C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas for her question.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about politics. This debate is about America. It is about Iraq because Iraq is one of the many battlefields on which we fight the global war on terror. Afghanistan is another battlefield on which we fight the war on terror. But there are many battlefields on the war on terror, and we don't want any of them to be here in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a lot about America, not only America today, America past, but America in the future. The world still remembers, and many Americans still remember December 7 of 1941 when American territory was attacked by an enemy. An America that was built out of the wilderness and was built by settlers, that was built by industrialists, that was built by just plain ordinary people, brick by brick, block by block, business by business, school by school, hospital by hospital, an America that many Americans paid a great price to create, to achieve. And that America has come under attack in many ways. As I said, December 7, 1941, some of us remember that day and where we were. Others will never forget September the 11th of 2001, where we were, what we were doing and what it did to this great country of ours. The global war on terror must be won. It is real. The threat is real. If you don't believe the threat is real, look at the old news reels of the Twin Towers in New York City or the field in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 crashed into Mr. Murtha's district to avoid that aircraft from attacking this United States Capitol. And just a few minutes ago I came from the Pentagon where a celebration of the dedication of the Pentagon Memorial was unveiled where 184 Americans lost their lives in that vicious attack on the Pentagon. Mr. Speaker, this war has to be won. All over the world there are cemeteries where Americans lie in rest, Americans who lost their lives in different parts of the world to keep America what it is, to keep America what was created at so many sacrifices. And many of us have had the opportunity to visit those cemeteries and to pay our respects to those fighting warriors who went ahead and did what was necessary to do to preserve this great America. There are American heroes in Iraq today and American heroes in Afghanistan today. And as Mr. Murtha said earlier, he and I have spent a lot of time visiting with a number of those wounded heroes at our military hospitals. But they will tell you, and they will be the first ones to tell you, we have got to win this war. And the attitudes of these young men and women are outstanding because they will tell you that what they want is to be healed from their injuries and to get back to the fight because they believe in their country. They love their country, and they believe that it is important that we stop the threat to this great Nation of ours from those terrorists, the terrorists who attacked us on September 11 in New York, in Pennsylvania, at the Pentagon, those terrorists who attacked the USS Cole, killing many of our sailors and wounding many more, those terrorists who blew up the Khobar Towers, which was a home for American airmen in Saudi Arabia, those terrorists who blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These young troopers, these warriors understand the threat. America understands the threat. And ladies and gentlemen, it is important that we stand up to that threat and that the America that we know is the America that our kids will know and that our grandkids will know in the years to come.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on these appropriation bills, there have been a number of amendments to strike out issues that were added by the committee rather than requested by the administration. I think that is a good application of the process, and I think that each one of these items should stand on their own merit. But I think that it would be a mistake to believe that this was a procedure that was not acceptable under the Constitution. For example, I am holding a pocket copy of the Constitution that I carry all the time, and I read it very closely, having worked with appropriations for many, many years. And I find nothing at all in this Constitution that says that Congress can only appropriate that money which has been requested by the executive branch of government. There is nothing at all in here that says that, nothing at all that says that we can only consider requests by the executive branch of the government. But in Article I, Section 9, there is a very specific provision in the Constitution that says the executive branch of government or any of the agencies of the government cannot spend any money that has not first been appropriated by the Congress of the United States. So I say again that if there are those who are concerned that the process is being abused, the Constitution is being protected by Members who are offering projects to be included in the appropriations bills. And I say again those who are trying to strike those are certainly within their right to do that, and certainly that is part of the process, and each one of those projects should stand on their own merit. But there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the ability of Members of Congress to suggest what should or should not be included in an appropriations bill. And I repeat the article that I referred to is Article I, Section 9, and I have referred to that many, many times in the past. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief here and suggest that the chairman has already specified some of the details of the defense part of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is long past time for the Congress to have completed action on this legislation. The global war on terror is going on every day. It is costing considerable money every day. I want to remind the Members that the House passed our version of this supplemental emergency supplemental on March 16, 3 months ago. It is high time that we got to conference with the other body and concluded this work. The defense part of this package is basically what the House adopted 12 weeks ago. So I think it is a good product, and I hope that the Members will find it acceptable and get us a nice, substantial vote. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on the programs under the jurisdiction of the Defense Subcommittee for the global war on terror totals $65.792 billion, which is $1.765 billion below the House-passed level and $103.9 million above the President's request. The conference agreement provides $708 million for the National Guard's border security support to the Department of Homeland Security. As the House is aware, the President amended his original supplemental budget submission in order to fund border security activities. This resulted in a cut of almost $1.9 billion in Defense spending for the global war on terror. I sincerely regret that decision. However, the conferees were left with little choice but to reduce the House-passed level in order to accommodate the President's request. Despite this reduction, we have still been able to meet the urgent needs of our Armed Forces, including: $805 million to ensure that Army tracked combat vehicles such as Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles will be upgraded for the units that will be rotating into Iraq in the next year, including $230 million for the Abrams Tank Integrated Management, or AIM program, to support fielding of National Guard brigade combat teams; $230 million for 3 V-22 aircraft and $126.6 million for 2 KC-130J tanker aircraft, both for the Marine Corps; $2.577 billion in additional equipment for the Marine Corps, based on an assessment of their most pressing shortfalls; $227.5 million in advance procurement for seven C-17 aircraft, a down payment on maintaining production of this aircraft in fiscal year 2008; A total of $37.9 billion in operation and maintenance funding for all the services, in order to maintain war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; and Almost $2 billion to procure and develop equipment to counter Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs. Let me also indicate for the record that the statement of the managers incorrectly identifies the dollar level for the Tactical Unmanned Aerial System program under the account, Other Procurement, Army. The correct amount is $150,200,000, not $50,200,000 as specified in the statement of the managers. Regarding the provision in the Senate bill on Gulf shipyards, we've dropped all the Senate language that would have abrogated existing shipbuilding contracts and that would have required the Federal Government to pay business interruption costs that should properly be covered by private insurance companies. Instead we've provided funding to improve the infrastructure of all Gulf Coast shipyards that have Navy contracts and were affected by Hurricane Katrina. This will assist those yards in recovering from the effects of the Hurricane, and lead to efficiencies in shipbuilding that will help the companies, the shipyard workers, the Navy, and ultimately the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, it is far past time the Congress completed action on this legislation. The services need funding immediately, and I urge adoption of the conference report in the House and swift action in the other body.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues in the House the text of a Memorial Day speech delivered by the Mayor of Largo, Florida, Mrs. Patricia Gerard. Like so many of my colleagues in the House, I was honored to attend numerous Memorial Day services in my Congressional District to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed greatly in defense of our great Nation. It is always humbling to join with veterans young and old and to share moments of remembrance with the families that survive them. Those that we honored on Memorial Day have secured our freedom and our safety, and this point could not have been more clearly made than by Mayor Gerard's comments and her reference to the words of Mr. Charles M. Province. I submit to you the text of Mayor Gerard's Memorial Day remarks so that we may all reflect on the debt we owe to our men and women in uniform. Memorial Day is the time for Americans to reconnect with their history and core values by honoring those who gave their lives for the ideals we cherish. More than a million American service members have died in the wars and conflicts this nation fought since the first colonial soldiers took up arms in 1775 to fight for independence. Each person who died during those conflicts was a loved one cherished by family and friends. Each was a loss to the community and the nation. We in this country owe a great debt of gratitude to those who sacrificed their lives so that we could live free. We can start to pay that debt by not forgetting, by remembering what they did and what they stood for. In the words of Charles M. Province: It is the Soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the Soldier, not the lawyer, Who has given us the right to a fair trial; And I would say: And it is the Soldier--who leaves his or her family and goes off to war, Who allows the protester to speak out against that war. Far too often, the nation as a whole takes for granted the freedoms all Americans enjoy. Those freedoms were paid for with the lives of others few of us actually knew. That's why they are all collectively remembered on one special day. Please join me as we all remember those men and women who have made our way of life possible.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Actually, yes, and we appreciate that very much. But, anyway, let us pass the Putnam amendment. This is the right thing to do, and let us let the House work its will through the established process, through the committee process, a committee that has appropriate jurisdiction.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my friends who are opposing the Putnam-Capps amendment would like us to believe that in the Gulf of Mexico there is an unlimited supply of nice, clean, cheap natural gas just waiting for someone to punch a hole and it will come flowing out. That is really interesting because Mr. Peterson's effort last year was to create an inventory to see if there was any natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico. There is something wrong here. That is not really consistent. Last year we did not know if there was or not. This year we are prepared to violate environmental concerns. Is there gas there or is there not gas there? And what about the high cost? I learned something interesting at the Appropriations Committee the other day, that no matter what it costs to produce a barrel of oil domestically in the United States we still pay the same price that OPEC charges. Why? I do not know. One Member told me that his State produces oil for $30 a barrel that has to go through Canada, and they sell it back to us at 70 some dollars a barrel. There is something wrong with that. And then this afternoon I learned that natural gas is priced the same way. So is it going to be less expensive to produce in the Gulf of Mexico, where the environmental issues are real and the national defense issues are real, or should we allow, as Mr. Putnam has suggested and I suggested earlier on the Poe amendment, and that was a good vote on the Poe amendment, to let the authorizing committee that holds hearings, and there were no hearings on this, on the appropriations part of it, let the authorizing committee do their work and let us make a decision based on what is the truth versus fiction versus opinion, what is real, what is safe for the environment, and let us pass the Putnam amendment here this evening.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and I appreciate his support, and it is more than just beaches. It is fisheries, ecosystems that are critical to the food chain in the Gulf of Mexico. This is more than just beaches, and beaches are important. And I represent a lot of beaches and they are beautiful, and we welcome all of you to come.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his thoughts.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago, I stood at this very microphone at this very desk and offered the amendment that initiated the first Outer Continental Shelf moratorium dealing with drilling for oil and gas. Over the years, that 25-year period, working with industry, working with the Federal Government, working with the State government and working with the Congress, we have evolved a program that has worked. During that time we have opened up some of the areas for exploration and for drilling. During that time we have also bought back some of the leases that were environmentally threatening. This amendment that was added in the appropriations committee, the so-called Peterson amendment, happened without any hearings on the part of the subcommittee, no hearings on the part of the appropriations committee, and now we are trying to do something about that, at least give us time to work with our own House committee that has been working diligently for the last 6 to 8 months on trying to come up with a proper type of moratorium. We should not allow this language, the so-called Peterson amendment, to stay in this bill today. We should continue the work with the House committee that is already working on it and try to maintain the environmental protection that is so important to so many areas of the waters in and around the United States of America. As I said, this moratorium has been here for 25 years. It has evolved during that time. It has worked extremely well. I believe that we should be very careful in changes that we might make and we shouldn't make them wholesale without definite thought and consideration. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is not some political issue. This is serious business. You are dealing with some of the most fragile marine ecosystems in the world. This moratorium was put on here for a good reason. And I mentioned earlier during general debate, it has evolved into a workable, effective protection for those ecosystems. The ecology of some of those Florida waters is just unbelievable. Now, the authorizing committee has been working on this issue for several months trying to come up with a good answer, a good responsible answer. Now, this is being offered without any hearings by the subcommittee, no hearings by full committees, just as a whim to accomplish something that some special interests want to see accomplished. This is not good government. This is a bad amendment, and we need to be very careful about what we do, not only on this amendment today, but on the Peterson amendment that we will deal with later.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2007. In supporting this bill, I want to emphasize to Chairman Hoekstra that the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee will do what it can to work with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the weeks and months ahead. We intend to follow through with a fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations bill that supports the major areas of emphasis addressed in the authorization bill now before us. I intend to work closely with Chairman Hoekstra and the HPSCI to provide the funds necessary to strengthen U.S. intelligence collection and analysis, improve the technical means that support the Intelligence Community, and strengthen the organization of the Intelligence Community. I also stand ready to work with his Committee as we carefully scrutinize the fiscal year 2007 budget request to ensure that funding is used as effectively and as efficiently as possible to obtain the best return for the American taxpayer. While I support this measure, I must also advise that some areas of difference between the Authorization and Appropriations bills may arise. Of course, we intend to try to minimize any such issues. However, the committees have different institutional roles, responsibilities, and processes, and while I fully respect the role of the Chairman of the authorizing committee, I know he appreciates my role as well. In an increasingly constrained spending environment, the Appropriations Committee may find it necessary to reduce the overall funding available for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill. We will have to make hard choices on how best to address those constraints. I offer my congratulations to Chairman Hoekstra for his work on this legislation, and my support for final passage.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the very distinguished ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, but it is important that the defense committees know for a fact as opposed to the debate on the floor. So we have got to oppose the amendment at this time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I would like to say that this is not about a particular company. This is about a policy change, a policy change that we have not had any opportunity to review, with no hearings. We only learned about this amendment late last night, and it is a policy that should not be changed here on the floor without the benefit of some backup hearings and actual review. Like I said, it sounds like a good idea; but we have just got to be sure. We do not want to interrupt the logistical flow of what our troops need to carry out their mission. There is a major mission under way in Iraq as we speak, Operation Swarmer, and it is the biggest air operation since the war started. We cannot afford to upset an ongoing operation like that. We have got to support our troops, and if a policy change like this has a negative effect, that is just not good. It is not good for our troops. So I would hope we would oppose this amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that he has put a lot of time and effort into this amendment. The committee has reviewed the amendment thoroughly, and we will accept the amendment.