C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are not aware of that amendment. We do not have a copy. We are not aware that the gentleman has an amendment. We can change our request if he would provide us with a copy of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest to the gentleman that we think this is a good amendment, and it certainly is consistent with the conversation that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have both had with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to say to the gentlewoman that I agree with her and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) that it is extremely important that we prepare the Iraqi security forces to meet their own responsibilities so that we can bring our soldiers home. That is in the forefront of what we are doing. But, we have delicately written this bill. And we will be very happy to work with gentlewoman as we go through the whole process. But, as I said earlier, we bring a bill that is $3.3 billion less than the President requested, and less than the budget resolution provided for. So we had to balance. And we are very happy to work with the gentlewoman, because we understand the importance of getting the Iraqis ready to provide for their own security.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentlewoman that we are willing to work with her as we go to the conference, and in view of her willingness to withdraw the amendment, I withdraw my point of order that I reserved.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to pay tribute to a longtime staffer of this defense subcommittee. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to bring a defense appropriations bill to the floor without having Kevin Roper sitting here beside me and providing the staff assistance that he has provided so eloquently. He served this committee for 20 years, first as the aide to the then- ranking member, Congressman Joe McDade. Prior to the 20 years that he served this committee in the minority status and the majority status, he served 10 years in the United States Air Force. Kevin Roper is just a very, very special patriot. His knowledge of the defense establishment, his knowledge of the defense appropriations bill is extremely unique. I am just really proud to call him a friend. I am very, very heavyhearted to announce that he is leaving the committee to move on to spending more time with his family, his wife, and his children. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize the fact that this Kevin Roper that I am speaking about, everyone on the floor should recognize him. He has been here so long. Kevin Roper, God bless you for the good work you have done. Thank you very much. We appreciate you. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time that I have brought a Defense Appropriations Bill to the floor that I haven't had Kevin Roper by my side as the Staff Director of the Subcommittee and as he leaves the Committee staff to pursue other interests, I wanted to let the record show how much we all have valued his counsel over the years. Kevin served the Appropriations Committee for more than 20 years, and he had a distinguished career in the Air Force for 10 years before that. He came to the committee in August of 1984 when he served as Congressman and Ranking Minority member Joe McDade's associate staff for Defense matters. Joe appointed him to be the Minority staff director in 1988 when our dear friend George Allen, his predecessor, passed away during an official mission overseas. When the Republicans became the majority party in 1995, Kevin became the Majority staff director serving both me and Chairman Jerry Lewis for the past 10 years in that capacity. During that period of time he assisted me and Chairman Lewis in the preparation, passage, and conference of 10 annual Defense Appropriation bills and more than 21 Supplemental and wrap up bills which contained Defense Chapters. Kevin to this day loves his work and worked tirelessly to assist us in providing our men and women in uniform the tools they need to carry out their mission. He joined us when we were at the height of the cold war and assisted us in bringing that era to a successful conclusion. He was at his best when we were at war through two Gulf Wars, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and probably would have left a couple of years ago had it not been for the terrorist attacks before and on September 11th. Kevin always made great contributions and we wish him well as he plans a career which will allow him to spend more time with his family. He doted on his family and our loss is the gain of his wife Klytia and his children Katie, Audrey and Matthew.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment; and I do so reluctantly, because there are some interesting points that he makes. However, the program that his amendment would add money to already has $465 million in unobligated balances from prior year appropriations, so the money really is not needed; and we fully funded the President's request, which is millions over last year. Now, where he would take the money from, again, we have already taken money from the Missile Defense Agency. We reduced funding for the agency in this fiscal year 2006 budget. The President's budget request itself was a reduction of over $1 billion from last fiscal year, and the committee recommendation trimmed that by another $143 million. So we brought down the money that the gentleman's amendment would take away, and we have increased over last year the money that he would add it to. So the amendment really is not necessary, and I think the committee has done a good job in having to very delicately balance the gives and the takes on these various accounts.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first I want to say to the House that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has been a partner in this effort from day one in preparing and presenting this national defense bill. It is a truly bipartisan appropriations bill to provide for the security of our Nation and to provide for the troops who serve our Nation and to provide them with the equipment and the technology necessary to accomplish their mission and to protect themselves while they do that. I extend my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I also thank Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations Committee for the support that he has given us as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee. This appropriations bill is a good bipartisan bill, a nonpartisan bill. There are no politics involved at all. It is simply to provide for maintaining our security and to provide for our troops. Copies of this legislation have been available for several weeks now. There have been reports distributed to all of the Members. Although this bill is $3.3 billion less than the budget resolution provided for us, we were able to use some skillful oversight and be able to produce this bill at $3.3 billion less than the President's request and less than the budget had provided. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to come to the floor to present the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. This legislation includes $363.7 billion in the base appropriations bill, of which $363.4 billion is new discretionary budget authority. In addition, $45.3 billion is provided in a bridge fund to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; this is consistent with authority provided in the budget resolution, and follows the lead of the Armed Services Committee, which authorized $49 billion for this purpose in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Subcommittee allocation for the base bill is $3.3 billion below the President's request. This presented us with some difficult challenges, but I believe we have made appropriate choices given our allocation. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, was a full partner in this process. This bill was developed with bipartisan support and deserves bipartisan support. Let me discuss some of the major funding highlights in the base bill: For military personnel, we fully fund the pay raise of 3.1 percent as requested by the President, and we fully support quality of life and family-oriented programs. To support our soldiers and their families, we have added $30 million for Impact Aid and increased Family Advocacy programs by $20 million. In operation and maintenance, the base bill provides funding for critical training, readiness and I maintenance activities at roughly the historic level for these programs; the overall increase is $3.2 billion over the 2005 level. I In the Army acquisition accounts, we fully fund the request of $882.4 million for 240 Stryker vehicles. We also fully fund the request of $443.5 million for modifications and improvements to the M1 Abrams tank, an increase of $326.5 million over the 2005 level. In Naval aviation we fully fund the request for 130 aircraft, including 42 F/A-18's, compared to 115 total aircraft provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, 8 aircraft are shifted back to the Air Force consistent with the restoration of the C-130J multiyear procurement contract. In shipbuilding we make some significant adjustments to the President's request: We are funding the new construction of 8 ships, as opposed to 4 new ships as proposed in the budget. We continue production of an additional DDG-51 destroyer, which was proposed for termination in the budget. Funds are provided to acquire 2, rather than just 1, T-AKE ammunition ships, consistent with the authorization bill. In addition, we're providing funds for 3 littoral combat ships, 2 more than were included in the President's budget request. For the Air Force: We are fully funding the budget request for procurement of 24 F/A-22 Raptors in 2006, and advance procurement for 29 aircraft in 2007. We are restoring funding for the C-130J multiyear procurement program by transferring funding from the Navy to the Air Force. The Air Force will procure 9 aircraft; the Navy will procure 4 tanker variants. Full funding is recommended for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft, with advance procurement for 7 additional aircraft in 2007. In the research and development accounts: We follow the lead of the Armed Services Committee in recommending no funds for advance procurement for the DD(X) destroyer, but are keeping the program alive by providing $670 million in R&D. We are accelerating development of the CG(X) cruiser, by increasing funding from $30 million to $80 million. Full funding of $935.5 million is provided for 5 V-XX helicopters. We provide a total of $4.9 billion, as requested by the President, for research and development associated with the Joint Strike Fighter program. As I mentioned earlier, the bill also includes $45.3 billion in fiscal year 2006 funding to sustain the war effort in a bridge fund. The 2006 budget resolution reserves $50 billion for contingency operations in support of the global war on terrorism. In addition, the Armed Services Committee proposed, and the House has approved, an authorization of over $49 billion for the same purposes. This bill has slightly lower levels for the military personnel accounts and the procurement accounts based on more recent information we have received from the Department of Defense. I believe the $45 billion bridge fund in this bill for contingency operations is the responsible thing to do to support our troops. It will ensure they face no interruption in funding for the first six months of fiscal year 2006 as they face our enemies abroad. Over 80 percent of the funds in title IX are provided for military personnel, and operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, $2.5 billion is for intelligence activities; $2.1 billion is for fuel and war consumables; and $2.9 billion is for procurement to replace war losses and provide force protection for our men and women in uniform. Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the major elements of the recommendations before you. We have not been able to meet all the needs identified by the Defense Department and by Members of Congress. However, within the budget constraints we faced, I think we struck a fair balance that deserves the support of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this legislation. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH20JN05.005 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there is some confusion on which amendment this is. I reserve a point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate the concerns of the ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. I know exactly what she is trying to do here, because I understand that the Defense Department also would support suspension of the small business competitive demonstration program. But it is also my understanding that the chairman of the Committee on Small Business supports its continuation. To me, this appears to be a dispute between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the authorizing committee. It seems to me that it should be addressed on an authorizing bill rather than on the appropriations bill. The appropriations committee is being asked to referee a program where we do not really have sufficient knowledge of the program. I just wonder how the gentlewoman would react if I suggested that she might withdraw her amendment and work with her chairman on these matters of concern. It seems to me the Committee on Small Business is the proper place to adjudicate this matter.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment gives affirmative direction. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Mr. Robert L. Panek, who retired from the Senior Executive Service, in the Department of the Navy, on June 3rd, 2005. Mr. Panek's long and highly distinguished career spans nearly 34 years of Federal Service and eclipses 27 years of dedicated service in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller). A native of Oceanside, New York, Mr. Panek received a Bachelor of Science degree, a Naval Reserve commission, and a Merchant Marine Third Officer's license from the Maritime College of the State University of New York, before entering Federal Service in 1971. Excelling as a management intern with the Naval Ordnance Systems Command, budget analyst in the Anti-Submarine Warfare Systems Project Office, financial management advisor to the Deputy Chief of Naval Material, and budget analyst/branch head in the Department of the Navy (DoN) Budget Policy and Procedures Directorate, Mr. Panek was appointed to the Senior Executive Service (SES) in July 1986. As a SES officer, his breadth of responsibilities grew to encompass nearly every facet of the DoN budget to include setting policies and procedures for the formulation and execution of the DoN budget; directing DoN budget operations; and overseeing Investment, Research & Development, Construction, and Acquisition accounts. In December 1994, Mr. Panek's exemplary career culminated in his selection as the Associate Director, Office of Budget with responsibility for the formulation, presentation and execution of the DoN budget. In this position he achieved the grade of Senior Executive Service, Level 6 and also served as Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller). Mr. Panek's devotion to duty, financial acumen, and commitment to the Navy-Marine Corps Team have made our Nation safer and our Navy and Marine Corps Stronger. He has been awarded numerous performance awards and citations throughout his career to include the Department of the Navy Superior Civilian Service Award in December 1988, the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in 1993, and the Department of the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award in 2001. His selflessness, exemplary conduct, and commitment to a cause greater than himself is memorialized in his parting email to his shipmates in the Department of the Navy in which he reminded them--``Finally, please always, always remember that we do this for our Sailors and Marines that go in harm's way.'' It is fitting and altogether appropriate to recognize Mr. Panek's contributions to the DoN at the same time that we consider the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Act. Our Nation and the Department of the Navy have been made better through the talent and dedication of Mr. Robert L. Panek. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Bob, his wife Susan, and their two daughters, on the completion of an outstanding career. While his service to our Nation will be missed, he has left a legacy of high standards and superbly trained professionals in his wake. We wish him fair winds and following seas!

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me this time, but primarily for the outstanding statement he has made during the discussion of this rule. I also want to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), because the bill that we will be working on after this rule is adopted is a bipartisan bill, as any wartime bill should be. But I think most of the debate on the rule has not been about the bill that the rule provides for. Most of the debate has been at a different level on the issue of the so-called war in Iraq. I may get in a little trouble here, but I do not think we should call this the Iraqi war or the war in Iraq. This is a global war against terrorism, against terrorists, who hide and strike from cover. That is what this war is about. The Iraqi part of the war, because of the tremendous military capability that we have, that war was over quickly. Saddam Hussein's villainous regime was toppled quickly and effectively. Saddam's military was either defeated or ran for cover. That part of the war was over early, and the President said, ``Mission accomplished.'' That was accomplished. Saddam was gone. His bad guys were gone. What we are dealing with today is a war on terror, a war against terror. The battleground today happens to be Iraq. The battleground today is in Iraq. On September 11 of 2001, the battleground was in New York City when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, killing several thousand of our people. That was the battleground then. The battleground was at the Pentagon just across the river from the Capitol on September 11. That was the battleground then. Today it is in Iraq. On February 26 of 1993, the battleground again was at the World Trade Center where terrorists attacked. Six lives were lost in that attack. The battleground again was on June 25 of 1996, at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the home of our Air Force personnel who were working there at the airbase. Nineteen lives were lost. That was the battleground in this global war on terror. On August 7 of 1998, the United States Embassies, our sovereign property in Kenya and Tanzania, were bombed. Two hundred and fifty-nine lives were lost, including 11 Americans. That was the battleground then. On October 12 of 2000, USS Cole, off the shore of Yemen was attacked by terrorists. Seventeen sailors lost their lives, and many, many more were wounded seriously. That was the battleground in this global war on terrorists then. The battleground today is in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not the Iraqi war. That just happens to be the battleground today. We are trying to prevent any further battlegrounds in the United States or anywhere else in the civilized world. If I were going to make a criticism today, I would criticize many of our friends in the civilized world because we now have an established government in Iraq, elected by large numbers of Iraqi people. We are seeing that government attacked because the major loss of life since that government was established has been of the Iraqis themselves. Where is the rest of the civilized world in fighting this war on terror? They have already been subject to terror in many parts of the world, and they will continue to be as long as the terrorists reign free and roam the globe free. This is not an Iraqi war. Iraq just happens to be the battleground today. It is an expensive war, and it is an expensive war in the lives of our personnel. And we want to conclude this war against terror as quickly as we can, as effectively as we can. And the civilized world has a responsibility that they are not meeting to help the United States in this effort to allow this established government in Iraq to take a strong hold and to be able to provide for their own security as we battle against the forces of terrorism wherever they might be. Let us pass the previous question, let us pass the rule, and let us pass this very good bipartisan defense appropriations bill and get on with our work.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2520, which combines legislation I introduced and passed in the 108th Congress to reauthorize the National Bone Marrow Registry with legislation by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith to authorize a federal investment in building an inventory of 150,000 umbilical cord blood units. This life-saving bill is good for patients, good for transplant doctors, good for researchers and it represents good policy for our Nation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank many colleagues for bringing this legislation to the floor. Let me thank the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton for providing the leadership to advance this important bill. His commitment to providing sound national policy in this area of stem cell transplantation has produced an excellent legislative design that will benefit thousands of patients immediately upon enactment. I would also like to thank my friend, Mr. Smith of New Jersey for his leadership in the area of umbilical cord blood--an area of rapidly developing science and opportunity. His legislation from the previous Congress has provided the framework for enhancing our Nation's ability to provide cord blood units to help save lives. His vision on the potential of cord blood has helped make this bill possible today and I thank him for his dedication. This legislation builds on the investment made by Congress 18 years ago when we established a national bone marrow donor program to save the lives of patients with leukemia and many other blood disorders. Countless dedicated doctors, patients, families, and research scientists have continued to pioneer new approaches to saving lives using these blood stem cells from bone marrow and now umbilical cord blood cells. This bill authorizes funding for 5 years to continue federal support for bone marrow, peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood transplantation and research. With this legislation, transplant doctors and patients will have an enhanced, single point of electronic access to the full array of information on possible bone marrow matches, as well as matches with cord blood units from the new national inventory which would be created. In a matter of minutes, physicians can review the options and reserve the best possible sources for their patients. In addition, the new effort will facilitate accreditation of cord blood banks, stimulate research, and collect and share data on the outcomes of all transplants. Last month, at the request of our Appropriations Committee direction, the Institute of Medicine released its report on cord blood and how the inventory should be built and integrated into the existing national registry. This bill before us has been shaped by the guidance provided through the IOM process and during the past year-and-a-half a consensus has been building for moving forward to combine our activities in bone marrow and cord blood. That consensus has formed the basis for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this literally is life saving legislation. Through the efforts of the National Marrow Donor Program--which this Congress initiated in 1987--many lives have already been saved. To date, the Program has facilitated almost 21,000 unrelated transplants involving bone marrow, cord blood or peripheral blood. That means 21,000 individuals--both children and adults who are otherwise suffering from terminal disease--received the gift of life through this national program. When the program first started, our goal was to build a national registry of 250,000 individuals willing to donate marrow. Mr. Speaker, we found that the human spirit responded to our efforts in ways that we could not imagine. I am proud to say that as of this month, the National Bone Marrow Registry has more than 5.6 million potential bone marrow donors signed up. In addition, the Program has an additional 41,666 units of umbilical cord blood in reserve for transplant through its network of 15 affiliated cord blood banks throughout the country. Total transplants from all sources for last year alone exceeded 2500. Let me repeat--we have 5.6 million volunteer bone marrow donors signed up in the national program. These are true volunteers in every sense of the word. They have given of their time to take a simple blood test to be listed in the national registry. For more than 20,000 who have been called upon to donate bone marrow, they have undergone a relatively simple surgical procedure to donate their bone marrow to save the life of a man, woman or child with anyone of more than 85 different diseases. Another 41,000 women have donated umbilical cord blood which can be used in the same way as bone marrow, to transplant life giving cells to cure disease. This legislation will provide the funding to greatly increase the number of cord blood units that can be collected and stored. Nineteen million dollars has already been appropriated for this purpose over the past two years and this legislation will allow that immediate infusion of funds into building up reserves of umbilical cord blood. The scientific reason for this is clear. Thanks to research, cord blood has now become another very important source for obtaining and transplanting the particular cell found in bone marrow and peripheral blood that can restore health to those suffering from so many different diseases. In addition, by building up the cord blood inventory, the overall resource will be much more likely to meet the needs of patients from genetically diverse, ethnic populations. It is estimated that adding 150,000 new cord blood units to the number of existing bone marrow donors will provide potential cell matches for about 95 percent of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, this national effort is a true modern miracle and this new legislation will reinforce and strengthen the program. Today, our National Bone Marrow Program is affiliated with 156 transplant centers, 82 donor centers, 15 cord blood banks, 102 transplant marrow collection centers and 82 Apheresis centers. Of these, 72 are international facilities. Having had the great pleasure to meet with hundreds of donors and patients, I can tell you that donating bone marrow or cord blood can be a true life-changing experience. The experience of giving life to another human being is beyond mere words. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who have been heroes in this effort and need to be recognized for their contributions. The first is a little 10 year old girl who died of leukemia at All Children's Hospital in my home district of St. Petersburg 18 years ago. Brandy Bly might have been saved from leukemia back in 1987 if matched bone marrow or cord blood cells had been available. It was during her treatment that I first learned from doctors how difficult it is to find a compatible, unrelated bone marrow donor. Her death inspired me, and her doctor--Dr. Jerry Barbosa--inspired me to help find a way to build a national bone marrow program. There were other early medical pioneers, like the late Dr. Robert Goode, Dr. John Hansen and Dr. Donnell Thomas--all who helped perfect the science of marrow transplantation and who assisted us in our legislative quest to establish a federal registry. In the early days, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Jr. and Dr. Bob Graves helped find a federal home for the effort. And I must recognize Navy Captain Bob Hartzman who first connected us with the Navy Medical Command to give birth to the early program. Dr. Hartzman continues to direct the military program and is an invaluable scientific leader and advisor. There have been many members of Congress, past and present, who have stood together with me over the years to develop and fund the program that we reauthorize and enhance today. I thank each and every one for your dedication. We must recognize the staff and members of the board of the National Marrow Donor Program and the Marrow Foundation who have volunteered their time to establish and grow a finely tuned international registry program. And we must recognize the dedicated doctors and medical teams at transplant and donor centers around the nation who use their medical expertise to perform the transplants and save lives. Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg, the head transplant doctor at Duke University's blood bank center, is the epitome of a dedicated, caring and highly knowledgeable physician who works hard to save lives. We must recognize the pioneering cord blood research of Dr. Pablo Rubenstein and Dr. Cladd Stevens at the New York Blood Center, and Dr. Claude Lenfant, the former director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute at NIH who initiated the major COBLT study on cord blood banking and transplantation. The ultimate true heroes of the national effort are the patients and donors. Every patient who has sought a marrow or cord blood transplant has helped in the overall effort to gain more scientific knowledge on perfecting the transplant process. Every patient helps all those who will follow. And every donor who has rolled up his or her sleeve to sign up for the national bone marrow program, or every family that has decided to donate umbilical cord blood, are heroes for taking part in giving the ultimate gift of life. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me again thank Chairman Barton and Mr. Smith for their leadership in enhancing this great national program. Let me thank every member of this House for their support for the efforts we started 18 years ago on behalf of patients everywhere. With your support, we will provide hope--and a second chance at life--to thousands of patients today and into the future.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers provides water resources development projects that are important to the Nation. I believe the restrictions on reprogramming of funds and the constraints on the use of continuing contracts contained in this bill will lead to the inefficient use of appropriated funds and will disadvantage congressionally-added projects. Congress does not fully fund projects in a given fiscal year and the schedule for constructing these large water resources projects is subject to the weather, environmental conditions, and other dynamic circumstances. As a result, reprogramming and continuing contacts are important tools that allow for the efficient use of appropriated funds. I share the concerns that the Appropriations Committee has for some of the reprogramming activities of the Corps of Engineers and the way they have used continuing contracts for some of their projects. However, the constraints in this bill are too restrictive. Section 101 only allows a reprogramming of $2 million or less per project. This is not enough to allow the Corps to effectively move money around among projects when projects are delayed or when they can be accelerated. Also, the bill earmarks nearly all available funding, which makes it impossible for the Corps to pay back those projects that it took money from in previous reprogramming. I must disagree also with the restriction placed on continuing contracts by this bill. While there may have been some unwise uses of continuing contracts by the Corps, the restrictions in this bill are too severe. They will lead to inefficient use of funds and a bias against Congressional priority projects. As a result of the constraints on reprogramming, a lot of money will be carried over each fiscal year and work will have to be broken up into many smaller units making projects more expensive. Current law requires the Corps to use continuing contracts whenever funds are provided in an appropriations act, but there is not enough money to complete the project. Only funds for that fiscal year are reserved, but the contractor can proceed with additional work with the understanding that payment is subject to future appropriations. Section 104 is inconsistent with current law in that it restricts the amount of work a contractor can do to only that which can be accomplished with FY 06 funds. Under section 104, the contractor cannot proceed at his own risk in anticipation of FY 07 and future year funding. The contractor will have to stop work and wait for a new contract the next year. Section 104 is legislative in nature and I intend to make a point of order that will strike it from the bill. Section 105 further restricts the use of continuing contracts and has the remarkable effect of restricting the Corps' ability to carry out congressionally-added projects in this appropriation bill. Section 105 states that none of the funds provided in FY 06 may be used to award a continuing contract that extends into FY 07 unless the Administration budgets for the project in FY 07. This means that even if a Member has funding for a project in this bill, for FY 06, not fully funded, there are three options: (1) Hope to award a continuing contract before Administration comes out with its budget in February of 2006, (2) award a single year contract for only one increment of the project (resulting in increased costs), or (3) wait until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the project (delaying project construction and project benefits). These restrictions apply to on-going as well as new projects. In Alaska, there are currently eight projects under construction using continuing contracts. Seven of these are not in the President's Budget. I expect that before this bill becomes law, it will contain funding for all of these projects. Nevertheless, under section 105 of the bill, a continuing contract could not be used in FY 06, and the Corps will have to break the projects into smaller pieces or wait until FY 08 to spend the FY 06 appropriated funds. I believe the restrictions in this bill will delay these important projects in Alaska and make them more expensive. This is a problem that will be repeated for other Members for projects all over the country. Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's efforts to get additional information from the Administration during the budget process. Information is needed for all projects, not just the ones in the Administration's budget. In addition, I believe that a 5-year schedule of spending for each project will allow the Congress to better appropriate funding that can match the Corps capabilities for individual projects. Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky are to be commended for their efforts to see that program management and budgeting at the Corps of Engineers are put back on track. While I have reservations about the effects of some of the measures required by this bill, I believe I can work with the Committee leadership as this bill moves forward to see that my concerns are addressed in Conference.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate that. We have only a total of 10 minutes to state our opposition. So how about 4 minutes?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the purposes of control.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes, and despite the eloquence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), my friend, who makes this amendment sound really attractive, I must rise and express the objection of the Committee on Appropriations to this amendment. This amendment is no better than the amendment offered in full committee which would have taken $50 million from very important environmental protection issues and transfer it to this fund to create an inventory of gas and oil. The fact of the matter is, we cannot afford to remove the environmental protection in this bill, and we do not need the inventory that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) talks about. This amendment opens all coasts to new drilling. The oil companies, the energy companies, the gas companies themselves already have this inventory, as does the Minerals Management Service at the Department of the Interior. We already know about this. The truth of the matter is, this would just be a raid on the environmental issues to fund something that does not need to be done. The committee is opposed to this. The Committee on Energy and Commerce have debated this in the past, have rejected similar amendments; and I hope that we will do the same thing today, that we will reject this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what is the status of the remaining time?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I represent the strong position of the committee in opposition to this amendment. The committee has considered this many, many times before and determined that this moratorium should stay in place. It started in 1983. There have been attempts to change it since then unsuccessfully. We cannot solve the energy problems of America and the world in an appropriation bill. Those issues should be settled in an energy bill, and the energy bill that was before us did not include this amendment because it just does not work. So, representing the committee, and the minority has indicated, as indicated by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), we are opposed strongly to this amendment and hope that the Members will reject it.