C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have two requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the vice chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XXII, I move that meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on H.R. 5631 be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be broached, providing that any sitting Member of the Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5631) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 994 Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 994, legislation that recognizes September 11th as a national day of mourning and service in remembrance of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on that dark day in American history and of those too who have paid the ultimate price in our ongoing war against global terrorism. With this resolution, we also honor the heroic actions of the first responders, law enforcement personnel, volunteers and others who aided the innocent victims and bravely risked their own lives and health to help the victims of terrorist attacks in our Nation's Capital, New York City, and the fields of Pennsylvania. We also express our ongoing thanks for our men and women who serve our Nation in uniform in military service, as intelligence personnel, and as law enforcement officials as they continue to put their lives on the line every day here at home and around the world in the war on terrorism. This is indeed a global war and we also give thanks for all the nations of the world who have joined in this effort. These efforts have met with tremendous success as our combined forces have thwarted a number of major terrorist organizations and specific planned attacks against American targets and our allies. We cannot, however, lessen our resolve if we are to successfully search out and eliminate these terrorists and their terror cells. In adopting this resolution, we vow to remain vigilant in this war against terrorists and commit to providing every resource they require to win this fight. We also reaffirm our commitment to never forget the tragic loss of human life on September 11th and in doing so continue to fight the war against terrorists in their memory, never succumbing to the fear they generate. Mr. Speaker, on that dark day, the American people came together as one in a way we have never seen in our Nation's history. We put politics and ideology aside and focused our attention on securing our Nation, healing our wounded, and consoling our grieving. My hometown newspaper The St. Petersburg Times was right on the mark in its editorial Monday, saying, ``On this anniversary, we would do well to put aside our rancorous divisions and crazy conspiracy theories and reflect on that post-9/11 period when Americans came together in purpose and spirit and much of the world felt our pain, even if it all was too brief. That memory is worth holding on to.'' This editorial, which I will include in its entirety following my remarks, correctly states that we can never go all the way back to the way things were before terrorists struck here on our soil. However, the Times calls upon us as a nation to go back to that time five years ago in renewing our national unity to secure our shores and rebuff the threat of fear and destruction from cowardly terrorists in saying: ``But we can--and we must--hold on to the values and the spirit that some call American exceptionalism. The terrorists would like nothing better than to see us surrender our most precious freedoms and bedrock values to fear. So on this fifth anniversary of that day of unspeakable savagery, let us remember how we felt on Sept. 12, 2001, not the fear and heartbreak so much as the unity and purpose we shared. Only then can we take a full measure of our loss.'' Mr. Speaker, we recall that after 9/11 my colleagues and I in the Congress authorized the President to do whatever he deemed necessary to fight this new war on terrorism. Those who are engaged in this war today are patriots and we must all support them. While I support our current operations, I know that we have people in this country who disagree with our current war on terror. And you know what? They are patriots too. Those who agree with the President, they are patriots. Those who disagree with the President, they are patriots. Those who agree with me are patriots. Those who disagree with me are patriots. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, we are concerned about our homeland and our security. And by and large everyone who remains engaged in this great debate is showing themselves to be patriots in their care and concern for our country and our men and women in uniform. Let that be one of the most important lessons of September 11, 2001. While we may continue to disagree at times, let us give thanks for the freedom to disagree and at the end of the day come together in unity to support the brave men and women in all branches of service who fight the scourge of terrorism here and abroad. This can and should be the lasting tribute to all those who lost their lives five years ago. [From the St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 11, 2006] Freedom From Fear Five years ago today, on a lovely September morning, bolts of terror came out of a clear, blue sky. Nineteen men armed only with box cutters hijacked four passenger airliners and rammed three of them into the symbols of American military and financial might. Two of the planes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York in a horrifying spectacle. A third plane demolished a wing of the Pentagon. A fourth, United Flight 93, believed to be headed for Washington, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after passengers rose up against the hijackers, In less than an hour, 3,000 people died that day. That was the day terrorism came to America, and we haven't been the same since. Neither has much of the world. Since then, terrorists have struck in London and Madrid and Indonesia, among other places--nothing as spectacular as 9/11 but still lethal to hundreds of innocents. But they have not hit the United States again, not that anyone doubts that they have been trying. President Bush said last week that scores of terrorist plots have been foiled, and that while America is safer than it was five years ago, it is still not safe. Will it ever be in a world of suicidal maniacs? On this anniversary, we would do well to put aside our rancorous divisions and crazy conspiracy theories and reflect on that post-9/11 period when Americans came together in purpose and spirit and much of the world felt our pain, even if it all was too brief. That memory is worth holding on to. There was something unreal about watching the horror of that day unfold on television. Who can forget the sight of people leaping to their deaths from the top floors of the burning twin towers? Or of the first responders-- firefighters, police officers and rescue workers--who heroically braved smoke and fire and dust in their desperate attempt to reach any survivors? Americans lined up to donate blood and gave generously to aid the families of the victims. We knew the endless kindness of strangers. In Washington, bitter partisanship gave way to unity and the debate over domestic priorities was crushed by the question of how to protect the homeland from madmen bent on mass destruction. The world wept with us and for us as they saw America as a victim instead of an arrogant superpower. Iranians held candlelight vigils to express support for the American people. Germans marched in the street to show solidarity. In France, a front-page editorial in Le Monde, reliably anti- American on most things, proclaimed: ``We Are All Americans.'' The world stayed with us when Bush launched a ``just war'' in Afghanistan, where the Taliban was protecting Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists. Sadly, the good that came out of 9/11 was not to last. It began to unravel after the president, with the approval of most congressional Democrats, chose to go to war against Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. World opinion turned against us, and as Iraq became a huge debacle, Americans turned on each other. America has taken quite a beating in world opinion in recent years on everything from prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo to secret CIA prisons abroad and warrantless eavesdropping at home. The debate over balancing our liberties and our security rages on in Washington, and America's image in the world has been badly tarnished. We can never go back to the way things were before 9/11--or even to the way we were in the immediate aftermath of that calamity. It's hard to imagine a future not chilled by the threat of terrorism, which started as a cause and has now metastasized into a mentality among Islamic extremists. But we can--and we must--hold on to the values and the spirit that some call American exceptionalism. The terrorists would like nothing better than to see us surrender our most precious freedoms and bedrock values to fear. So on this fifth anniversary of that day of unspeakable savagery, let us remember how we felt on Sept. 12, 2001, not the fear and heartbreak so much as the unity and purpose we shared. Only then can we take a full measure of our loss.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, in my enthusiasm for the manager's amendment, I transposed a number. I said the military mission line would protect 325 miles. It is actually 235 miles, which is still a good deal for Florida; but I just wanted to correct that I did transpose the number.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, with adoption of the manager's amendment, this bill is going to give Floridians protection for their coast that we haven't ever had before. And I think it is important to note that some of our colleagues from Florida have misrepresented exactly what this bill is going to do. We have fought since 1983 to maintain a moratorium off Florida's Gulf Coast against drilling of any kind. This manager's amendment, and this bill, will guarantee that off of Florida's west coast, a district that I represent, Mr. Bilirakis represents, others represent, there will be a protection zone of 235, get this, 235 miles because in the manager's amendment the so-called military mission line is put into statute. It is made permanent and anything east of that line in the Gulf of Mexico there will be no drilling. So Florida's west coast is protected far and above where we had originally requested, 235 miles. That is a lot of protection. And this manager's amendment makes this bill good for Florida.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order, reluctantly, I might say, against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for an earmark that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I ask for the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman that, as he knows, this is something we had intended to do in the committee, and it is important that we do it at this point; so we accept this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 73, line 5 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment. The type of warfare that we are involved in now is different than army-against-army or squad-against-squad and actually is an urban type of warfare street-by-street, and seeking out individuals who may be in hiding. Law enforcement does this extremely well. The FBI or the local police or these folks, they do a really good job at this because that is what they do, seek out criminals. It is probably a pretty good idea that we give our military troops some training from experts who really know something about how to do this street-by-street seeking out terrorists who are in hiding. So I think it does have a military application and I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Connecticut has made a strong and convincing policy argument for building two submarines each year sooner than the year 2012, and we have discussed this off and on for the last several weeks. He is very, very persuasive. So I can assure him that I will continue to work with him as we prepare to go to conference and go to conference to address the shortage of submarines in our Navy. I am a very strong advocate of our submarine capability. I think that is one of the best deterrence systems that we have, one of the best military systems, and I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Connecticut on this issue. As I said, we have had many conversations about this. I know of no better champion of submarines in the House than Congressman Simmons. But as we have discussed, the 302(b) allocation for this subcommittee was $4 billion less than the administration requested, so that made a shortage of funds. Anyway, Mr. Simmons has made a very strong case and I do intend to work with him because I also believe that we should have a larger submarine fleet. I go back to the days of President Ronald Reagan, who thought we should have a 600-ship Navy, which we don't have today, but I supported that as well. And I certainly support increasing the size of our submarine fleet. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue and doing the good job that he has done in making this case.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this, it is my understanding, would be the last amendment to be considered on this bill today, and I wanted to just a minute to thank everyone who participated in the debate. It has been a lively debate all day. A lot of good arguments were made on both sides of the various issues, but it is a good example of how intense this bill really is. It is a very large bill. It includes an lawful lot of important material for the security of our Nation, to provide our troops with the best equipment possible, to provide them with the best training possible, to provide them with the best protective gear possible. It is a bipartisan bill, one that was put together with the cooperation of all of the Members of both parties on the subcommittee. It was approved unanimously by the full committee. I want to compliment all the Members, especially of the subcommittee, who worked so hard to make this a good bill. I want to thank the staff who was led on our side by John Shank and on Mr. Murtha's side by David Morrison, and the staff that worked with them. They are 24/7 workers, and they are extremely well-qualified and dedicated to the job that they do. So thank you for a good day, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to especially compliment you on the excellent way that you have conducted the affairs of the committee this afternoon.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but we are talking in circles. We are not even talking about some of the main issues that are before us. The sponsor of the amendment just admitted that we are talking about an authorization. This is an appropriations bill. This should be done at an authorization committee where you all are.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response to the gentlewoman's question, as Mr. Murtha suggested, we look for every way that we can to enhance the quality of life for the members of our military, to get as many pay increases and as many benefits as we can, because we recognize how important that these heroes are, these warriors are, to the security of our Nation. I thank the gentlewoman for bringing up this issue, but I would say Mr. Murtha and I have looked for every opportunity we can to make things better for those who serve in our military.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the original language I thought was extremely important at the time that it was adopted by the House. It was adopted as an amendment by Mr. Obey in 1997. But I believe that probably it has outlived its necessity. I would say to the gentlewoman that we will agree to this amendment. However, I would like to advise her and the House that as we move to the conference on this bill, we are going to be extremely involved in determining that the protection of our technology will be very, very positive. This aircraft, this weapons system, has a lot of great technology that we have to protect. So we have to work out the proper language, and we will do that as we go through the conference. We are willing to accept the amendment with that understanding.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. For those of us who have visited our wounded soldiers and marines in the hospitals understand the importance of the type of injury you are discussing. Sometimes it is very obvious, very evident, and sometimes it is not obvious at all, but it is there. I believe we can help with what you want to do here. I believe as we write our conference report that will come with the conference product. I think we can direct what it is that you want to see directed, and I am prepared to offer that as we go into the conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Just a minute. It is under my reservation. Let us bring this to a close. We can repeat our arguments so many times. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the other Members get their own time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I read the amendment about Iran, but I heard the debate about Iraq. The gentleman's debate made it appear that we just indiscriminately decided to attack Iraq. I would remind the gentleman that there were not only United Nations resolutions dealing with the issue of Iraq, but there was also an overwhelming vote in the House and in the Senate to authorize the President to take whatever military action was necessary. He talked about Iraq, and so I want to talk about Iraq. I want to talk about the June 25, 1996, bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. We were not in Iraq, nowhere near Iraq. Khobar Towers was bombed, and 19 of our airmen who were living there lost their lives. In August of 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed with a loss of life, including Americans. And by the way, we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter. October 12, 2000, the USS Cole offshore of Yemen was bombed by terrorists, and 17 sailors lost their lives, and many others were seriously injured. And then there was September 11, and I don't have to explain what happened there because everyone knows what happened there. It was the Pearl Harbor of this century. So what does that have to do with Iraq? Information continues to be uncovered where Saddam Hussein, who was the dictator of Iraq until we removed him, Saddam Hussein had contacts with the terrorists of different stripes, not only al Qaeda, but other terrorists. And that's why, and Congress reacted to that, and Congress approved the President making whatever military move he thought was necessary. So that goes to the issue of the gentleman's debate on the Iran amendment relative to his comment about Iraq. The vote on the Iraq resolution was 296-133. That is a pretty sizable majority. I have a copy of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article I is a very long article, a very long section, and I am not sure which provision in here that the gentleman's amendment is talking about unless it gets down to the part of section 8 that says to declare war. I assume that is what he is talking about. To declare war in today's world, previous wars you had a little time. Even after Pearl Harbor, we had time to recover and react. Today's world you don't have that. So I would think you would want to be very, very careful about tying the hands of this Congress in authorizing whatever was needed to defend and support the United States and the security of the American people. I do not want another September 11 on my hands. I don't want something else to happen that is going to kill innocent Americans, and then have people come to me and say, Why didn't you do something about it? Why weren't you prepared for it? Why did you have to wait and go through all of the political charades? I don't think that the American people would be very, very happy with this Congress if we didn't take every step necessary to prevent another aircraft hijacking and flying into the World Trade Center or something similar, or hijacking an airplane that landed in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon. I think we better think very carefully before we, on an appropriations bill, make a major decision like this.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 5631, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.