Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will submit into the Record documents in favor of the bill from several labor unions, a Washington Post editorial, and a letter with some figures regarding revenue from the Congressional Budget Office. June 29, 2006. H.R. 4761: Outer Continental Shelf Drilling Our three building trades unions urge your support for H.R. 4761 when the House considers it later today. The bill will essentially lift the current moratorium against off-shore drilling by establishing a new set of drilling criteria which will go a long way in addressing America's energy needs-- particularly in respect to natural gas supply. U.S. manufacturing needs the potential energy which a fully implemented H.R. 4761 can supply to stay competitive in the global economy. As a result, existing U.S. jobs are protected and new jobs can be created to help strengthen our economy. From a building trades perspective, there is another critically important reason to support this bill. For years, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act has been interpreted to allow foreign companies to utilize foreign workers to build and service these oil and gas rigs and platforms without having to consider American workers for these jobs. Led by Resources Committee Chairman Pombo and Representative Abercrombie, there is a provision in the Manager's amendment which modifies the existing OCSLA language to require that American workers be given initial consideration on these large projects before foreign workers are hired. We in the trades have many of the skilled workers who are potentially ready, willing and able to perform these construction and service jobs to extract American resources for American industry. It is important to modify our current law to develop additional U.S. energy supplies. It is equally important to allow American workers a realistic opportunity to perform this construction and service work. H.R. 4761 accomplishes both of these objectives.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, this is an auspicious day, and I am pleased to be able to speak on the rule. I regret in some respects that many of my friends, my dear friends, have a view different than I as to whether or not a positive vote is warranted on the bill. But with regard to the rule, I believe that when the manager's amendment comes forward during debate on the bill that some of the questions that have been raised, legitimate questions that have been raised, will be answered, I hope, to the satisfaction of those who have some doubts about the bill. My reason for standing here today is because I do want to reach out in all sincerity to those who are expressing reservations about the bill to indicate that those of us who have been working on the bill in the Resources Committee understand and appreciate and recognize those fears and anxieties that those in opposition have expressed today, and we have tried to the best of our legislative ability to address them. We respect those who have some reservations at this stage and ask merely that we wait for the debate. The debate, as it comes forward, we think will answer those questions. We are going to try to do it sincerely. For example, on the question of revenues, we have been listening to those who are concerned about revenues to Treasury, and we have addressed it. We believe that the Congressional Budget Office, in its analysis of the bill, has addressed that forthrightly. As for the question about environment, we believe that that has been addressed as well. We ask really for the opportunity to make a full presentation on that, and then we will, of course, respect everybody's judgment. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and tell all of my colleagues and friends who still retain their reservations, we are doing our very best to address the issues that you have raised; and we hope we have done it adequately. In that context, then, I hope some open minds will be kept at this stage; and, most particularly, we ask our friends from California and Florida to recognize that we are doing our level best to address their concerns in a positive way.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, it is an opportunity for me to thank those who helped put this legislation together. I don't want to engage in a refutation of what in some instances can only be termed accusations with respect to the bill. I don't want to reply in a manner which sets us up in a confrontational way but rather to try to put some perspective on this issue, as I see it, as a member of the Resources Committee. I would rather talk about what the bill does do, rather than what its inadequacies might be. I got started in this bill because of my response to the arguments made by Mr. Peterson in committee. We pay attention in committee. Committee hearings and briefings are what gives us the opportunity to educate ourselves, and that is where I came to the table. I didn't know enough about this issue, and I learned about it. What I discovered was, particularly where natural gas was concerned, that we needed to have it. Natural gas is the alternative energy available to us now. It is the bridge to the alternative energy future that we want. None of us are opposing any of the alternatives that have been put forward today. We are saying we have to get there. In order to do that, we have to recognize that lifting the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf is the way to do it. It can be done safely. It can be done responsibly. Issues have been made about revenue. You can't get any revenue when you don't have it coming in; 100 percent of nothing is nothing. Arguing about where the revenue is going to go, whether it is the States in some formula, whether it comes back to the Federal Government, as the Congressional Budget Office now argues the bill does, is something that we can address in time to come when this bill leaves the House and goes to the Senate and hopefully comes back for a conference. No one is dismissing any of the legitimate concerns that have been made by those who are now in opposition to the bill. We can take all those issues up. We have labor support now. Construction trades are for the bill, because we are going to create jobs. When we talk about revenue, numbers have been tossed around and up to today as high as $600 billion. That money is leaving the United States. That money is not here for investment in jobs in the future of our country. If that is in fact what is at stake, if those billions of dollars are at stake, let us put it together in a manner that keeps jobs and that money in this country. Let's seek energy independence in this Nation. The time for natural gas exploration and extrication of energy resources in the Outer Continental Shelf has come. Simply to cite 25 years of saying no, no, no does not solve our problem. So I ask those who have some reservations about today's bill, move this bill forward. We will take up all the considerations that you have raised. Let's move to energy independence in this Nation. Let's move to a time when we can say that we met the responsibilities of our time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have been saying both in debate and on the floor and talking to people that we want to reach out to those who say they are in opposition. But it is difficult to reach out when you have to listen to the kinds of things that are being said here about revenues and all the rest of it. Let us get something straight here. One hundred percent of nothing is nothing. There are no revenues coming in. All of these figures that are being bandied about as if we are losing something, we are not losing anything except energy independence in this country. Now we have reached out to everybody that we wanted to speak to and who has wanted to be honest with us about what we are talking about here today. We are losing jobs by the thousands. Why do you think that American labor is on our side in this? We are losing our petrochemical industries. We are losing our manufacturing base. We are losing our ability to farm, while rich, elite people in this country that support some of these environmental Taliban organizations are out there with the propaganda that is trying to say that some of us that are trying to get to energy independence are the ones that are causing the difficulty. Well, let me tell you something. We are not going to back off on this, and we are not going to listen to lies about revenue and distortions about revenue. We are going to bring revenue into this country and bring energy independence into this country. We are not backing down, and we are not backing off.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I accept you at your word, and reclaiming my time, I hope that this is instructive in the end for us. One of the reasons I like working with Mr. Weldon is I think we bring a certain amount of passion to our work. And as with many other things in our lives, sometimes your virtues are also your vices, so I understand that very, very well. My request is that you think perhaps about withdrawing this amendment. It is not to argue with you about your premises. Believe me, Mr. Flake, I don't do that. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I understand your concerns with regard to whether or not there are full and complete understandings of what we are doing and why we are doing it under the general aegis of earmarks. My point is that this particular designation has had thorough, and I assure you nonpartisan, thorough, complete briefings and hearings. That is the way our subcommittee works on Armed Services. I assure you of that. Again, as I say, everybody's virtue is also their vice; but let me tell you, if it is a vice to go into exquisite detail as to what you are dealing with, then Mr. Weldon, and I guess by extension myself, is guilty of that. I can assure you that if there is an argument on the floor against what we want to do with rotorcraft innovation in research, then I could understand why you wouldn't want to vote for it. But I can assure every Member here, Republican and Democrat alike, that in the Armed Services Subcommittee, on which I am privileged to serve with Mr. Weldon, that we go into the details of what we are doing and why we are doing it. The final point here. The reason that I support this and the reason Mr. Weldon recommended it to the subcommittee and that he succeeded is that the big companies, the big companies don't do the innovation and the research. They really don't. Mr. Hunter in particular, and, again, I have had my differences with Mr. Hunter, but Mr. Young recognizes and Mr. Hunter recognizes that true innovation in this country comes from the small companies. It comes from the research areas that don't necessarily get the big contracts, nor are they sought out by the big companies. They are like the Titanic. They go right down there. And they can be told there's an iceberg, but, boy, they head there anyway by kinetic energy. I can assure you, Mr. Flake, if you would at least consider withdrawing the amendment, this is one time when the research has been done, the background has been done, the hearings have been held, and we are trying to support the true innovative research side with regard to rotorcraft that might not otherwise get the attention that it deserves and what we need to have for our Armed Forces. I can assure you that the ideological content or premise that forms the philosophy upon which you are making these inquiries I have no argument with, and I give you credit for standing up. It is not easy to stand up against the tide coming at you. It is a lot easier to vote against you and walk off and claim victory. I don't do that. I don't take any shots like that at you. I respect you and I understand what you are doing and why you are doing it. But in this instance, my request to you as a ranking member on this subcommittee is that you consider whether or not this might be an instance in which the House is well served and the Nation is well served by its adoption as recommended by the Appropriations Committee. I thank you for your kind attention.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I rise speaking as the ranking member on Mr. Weldon's committee. Mr. Weldon, as my good friend from Arizona now knows, has a deep and abiding interest in this activity. And he is my good friend, that is to say Mr. Weldon, as well as you, Mr. Flake.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I certainly will yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. That is why I am hoping that you would consider in this instance possibly withdrawing it. When you say the process is out of control, I am not going to argue with you about that. I really don't. But this process with this project, I can assure you was totally in control, thoroughly vetted, and the decision that came out of it was I believe unanimous in the committee, and I don't believe received any opposition on the basis that it was done capriciously or arbitrarily or because of the influence of a Member for reasons other than the merits. I can assure you of that, and I make my request once again, and thank you for your time and thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to indicate to one and all who cannot be here today that our legislative hands are tied. We have no opportunity, even though we pleaded with the Rules Committee to give us an opportunity to be able to speak on alternatives to this resolution. You have heard that this resolution is in support of the troops. It is not. You have heard that this resolution is in support of the war on terrorism. It is not. And I will tell you why it is not, and I will tell you why we have to have an alternative and why we need to vote ``no'' on this resolution, because it doesn't support the troops, and it does not support the war on terrorism. The people in this resolution that are referred to, the honored sacrifice that has been made by the Armed Forces of the United States, is supposedly on behalf of somebody called Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, a man who today said he was going to engage in conversations with terrorists who have murdered Americans to give them amnesty. This is the amnesty resolution. To vote for this resolution is to vote for those who support amnesty for those who kill American troops. This is the government we are supposed to be standing up and defending, the very freedom that gives that prime minister the possibility of speaking to the terrorists has been won by the blood and sacrifice of American troops. This is the amnesty bill. This is the amnesty resolution. There are people on this floor who will not grant amnesty to people who cut their lawns, who wash the dishes in the restaurants they eat in; but they are willing to vote for a resolution that says that they support a government that is willing to give amnesty to people who murder the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States. I am not going to do that. And if you disagree with that interpretation, give me the right to put it on the floor for a vote and let's see who wins the hearts and minds of the American people, not the Iraqi people, as to who is really supporting the troops and who is really willing to fight a war on terror. This is nothing but a resolution confirming the existing administration policies. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, you deserve the opportunity on the floor of the people's House to have a real debate, not a discussion, not to echo sentiments, but to have substantive words on the floor that allow the American people to understand what direction do we want to take this country.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the principal issue that is going to be before us as we deal with the overall bill is going to be the lifting of the moratorium, the congressional moratorium with respect to drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. As a supporter of a bill that Mr. Peterson and I hoped to have heard in the Resources Committee that will deal with the issue in a much broader scope, I hope I can bring some level of reality here to what this is all about. Mr. Chairman, it is the quite true, as has been mentioned by previous speakers who want to see this amendment taken out of the overall bill, that 25 years ago the question of drilling 3 miles off of Florida or California or anywhere was an issue, and the reason that the moratorium was put in was to prevent that from happening. But that was 25 years ago, and now the issue is up for reconsideration, not to drill 3 miles, but whether there is going to be any drilling at all and whether it should take place and under what circumstances, given what has happened over the past 25 years. The reason the Peterson amendment is in the overall bill is to give us the opportunity to start that discussion. There will be no drilling off of Florida or anyplace else if we pass this bill. It just gives us the opportunity to begin a discussion as to whether we should reconsider that position and where it should happen. That is what is at issue here, lifting the congressional moratorium. There is still a Presidential moratorium against it; there is still a 5-year plan that has to be implemented. We need to consider whether we want to continue with that particular approach. So what we are asking for is every Member here to be able to vote his or her own views on whether we can have a discussion on this issue. Our problem, Mr. Chairman, is, particularly for those of us who are Democrats, that we are in the grip now of an assault by an environmental Taliban out there that has absolute revealed wisdom as to what is involved with us trying to achieve an independent energy source that we can have as an alternative energy source right now in our country, and not be in the grip of people around the world who wish us ill with regard to energy. All we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to discuss this issue. If we defeat the Peterson amendment or have it taken out and pass the Capps-Putnam amendment and whatever other amendments are associated with it, we won't have the chance to even begin a discussion about whether natural gas is an alternative independent source of energy that we need to have now. That is what our request is. Let us have this discussion. Keep the Peterson amendment in the bill so we can begin the discussion and have the hearings that Mr. Davis and others indicated they would like to have. I agree with them. I think Members know me for a long time, I would never try to embarrass somebody else or put somebody else in a position of saying, look, I am right and you are wrong and I have the only position possible. That is not what it is about. We need to have this discussion. Let us defeat the Capps-Putnam amendment so that we can have this discussion. Mr. Chairman, I hope that everybody understands this is not a Democratic-Republican issue; this is an American issue about independent energy resources for this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am standing here on what is normally the Republican side to emphasize, and I have said this right from the very beginning when Mr. Peterson and I have tried to deal with this issue in the Resources Committee, that is not a Republican and Democratic issue. And I think you can see from the fact that people have come to both sides here tonight to speak about it that it is not a Democrat and Republican issue. This is an issue of trying to come to a sensible conclusion on what American policy should be. And believe me, I think I am in a good position to say to folks that I can appreciate the fact that tourism is on the minds of our good friends from Florida and from California and elsewhere in the country, particularly around the coasts. I do not think that anybody is as close to tourism or is closer, I should say, to tourism in terms of their representation than myself. So the issue is what should we do and what can be done to advance America's independence with regard to energy and what at the same time can protect our constituents in a way that we can all be compatible with? I think what needs to be said and has not been said tonight are what some of the origins of our difficulties are. Right now the Republicans have their particular difficulties with certain segments, factions, as our Founding Fathers and mothers said, factions that come in. You have got your problems. Certain people have religious views. What we have on the Democratic side are other people with religious views. We have environmental Talibans out there now who have revealed wisdom with regard to drilling, in this instance, for natural gas, and you cannot thwart them. You cannot stand up and say let us have a discussion to see whether that really represents today's reality. That is all this is about. Believe me, no one, Mr. Peterson, myself, nor any other advocate, wants to drill 3 miles off of anybody's coastline. What this gives us the opportunity to do is to have a responsible conversation in the Resources Committee about whether or not we should move forward with natural gas extraction and exploration and, if so, how should we do it in a way that is responsible to everyone? So what I ask is please allow us to begin that conversation by not supporting the amendment and allowing us to move to the Resources Committee to have the discussion Mr. Putnam has requested. We are with you and we would like to be able to do it. Environment Lifting the moratoria will not allow production 3 miles off of the coast. This is only the first step and will provide for discussion and consideration of the kinds of restrictions that are needed for responsible production. Mr. Peterson and I have introduced legislation to give States a 20-mile buffer zone and 40 percent revenue sharing for producing States. Natural gas-only drilling is possible and takes place in Canada on the Great Lakes and will begin next year in the Barents Sea by Norway. Drill cuttings are contained and shipped to shore for proper disposal, not left to pollute the ocean and hurt marine life. This disposal technology is used throughout the world and was recognized by a blue ribbon panel of judges from the U.S. Coast Guard, the Minerals Management Service and the National Academy of Sciences' Marine Board as an outstanding contribution to safety and protection of the environment. Eighty percent of known resources are already open to development. This is based on 40-year-old estimates that are hopelessly out of date. New technology, 3-D seismic and the like, could give better estimates, but MMS is prohibited by the appropriations moratorium from conducting physical assessments in those areas. Jobs and the Economy The Putnam amendment is opposed by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers; Sheet Metal Workers International Association; Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; and the Forest Products Industry National Labor Management Committee. Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the highest in the world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the global market. The Department of Commerce estimates that during 2000-04, natural gas price increases reduced civilian employment by an average of 489,000 jobs/year. Losses in the manufacturing sector accounted for 16 percent of that loss, 79,000 jobs per year. Building and Construction Trades Department, American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, May 18, 2006. Dear Representative: On behalf of the affiliated unions of the Building and Construction Trades Department and the millions of union members and their families whose livelihoods depend on affordable natural gas, I am writing to ask you to stand up for the American worker and vote against the Putnam-Capps Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill. Putnam-Capps is a slap in the face of every union member who works in an industry that is losing business due to the high price of natural gas. Manufacturing industries consume large amounts of natural gas to power their equipment, and as a raw ingredient that goes into thousands of manufactured goods. Union workers make the production, distribution and consumption of those goods possible. Since 2000, U.S. natural gas prices have been the highest in the world. U.S. companies--and U.S. workers--are at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the global market. Industrial production is shutting down or moving overseas and more than three million manufacturing jobs have disappeared in that time. The cause for high U.S. natural gas prices is a severe imbalance between supply and demand. U.S. government policy pushes up demand by encouraging new uses for natural gas, including electricity generation, ethanol and hydrogen. At the same time, Congress severely restricts access to new supplies. In the absence of new supply, new sources of demand are driving traditional industrial demand out of the market, wiping out union jobs in the process. Supporters of the Putnam-Capps Amendment are turning a blind eye to the problem and they are jeopardizing millions of good paying union jobs by prohibiting access to new sources of natural gas supply. For the Building Trades, offshore natural gas production is first and foremost a jobs issue. If you support keeping good- paying union jobs in the USA, you will vote against the Putnam-Capps, Amendment. Sincerely, Edward C. Sullivan, President.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, thank you for considering S. 1165 on the floor today. By authorizing the expansion of the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, NWR, we are protecting endangered and migratory birds from the effects of an increasingly urban island. Located on the northern end of the island of Oahu, the Campbell NWR is the premier recovery area on the island for all four endangered Hawaiian waterbirds. The refuge consists of approximately 241 acres of naturally occurring, spring-fed marsh and manmade ponds in two separate parcels. Although the refuge was established specifically to benefit the endangered Hawaiian stilt (ae`o), coot (`alae ke`oke`o), moorhen (`alae `ula), and duck (koloa maoli), it also provides essential habitat for at least 25 species of wintering migratory birds coming from as far away as Alaska, New Zealand, and Asia. The expansion proposed by S. 1165 would connect these two parcels, providing a protected flyway and essential habitat. The expansion would also incorporate significant coastal property and preserve the last remaining large scale sand dune ecosystem. This boundary enlargement will preserve native strand species as well as coastal wildlife such as threatened green sea turtles, seabirds, migratory shorebirds and possibly the threatened Hawaiian monk seal. As a dual benefit, this expansion would also help protect the neighboring town of Kahuku from devastating floods. The refuge expansion serves as an important component of the Kahuku flood control project by increasing drainage capacity and preserving the floodwater retention of these protected wetlands. In turn, the flood mitigation project could potentially enhance the wetland area to ensure maximum production and survival of endangered Hawaiian waterbird populations. The importance of this added benefit has been made clear as recent rains in Hawaii have flooded the town of Kahuku along with its schools and homes. The Campbell NWR is a haven to endangered and migratory birds. Its expansion would further the goals of the refuge and the Refuge System while helping to protect an adjacent town from intermittent flooding. I would also like to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their support and efforts in addressing this issue. I respectfully request my colleagues to support this measure and its intent to protect the wildlife on the north shore of Oahu.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter and Mr. Skelton for the opportunity. I stand here today in support of the bill moving forward, but I have a caveat that I hope will be able to be addressed before we come to a final conclusion. As the chairman knows, my original opposition was to what has been termed the ``bridge fund''; upon reconsideration, I have become a strong advocate of it. For those not familiar with it, the bridge fund is a legitimate methodology for the authorizing committee to deal with the actual cost of deployments of our Armed Forces throughout the world. Presently, the bridge fund will deal only with approximately 6 months' worth of costs associated, expenditures associated, with these deployments. As a result then we will have to take up yet another supplemental budget, probably just after the first of the year, within a month or so, and that will, in turn, find us dealing with other requests, other emergencies, that will be included in this so-called supplemental budget. It is not an emergency that we need funding for for our deployments overseas, but rather an admission and an acknowledgment of the true costs of these deployments overseas. So, Mr. Chairman, I most certainly urge that we move the bill along and, at the same time, then take up this question of being straightforward and honest with the American people as to what the true costs are of our deployments and to see to it that the military does not have to cannibalize the existing budget and take us away from what I consider 100 percent support of the troops 50 percent of the time. I believe, even though I am in opposition to much of what is the foundation for support, the irony in this is that those like myself who did not support the effort in Iraq as undertaken and have serious reservations about how the war is being conducted, the military action is being conducted in Afghanistan, are actually being sustained in our position; rather than finding support for those who originally were for the war in Iraq or think that we are doing the right thing in Afghanistan, that position is being undermined because we are not being straightforward with people as to what the true costs are. There is a case of unease in the American public, I think, with regard to our present policies in Iraq and Afghanistan because we do not have a straightforward, honest approach with the American people as to what the costs are. I believe the American people will pay any costs to protect our security if they feel that we are being honest and straightforward about it. We need to do that. We need to bring the bridge fund in our authorization up to the actual cost, and not undermine the good work that has been on this bill this year. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking minority member of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the HASC, I am pleased to support H.R. 5122. I also want to commend my chairman and partner on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, Congressman Kurt Weldon, for his nonpartisan approach to our subcommittee's portion' of this bill. The procurement and research portions of this bill that the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee oversees strikes an effective balance between getting our troops the equipment they need, ensuring that the equipment works, and ensuring that it is all acquired at a price the Nation can afford. Striking this balance is always difficult, but given the pressure on the DOD budget from the war in Iraq, this was an especially challenging year. I am pleased to support the procurement and research aspects of this bill as a good-government approach to making tough decisions when funds are limited. This bill is a significant improvement over the procurement and research budget presented by the President in two critical ways. First, it is a more straightforward document that lays out what the committee decided the military's priorities should be, and what funding these priorities will actually cost. Second, it shifts funding from programs that are simply not working and moves those funds to programs that are working and are delivering effective equipment to the troops in the field today. With troops in combat the Congress has a non-negotiable obligation to weigh in heavily on the side of immediate and near-term needs of the military. There are two programs that this bill takes some significant funding away from, and I want to address the committee's reasoning on these reductions, because they were both difficult decisions. The first is the Army's Future Combat System, which this bill cuts by $325 million. I want to be clear that this is not a move to punish the Army. Everyone on this committee recognizes that the Army is carrying the heaviest burden in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms lives lost and dollars spent. Every member of this committee also wants to ensure we have an Army that is ready today and prepared for the challenges of the future. The problem is that the Army simply has too many bills to pay and not enough funding to cover all of them. Difficult choices had to be made. The second program cut is to the VH-71 ``Presidential Helicopter'' program. This rather modest cut is based on the committee's concern that this program is being pushed too fast and is taking test and development risks that are clearly not appropriate and could be outright dangerous. I want to make it absolutely clear that the goal of this cut and some language in the bill is not to kill the program, or even scale back its size. Instead, it is a reflection of this committee's support for the principle of ``fly before you buy'' that must be followed, especially for a helicopter the President of the United States is going to fly in. Given the demands of an ongoing war and the need to continue to buy and develop new equipment, this bill strikes an appropriate balance given the funding available. Despite my support for the bill, I did want to caveat that support in one important aspect: the lack of an authorization in this bill for the full-year cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In each of the past two years, the Congress has put some of the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the normal authorization and appropriations process. The rest of the funding for the year, however, has come through very large supplemental appropriations bills that the Armed Services Committee has been unable to oversee properly. I have supported all of the Defense authorization and Defense Appropriations bills done under our normal budget procedures since the war in Iraq began. Putting the money in the normal budget would be best, but the ``bridge fund'' mechanism in the legislation before us today is arguably a reasonable middle ground between funding purely through supplementals and the normal budget process. Chairman Hunter deserves credit for coming up with this more honest approach. This year, for whatever reason, the Administration only requested $50 billion in additional funding in FY 2007 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This total is reflected in the bill as reported by the committee. During committee consideration of this bill, I had an amendment that sought to increase the amount of the bridge fund to $92 billion so that it would reflect the likely full-year cost of combat operations overseas. Unfortunately this amendment was voted down by the majority. Having a more realistic full-year figure in this bill would have improved this legislation's relevance and honesty. The troops overseas and the American people deserve to know what our best estimate of the cost of these wars will be in 2007. Continuing to rely on massive supplemental, so-called ``emergency'' spending bills to pay for the war is both dishonest and fiscally unsound. I believe that the American people are willing to sacrifice to get the troops the funds they need, but instead of asking all Americans to sacrifice we are instead using a budget shell game to hide the real cost of the war. This shell game also allows massive tax cuts for the wealthy during a war which we are borrowing money from other nations to pay for. Funding the war in this manner is saddling our children and grandchildren with a massive debt that they will have to payoff in the future. Overall, the bill before us today is a good bill, but choosing to only authorize 6 months of funding for the troops in the field is like saying to them that the Congress supports you 100 percent for 50 percent of the year. I do not think that is the message that the House wants to send.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 692, a resolution to commend the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and grave sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. In 1947, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) became one of six entities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established by the United Nations with the U.S. as the Trustee. This began a decades- long relationship between the U.S. and RMI that has proven to be resilient and enduring. In particular, I'd like to highlight the U.S. nuclear testing program in RMI which began in 1946. Over the years, the U.S. detonated 67 nuclear weapons on the islands of Bikini and Enewetak. These tests comprise 80 percent of all atmospheric tests conducted by the United States. On March 1, 1954, the hydrogen weapons test code-named ``Bravo'' yielded explosive power approximately 1,000 times greater than the weapon used in the 1945 wartime nuclear attack on Hiroshima, Japan. The Bravo test created a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter, produced a crater 6,000 feet in diameter, and vaporized 6 islands at the Bikini Atoll. Radiation from the test forced the evacuation of Marshallese and U.S. military personnel on Rongelap, Rongerik, Utirik and Ailinginae. This responsibility shouldered by the Marshallese people allowed a majority of all tests to be conducted as far from densely populated areas as possible and helped bring about a peaceful end to the Cold War. Over the years, the Marshallese have faced very serious consequences as a result of the nuclear testing. The health and property effects have proved to be extensive and in many cases, immeasurable. The U.S. has recognized this and set up a fund to compensate those affected by the testing. However, the consequences of this testing, especially the health of the Marshallese people, continue to be impacted. In particular, the Section 177 Health Care Program is in urgent need of increased funding. Intended to provide comprehensive medical care, including cancer care, for the four communities most affected by the nuclear weapons testing program, this healthcare program has fallen woefully short of its intended goals. Spending approximately $12 per patient per month, the needs of this program are immediate and urgent. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our countries will continue to work on this issue and find a resolution. I also have no doubt that the relationship between our governments will continue to be productive and mutually beneficial. As our alliance continues in the coming decades, I urge the United States to step up and meet its obligations to the people of the RMI. With all the sacrifices they have made for the United States and continue to make each day, it is the very least the United States can do. I urge my colleagues to join me in commending the people of the Marshall Islands and acknowledge their profound sacrifices. We must continue our efforts to restore the health and lands of the people of the Marshall Islands.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to amplify my formal statement with a few personal observations. The chairman has kindly indicated some of the history of Senator Fong. It is interesting when I look down and see the word Hiram L. Fong, because he is so much of the history of Hawaii, we all think of him as Senator Fong. As has been noted, he was the seventh of 11 children of an immigrant family. If there was ever a story of Hawaii, of our rainbow people and our aloha spirit, it is Hiram Fong. He worked a lot of jobs and worked his way through school and did very, very well. He founded not only a prominent law firm but founded as well what became a financial empire. I have some real interest in it because the very first campaign that I ever ran was funded by Senator Fong's Finance Factors. I went down to get a loan. I thought if I was going to run against him, I thought the least I could do, in the spirit of bipartisanship, was to ask him to help fund my campaign. As a graduate student at the University of Hawaii, I went down to borrow $50. They said we cannot lend you $50, we have to lend you $200 if we are going to make any money on this. So I said, I will take it. I was able to run my very first campaign on Hiram Fong's dime, although I should say nickel, because that is what I passed out in the streets of Honolulu to represent the inflation that I thought we were going to have to deal with in those days. That was an innocent time. Senator Fong was always gracious. Senator Fong was always able to reach out. As has been noted, he was elected as a Republican in a very Democratic State. He was supported in great measure and elected in great measure with the support of labor in Hawaii. Most particularly, the ILWU, the International Longshoremen Workers Union, testifying in favor of the establishment of a commission in 2005, after he passed away, to honor and recognize him as a political, business and community leader testified, ``The Senator was a successful businessman and a Republican who never forgot his humble beginnings. He was a strong supporter of civil rights and often crossed the aisle to cooperate on issues important to Hawaii's unions and workers.'' Senator Hiram Fong came to the United States Senate with the arrival of Hawaii as the last State of the Union. Probably nothing could be more fitting than to recognize him today through this legislation and the pioneer effort that he made. Yes, the last State to enter the Union had as its first Senator the son of an immigrant family who came from China looking for opportunity, looking for justice, and found it in the person of their son, and a true son of Hawaii, Hiram Fong.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2089, a bill to designate a post office in Honolulu, Hawaii, after Senator Hiram L. Fong. This is a fitting tribute for a man who was a great statesman, businessman and community leader. Senator Fong was born on October 15, 1906, in Kalihi. He was the seventh of 11 children in an immigrant family. A firm believer of standing on his own feet, he worked numerous odd jobs while in public school in order to help support his family. He worked his way through the University of Hawaii where he graduated with honors in 1930. He went on to Harvard Law School and became the state and county Deputy Attorney General of Honolulu for three years. At the age of 31, Senator Fong began his public service career by serving in Hawaii's Territorial House of Representatives. His ability to work well with both Democrats and Republicans was quickly identified and he was elected Speaker of the House during his first term in office. In 1959, he was elected to the first of three consecutive terms in the U.S. Senate. Senator Fong never forgot his humble beginnings and was an ardent supporter of labor rights. Despite being a Republican, Senator Fong enjoyed widespread support from the labor unions, particularly the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) which endorsed Senator Fong's candidacy to Congress and campaigned for his reelection. Senator Fong played an integral role in Hawaii becoming the 50th state and worked on many landmark laws such as the authorization of the Interstate Highway System and the establishment of the East-West Center. Senator Fong's work and leadership will impact generations to come and it is with great honor that I rise to support S. 2089 in recognition of his leadership and service to this country. I ask my colleagues to support this measure and appreciate the House's attention to the life and work of this great man.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the defense authorization bill conference report for fiscal year 2006. The bill includes language regarding U.S. policy concerning the war in Iraq, which reflects substantially House Joint Resolution 55 of which I am a prime cosponsor, with regard to phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq during calendar year 2006. There is also language in this bill that clearly lays out how detainees in the custody of the U.S. Government will be treated. However, it does not address the question of the outsourcing torture or contracting with third parties for interrogation and detention not subject to the provisions of this bill. We will pay a heavy price in terms of world condemnation for this deliberate omission when such activities are revealed. There are several measures to improve the oversight of major acquisition programs for the Department of Defense. Each year the nation gives the Pentagon hundreds of billions of dollars, and each year the Pentagon spends a good portion of that money buying things: ships, planes, tanks, helicopters, and other items. Unfortunately, in recent years almost every single high-profile defense acquisition program has experienced cost overruns, performance shortfalls, or testing problems. I believe that one reason for these problems is that Congress hasn't done everything it could to make sure that these important programs stay on track and that the companies building the systems deliver what they promise to deliver. At the end of the day, this is about getting our troops in the field what they need, when they need it. Making sure this happens is one of Congress' primary Constitutional duties. I am pleased then that this year, the defense authorization bill puts measures in place that will improve Congress' visibility of several major programs that are facing challenges, including the Future Combat System, the Joint Tactical Radio System, and the new Presidential helicopter. In each case, both myself and my subcommittee chairman Congressman Curt Weldon, are committed to making sure that these programs deliver the capability our military needs at a price we can afford. I am also encouraged that for the first time, this bill requires the Department of Defense and the military services to report back to us on options for moving to a capital budgeting approach for defense acquisition, which I have advocated. Today, the DOD is one of the few government entities in the United States that continues to cash-finance the purchase of multi-million dollar capital items such as ships and aircraft. As I've pointed out many times during committee discussions, this cash-financing and budgeting system is leading the Department to make poor decisions on major capital acquisition programs. In effect, the way we budget for new equipment is determining what we end up buying. That is a completely backwards system and one that needs to change. The conference report before us today will require the DOD and the Armed Services to take a serious look at using an alternative, modern, and more flexible capital budgeting approach that will help the DOD get our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs. As I indicated earlier, this bill includes language in Section 1227 on U.S. Policy in Iraq that I think represents bipartisan agreement with House Joint Resolution 55, which I introduced with Congressman Walter Jones this past June. Joint Resolution 55 called for the President to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006. Similarly, the bill before us today says that: ``Calendar Year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' I think the bipartisan support in Congress for a phased redeployment and the President's eventual signature for this measure should signal a significant step toward getting US troops out of Iraq. I'm pleased that despite the recent White House overheated rhetoric about ``total'' or ``complete'' victory and casting aspersions on the patriotism of those opposed to this war that we may finally be at a point where we can all agree that in 2006 US troops will begin to come home from Iraq. If the President signs this bill it follows that support for this language requires beginning the drawdown of US forces in Iraq as soon as possible. Again, as I indicated earlier, this bill contains language clarifying how individuals detained and held by the United States Government will be treated and interrogated. The language originally sponsored by Senator John McCain that prohibits ``cruel, inhumane, or degrading'' treatment of prisoners is retained in the conference report in its original form. However, while I'm pleased that this language is included in the bill--after the President threatened to veto this very same language--I am troubled by an issue that this bill does not address. This issue is the issue of whether or not the United States condones, by default, the torture of prisoners by ``outsourcing'' interrogations to other nations. The technique of handing over prisoners in our custody to other countries is called ``extraordinary rendition,'' and has been described in numerous press reports. In some cases, it may even be an appropriate way to deal with a prisoner wanted for crimes in their home country. However, what happens to those prisoners when they leave U.S. custody is not addressed in this bill in any way. As a result, while the bill prohibits people in our direct custody and control from being tortured, it is silent--and thus, complicit--with regard to our handing over prisoners to other nations so that they can be tortured on our behalf. So, while we have made some progress with regard to making it clear to our military and intelligence services how they are to treat prisoners in our custody, I am concerned that this bill doesn't go far enough. I intend to support this bill today based on what is in it, but I want to make it clear that Congress must, as soon as possible, deal with the issue of the outsourcing of torture. If Congress does not do so soon, there will likely be some kind of incident somewhere involving a prisoner in our care that is handed over to another country and is subsequently tortured, or even killed. When that happens, if Congress has remained silent on this issue the United States will suffer another needless defeat in the court of global public opinion. When that happens, millions around the world may conclude that Congress condones the outsourcing of torture simply because we have chosen not to act to stop it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, Whereas Don Ho is one of Hawaii's and the world's best known and most beloved musical performers; Whereas Don Ho has entertained and shared Hawaii's Aloha Spirit with millions of visitors to the State and others around the world; Whereas, after being discharged from the United States Air Force, Don Ho received his start in show business at Honey's cocktail lounge in Kaneohe, Hawaii; Whereas in 1962, Don Ho began performing at Duke's in Waikiki, which became his home venue; Whereas Don Ho has for years been backed by the five Aliis playing piano, drums, guitars, xylophone, and other instruments; Whereas Don Ho's fame and popularity has earned him triumphant engagements at the Cocoanut Grove in Hollywood, the Sands in Las Vegas, Harrah's at Lake Tahoe, the Palmer House in Chicago, the Americana Hotel's Royal Box in New York; Whereas, Don Ho has made guest television guest appearances with Johnny Carson, Joey Bishop and Art Linkletter Be it Resolved that the House of Representatives: (1) Congratulates Don Ho on his splendid career; (2) Recognizes Don Ho for his efforts to share Hawaii's Aloha Spirit with his audiences and others around the world; and (3) Conveys its best wishes for continuing success in his musical career. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor my old friend for his impressive musical career and his iconic status as the undisputed king of Waikiki entertainers. For over 40 years Don Ho has entertained audiences in Waikiki, sharing his Aloha Spirit by singing ``Tiny Bubbles'' as well as his other favorite songs. He casts a spell on audiences through his blend of trademark humor, charm and vocal talents. He continues to mesmerize audiences today. Don Ho's magical persona captures audiences' enthusiasm with each performance through laughter and song. He is charismatic and personable, and he converses with everyone like there's no one else in the room. He is a beloved son of Hawaii, and I look forward to his next performance at the Waikiki Beachcomber. Much love and aloha to Don and his family.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is confused, it is the first time in my entire relationship when such was the condition.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question. Is there a question as to whether there is proper jurisdiction? If there is, would not the Parliamentarian have ruled that we are out of order now and not carry forward?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is really a little bit beneath what our committee represents on armed services to think that Mr. Skelton would be responding to headlines. Mr. Skelton brings this motion because of what was in the Senate bill that was supposed to be under consideration for us during conference, a conference which we have not had. Geneva Convention in our known facilities? Perhaps that is true. I expect it is true and it should be true, but that is what we are talking about. Mr. Rumsfeld routinely responds to these questions on behalf of the Department of Defense. This question is before us because it is in the bill that we have to take up by way of conference. And the question that needs to be answered I raised publicly with the chairman while Senator Warner was there and while Ms. Harman was there. I asked does this language or anything having to do with the accusations that have been made whether in the newspapers or elsewhere, does any of that find its way into this bill, into our conference discussions in a way that deals with the outsourcing of torture, with renditions, a word which is now coming into our nomenclature, where we send people out for others to do it. That is at stake here and is clearly and explicitly involved in the motion to instruct. That is what we are trying to deal with.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.