy combatants, have caused over half the casualties our forces have sustained in Iraq. Additionally, the supplemental fully funds the enhanced $400,000 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance benefits and the $100,000 death gratuity benefit for combat-related fatalities.

Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee also addressed several other issues inside the supplemental that are essential to successfully continue to prosecute our global war on terror.

Important obligations are met in the underlying legislation. In particular, this legislation earmarked $850 million over the President's request to ensure that the National Guard receives upgraded Bradleys and Abrams when deploying. Additionally, the bill earmarked another $480 million for new advances in safer up-armoring for Humvees.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4939 takes a number of important steps forward in addressing the needs of our military. Today we are likely to debate several amendments that would have a large impact on the effect of the underlying legislation. I would strongly urge Members to closely examine such amendments and reject any not pertaining to the subject matter at hand. The bill we have before us today is an excellent and timely piece of legislation that deserves strong bipartisan support. The underlying legislation is ultimately really about supporting our troops in the field and moving forward in assisting our own citizens drastically affected by the hurricanes.

With respect to Katrina, the underlying legislation provides $9.9 billion to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily intended for FEMA, and major additional funding for flood control and coastal emergencies. Additionally, the Department of Defense would receive $1.8 billion and the Army Corps of Engineers would receive $1.5 billion, mostly for procurement and construction for flood control and coastal emergencies.

$1.3 billion would be set aside for loans to home owners and small businesses to be administered through the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Speaker, this is the third supplemental appropriations request sent to Congress that addresses the fallout from the hurricanes. I am sure we will deal with this issue in the future as needs are defined. It is truly a testament to this Nation that we are able to break through the political logjam and deal with these issues of an emergency nature when this situation demands.

Mr. Speaker, judging from the debate in the Rules Committee yesterday, I suspect Members from both sides of the aisle may mention or attempt to interject into our discussions motions or amendments that are not germane to the underlying legislation. A number of measures are things that I personally support. However, the Rules Committee decided, appropriately in my opinion, that these matters should be dealt with separately and under regular order.

My good friends on both sides of the aisle have often expressed their desire to have major legislation dealt with

under an open rule. That is precisely what we have today. It is my hope that all Members will appreciate that fact and will see the wisdom of pursuing other issues through regular order. Therefore, I urge support for 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.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note again for the record, while we are going to have discussions of many things here today, this is an open rule, any Member of the majority or the minority is free to bring an amendment to

matters that are germane to the bill. This is as democratic on the floor of this institution as it ever gets. And while many will be, on both sides, disappointed that they didn't get to attach nongermane items to this particular bill, I think we are well served in this House by moving through regular order, which is an argument that we all make from time to time very vigorously on both sides of the aisle, but particularly the minority side.

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

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

Let me first reply to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Texas, who spoke earlier about their concern about the rule.

I remind them both, and as I will remind repeatedly everyone on this rule, we have an open rule today. If my friends on the other side of the aisle have something they object to, for instance they could strike title II of this particular bill, and, frankly, it would go right back to committee, so there is no need to bring down the rule. The mechanisms are in place, the processes are in place for the House to work its will.

I would also remind my friends on both sides of the aisle that this bill ultimately, not the rule, but the bill itself, is ultimately about providing for the needs of American forces in the field in combat today, now. We can debate whether the war was wise, whether it is conducted well, at our leisure. They need what they need immediately, and we should respond to their needs, regardless of what our opinions are where the war is concerned or regardless of what our opinions are in terms of procurement or spending.

And I say the same thing with respect to our fellow citizens along the gulf coast. They need help now. This

House has responded generously twice already in supplementals. This is the third one. We will be back here again without a doubt dealing with that item. I do not think for procedural questions, particularly when we have an open rule, we should risk slowing down things that our troops in the field need or that our fellow citizens in need along the gulf coast require.

My good friend from Wisconsin, and he is my good friend, made the point which I do not want to leave uncontested that this, quote, President had engaged in the worst military blunder in American history. That is a remarkable statement, considering the Vietnam era where we had Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson commit us to a war.

The fact is this war has the lowest casualty rate in American history, and the stakes are enormously high. Were we to lose in this particular endeavor, there is no question that our enemies around the world would gather strength. It would be seen as a victory for terrorists; it would be seen as a lack of will on the part of the United States.

I think the stakes here are worth it. I have been to Iraq on five occasions, and one can always be critical of specific things. I do not think you can be critical of our forces in the field. Their performance is brilliant.

And, honestly, let me say a word here on behalf of the Iraqi people. We did ask them to rise up in 1991, and we did not do a thing. Thousands of them were slaughtered. Now we have come again. We have helped them liberate themselves from one of the worst tyrants certainly in the history of their country and certainly in regional history, and they have asked our help to stay and work through a difficult process.

They have demonstrated their bravery again and again and again in three different elections where they came out to vote under very difficult circumstances. They demonstrate their bravery in the field in their commitment and their willingness to take on an increasing range of responsibility. Even when I am occasionally frustrated with politicians in Iraq, as I sometimes am frustrated with ourselves in this body, I stop and remember they are exceptionally brave people.

My colleagues and I may worry about losing an election. Most of us do not worry about losing our life by engaging in a political process to make our country free. I think when people make that kind of sacrifice in the pursuit of democracy and freedom, they deserve the support of this body among all bodies in this world and certainly this country.

Let me add, frankly, one other point on Katrina. I know many of my colleagues have had the opportunity and taken the opportunity to go down and visit the gulf coast. Personally, I certainly have done that; and I would just tell all my friends that have concerns about the expenditure of funds in that particular area, and sometimes I do as well, go look at the damage. It is massive. It is massive.

Again, we had a very critical and I think very good report issued by a special committee of this body, chaired by my good friend, distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, Tom Davis, that was unstintingly critical. I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, they did not participate in that. They chose to think it would be a sham, and clearly it was not. There are mechanisms and means for us to look at and learn the lessons of Katrina and apply them and let the chips fall where they may in the process. Rejecting the rule will bring down the underlying bill and, in my opinion, is not one of them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I came here this morning, obviously, to debate the rule. But as is so often the case in rules debate, we move on to the bill itself and some of the larger purposes. And I am always content and happy to have that debate. I think it is an important discussion for the American people to hear.

My good friend from Massachusetts, from the other side of the aisle, mentioned that essentially things are worse in Iraq. Worse than what? And worse than when? Worse than having Saddam Hussein in power? I think not. I would much rather have him where he is, in a courtroom, in jail, and no longer launching regional wars that claimed over a million lives.

Worse than 423 mass grave sites that have been uncovered since the arrival of coalition forces in Iraq? I think not. Worse than 400,000 Iraqis killed in the decade before the liberation of Iraq? Again, I think not.

I think that we sometimes, on this floor, act as if we are doing a favor to the people of Iraq by leaving. I think that is dangerously misguided logic. I do not think it is a favor. I do not think that it is a favor to the people in Iraq. That is not what their duly elected representatives have asked us to do.

They, by the way, are running enormous risks for their own freedom. They rose up to try to get their own freedom in 1991. We didn't do, in my opinion, what we should have done then. I have been there five times. I see more and more Iraqis doing more and more things for themselves, and I see no one that asks the United States to leave precipitously.

I also would disagree with my good friend on the issue of whether or not our interests are involved in this. I think they very much are involved in Iraq. I think that victory is an extraordinarily important thing for this country to secure. I think staying the course, or remaining and staying with our friends that are fighting now, in part because we are there, is a very important message to send to the region.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I would disagree with the gentleman on a number of points, but on one in particular.

It is not easy for anybody in this body to make the decision to send American troops into harm's way. My father was a career military person. My uncle spent 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prison camp. My brother is a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, although not disabled in Vietnam. I have 15,000 soldiers at Fort Sill that I am privileged to represent. I have got another 8,000 or 9,000 airmen at Tinker Air Force Base that I am privileged to represent. My cousin is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force, who spent 6 months in Afghanistan and 6 months in Iraq under very dangerous and difficult circumstances.

These are not decisions that anybody makes lightly for or against. Those people who are opposed to the war, as my good friend noted in the Rules Committee yesterday, initially, when it was ``popular,'' did not make an easy decision. It is not popular today. Those of us who are still supportive of that effort are not making an easy decision. We are making what we think is the right decision. I respect my friend's motives in that regard. I think he has always been consistent. His judgment has been consistent, even though we have consistently disagreed. I would ask for the same sentiment in reverse; that those of us who hold a different point of view are equally honorable in our motivation, equally intense about what we are doing, and equally convinced the course we are advocating is the correct one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to address several of the points of my good friend from Massachusetts.

First, in terms of going into war without the information and without the debate. I was not in Congress when that decision was made, and, frankly, I looked back and have read the debates very carefully, watched the debates at that time, and know that, frankly, everybody that was voting voted on the best information they had available at that time.

Frankly, I remind my good friend that we were operating with a CIA that was run by a President Clinton appointee, that he was pretty adamant in terms of there were WMDs there. That was the shared opinion of every other intelligence agency in the world. And, again, I don't question the motives of the decision that was made.

I would also add this. For me, the more compelling figure is not what we found before we thought we were going, but what we found after. I go back to those mass grave sites and I go back to those tens of thousands of people that were killed. And, frankly, I go back to a level of American responsibility for allowing that to persist, in my opinion, after 1991.

I relate to my friend a story that I heard on my very first visit to Iraq, when I was talking to a young American sergeant. It was becoming evident at that point that the stockpiles we thought were going to be there weren't there. There was dual-use technology, and perhaps the potential to recreate something. No question Saddam Hussein was working his way out of restrictions, but what we thought was there, wasn't there.

And I asked this young sergeant who had risked his life in the drive to Baghdad what he thought, given that information. And he first gave me sort of a nice stock political answer and said basically what I said: Well, we don't know. We are still looking. And I said, but we haven't found any. And he looked at me, and I will never, ever forget what he said when I said, so, was it worth it? And he answered my question with a question.

He said, sir, have you ever been to a mass grave site? And I said, no, I haven't. He said, I have. He said, you haven't seen anything until you see bodies coming out of the ground and hundreds of family members trying to identify them and wailing. And I have seen that, and I wonder why the whole world wasn't here 10 years ago. That is a good question for us to ask ourselves inuring the course of this debate.

I also want to address my friend's point about a commission in two ways. First, by making the point that there is a good deal of oversight that goes on in this process. I used to serve on the House Armed Services Committee. I still do. I have a waiver on that committee now. But that committee, I can assure you, is very thorough in its oversight. I think appropriations has an oversight function.

But, finally, and more importantly, I think on this particular piece of legislation, both sides of the House often ask for an open rule, and anything germane to this piece of legislation, this supplemental appropriation, can be brought here. I think that is a very good thing. Now we are being told we not only want things that are germane to one of the largest spending bills and one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will deal with this year, we want things that are not germane. We want waivers granted.

And, by the way, we are being told that by both sides of the aisle. This is not an exclusive demand. I think it is a misdirected demand. I would like to see us move back toward more open rules, more regular order, and I think this rule is a step in that direction.

I yield 20 seconds to my friend.

Reclaiming my time. I disagree with my friend's characterization of when the mass graves were. There are certainly 35 years' worth of mass graves in Iraq, but a lot of them are from 1991 on, and particularly from the uprising of the Shi'a against Saddam Hussein, when an American Army was sitting on their border and we urged them to rise up and did nothing to help them.

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

Let me just make a quick point on Katrina.

Actually, there was good oversight there. Chairman Davis had a very good committee. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle chose largely not to participate in an oversight function.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his point. I thought he had a very interesting amendment yesterday in the Rules Committee. I think it is a topic and amendment that deserves a great deal of study because I think the reform of that process is very much in order.

I would prefer that we move through an authorizing committee to do that, as opposed to simply discussing it in the Rules Committee, where we have no background, no staff, and then immediately inject it onto the floor.

My disagreement with my friend is largely over process here, and not necessarily over substance. I hope we do look at that process and do take his very thoughtful amendment into consideration through regular order.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would draw a distinction here. I think there is a big difference between stopping a decision that you disagree with, which I think can be done without a great deal of moving through process, and changing a process itself. I think that is actually a more difficult, time-consuming, complex operation. I think it needs an authorizing committee to look at it.

I think it is very appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to say, stop, we have serious concerns, we do not want to go through with this; and hopefully at that point we would proceed by regular order and consider the gentleman's thoughtful amendments that may come along.

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

In closing, I would like to say I believe we have had an excellent debate today. What is clear to me is the importance and the timeliness of this legislation. With that said, I would encourage Members to listen carefully to the following debate and to vote in support of the underlying legislation.

Additionally, I would encourage Members to be cautious when considering the amendments. This bill has been carefully crafted and worked in a way to ensure that our servicemen receive the best equipment when they go to war.

Equally important, the bill contains important measures to help our fellow citizens in the gulf coast as they continue to deal with the consequences of the worst natural disaster in American history.

Finally, I would ask Members to remember this is not a vote about the wisdom of the war in Iraq. The President and the Congress made that decision years ago. This vote is about giving those we have asked to execute our policy in Iraq the tools they need to do their job. The men and women serving our cause in Iraq ask for nothing more. In good conscience, we should give them nothing less.

Similarly, this is not a debate about the nature of the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. This matter has been dealt with in a detailed report issued by a select committee chaired by the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Finally, this is also not a vote in essence about fiscal discipline. The process that the rule allows would allowed those concerned about spending to strip portions of the bill that concern them and send them back. It would also, of course, allow them at the end to vote against the bill itself if they thought it was too expensive. The rule allows, as I wish to remind my colleagues, for an open rule, that is, any Member of this body, majority or minority, can bring an issue germane to the bill to the floor, have it heard and have it decided. This is a movement toward regular order, and I think it is one we should respect and appreciate by upholding the rule.

To close, I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Dewey F. Bartlett Post Office Designation Act and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, Dewey Bartlett served our country in the Marine Corps during World War II and, when he came to Oklahoma after the war, he began to serve the State. He was first a member of the Oklahoma Senate, then Oklahoma's 19th Governor, and finally a United States Senator. It is no exaggeration to say that he is one of the most consequential public figures in Oklahoma history.

During his term as Governor, his goal was to meet his campaign promises, the first of which was to strengthen the State's economy. The numbers during the Bartlett administration are impressive. Two years into his term, Oklahomans spent $148 million building new industries or improving existing capital. In 1969, the State had 1 million jobs for the first time in its history. He journeyed widely to bring outside businesses into the State. In 1968 alone, he traveled 100,000 miles on behalf of the State, some of it at his own expense.

Bartlett's time in the Senate was equally remarkable. He wrote about NATO and the Soviet Union and collaborated with Senators across the aisle. Whether visiting chambers of commerce or the White House, Oklahoma's military installations or villages in Somalia, Senator Bartlett held the conviction that Oklahomans and Americans were special and could contribute something to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, Governor Dewey Bartlett was rightfully important to us Oklahomans, and, I believe, his example can say something important to the rest of the country today. Partisanship was strong during the Bartlett administration, not unlike partisanship that develops when the clash of ideas is strong. During his watch in the late 1960s, there were questions about State funding authority and disputes over sex education policy. Some of his actions to address student unrest at the University of Oklahoma were unpopular. And though he was the first Governor of Oklahoma eligible to be reelected, he lost in an election that was so close that the National Guard had to be deployed to protect ballot boxes.

Mr. Speaker, despite the acrimony, Bartlett was optimistic. He opened his final State of the State Address with these words: ``Most of you looked for solutions to State problems through a Democratic point of view; I from a Republican viewpoint.'' But, he continued, ``this competitive difference, I believe, brought out the best in each of us.'' Differences of opinion, in short, were not reasons to condemn or deride one another. Rather, they were the building blocks upon which the future of the State depended.

Granted, the party meant something to Bartlett, but the State was more important. Even in the end, just a few months before he died, Senator Bartlett retired early so that his successor, David Boren, could have additional seniority to benefit Oklahoma. This country, and this Congress, would do well to build upon Bartlett's legacy in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, Dewey Bartlett believed in serving his country and his community, and so it is fitting that we name a post office after him in his hometown, Tulsa. For him, Oklahoma was a great State that could be even better, and his vision inspires those of us who serve Oklahoma today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge other members to support this resolution and pass the bill under suspension.

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).

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

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

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, our friends on the other side of the aisle asked us, Were we sent here to do this?

Frankly, I can only speak for my district and tell Members that is exactly what I was asked to do. When I talk to my constituents at home, they tell me government is too big, taxes are too high. Do something about it.

We all know the numbers here, and we are going to hear a lot of sound and fury tonight about how horrific and dramatic this bill is.

In reality, it is not. We are talking about a little over $40 billion out of a $14.5 trillion revenue stream over the next 5 years, less than one-half of 1 percent.

We will not cut spending. Spending, instead of going up annually at 6.4 percent a year, will go up at 6.3 percent. We will not cut Medicaid. Instead of going up at 7.3 percent, it will go up at a little over 7 percent.

This is, though, an important first step, where we begin to deal with nondiscretionary entitlement spending. That is going to be, I think, the big challenge over the next decade. I am very proud that this Congress has begun to grapple with that problem. I look forward to the process as we continue this in the years ahead.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to explain my vote against a democrat motion to instruct conferees on December 14, 2005.

Although President Bush and Secretary Rice have made it clear that under no circumstance will the United States use torture, I am also sympathetic to Senator McCain's wish to establish a clear set of rules to govern interrogations of persons under the detention of the Department of Defense. With this said, I don't believe it is beneficial to instruct conferees on an issue that is already under negotiations between the White House, Senator McCain and the United States House of Representatives. These negotiations could yield a much more favorable outcome than what Senator McCain originally requested and it also undermines the legislative process. However, if no compromise is agreed to, I would support the McCain language as our policy toward torture.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma (during the Special Order of Mr. King of Iowa). Mr. Speaker, late tonight I discovered there is a problem with my voting card. After returning home, I became aware that my vote was not recorded on roll call votes 661, 659, and 651.

On each of these votes, I am sure I voted ``yes.'' Indeed, I checked my vote on the card receptacle. It clearly showed that I had voted.

I will work with the Parliamentarian to resolve this issue with my voting card at the earliest possible time.