[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3185-H3193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I
call up House Resolution 503 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 503
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
(b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
or specified by a subsequent order of the House, amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro
forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services for the purpose of
debate.
(c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution,
each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the
report, each amendment printed in the report shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to
amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any
pending amendment).
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed of or
germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en
bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as
read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be
debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en
bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike
may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment
to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original
proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record
immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first
[[Page H3186]]
in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
Sec. 5. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
Sec. 6. After disposition of the amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole
shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the
bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order
of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of
Defense Authorization Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general
debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill. It makes in order as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment the Committee on Armed Services
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill.
The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The rule provides that no amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution or specified by a
subsequent order of the House, amendments en bloc described in section
3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman
or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services for the
purpose of debate.
The rule provides that except as specified in section 5 of the
resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered
only in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report; shall be considered as read and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or
the Committee of the Whole.
The rule provides that unless otherwise specified in the report, each
amendment printed shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to
amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services may each offer one pro forma amendment for
the purpose of debate on any pending amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the report or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the
resolution.
The rule provides that it shall be in order at any time for the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not
earlier disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment,
which shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be
reported, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Armed Services or their designees and shall not be subject to
amendment; shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question in the House or the Committee of the Whole.
The rule provides that for the purpose of inclusion in such
amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to
strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to
the text originally proposed to be stricken.
The rule provides that an original proponent of an amendment included
in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional
Record immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone
votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5
minutes on a postponed question, if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
recognize for the consideration of any amendment printed in the report
out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
Finally, the rule provides that after disposition of the amendments
printed in the report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without
motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order
except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
H.R. 4205 is a good bill. For several years, this body cut our
military's budget while the administration deployed troops all over the
globe. It was not fair to our men and women in uniform and it was not
fair to hard working Americans who count on the military for their
protection.
Well, those days are over. Now we are taking care of our national
defense. We are getting our military families off food stamps by
providing a 3.7 percent pay raise and we are helping them retire by
creating an armed forces thrift savings plan. We are providing
resources to improve military housing. For years our military personnel
have been living in substandard housing.
{time} 1115
We are giving our leaders the tools they need to get the job done in
the field of battle, including five new submarines, up to 15
destroyers, additional Black Hawk helicopters, and Bradley fighting
vehicles.
We need this bill, Mr. Speaker. For far too long we have shortchanged
our military at the expense of our Nation's security.
This rule provides for a fair debate on the bill. The Committee on
Rules received 102 amendments to H.R. 4205. With this rule, we will
debate more than one-third of them, 35 amendments in all. But this is
only the first step. Later the Committee on Rules will meet to grant a
second rule for H.R. 4205.
All of the amendments which are not made in order under this rule are
still in play. We simply decided that it was wise to get started this
morning, and with 35 amendments to debate today, it is a healthy start.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the
underlying bill, because now more than ever we must provide for our
national security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2001, was reported from the Committee on Armed Services on
a strong bipartisan vote of 56 to 1. The vote reflects the
understanding of Democrats and Republicans for the need to ensure that
our national defense continues to be second to none.
This bill reflects the commitment of Democrats and Republicans to
achieving a level of readiness throughout the military that will
protect this Nation and our commitment to democracy and the rule of law
throughout the world.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4205, the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.
Mr. Speaker, during the report recess, I had the opportunity to see
firsthand the dedication of the men and women who serve our country in
uniform, often under the most trying circumstances. Along with some of
my colleagues from the Texas delegation, I traveled to Bosnia to visit
with National Guard troops from Texas and to see how our regular forces
are faring in the tense and hazardous duty stations in Kosovo.
Many of the Members of this body have made the same kind of trip, and
I am sure that every Member has come away with similar impressions of
our men and women in uniform and their dedication to duty.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress has as one of its primary duties to provide
for the national defense and the men and women who protect it. This
bipartisan bill does a great deal to improve military readiness and to
improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, as well
as for their families.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that this bill contains
several provisions to improve the quality of
[[Page H3187]]
life of our military personnel. The bill provides for a 3.7 percent
military pay raise, reduces out-of-pocket housing costs, which will
particularly benefit the enlisted ranks, and provides a targeted
subsistence benefit for those personnel who are most in need.
H.R. 4205 also makes significant improvements in military health
care, and authorizes the creation of a Thrift Savings Plan for military
personnel which will help them plan for their retirement needs.
The bill also provides $857 million for construction and improvement
of military family housing, and an additional $605 million for
construction of new barracks and dormitories. There are funds for child
development centers, DOD dependent schools and impact aid, and
commissary modernization, all important to quality of life improvements
for uniformed personnel and their families. I congratulate the
committee for their work on these issues.
I am also pleased that the committee has continued its commitment to
the wide range of weapons programs that ensure our military's
superiority throughout the world.
The bill includes $1.4 million for research and development for the
F-22 Raptor, the next-generation air dominance fighter for the Air
Force, as well as $2.1 billion for 10 low-rate initial production
aircraft, and $396 million for advanced procurement of 16 LRIP aircraft
in fiscal year 2002.
H.R. 4205 also includes $51.7 million for the procurement of three F-
16C aircraft, and $1.1 billion for the procurement of 16 MV-22
aircraft, and $142.7 million to accelerate development of the CV-22
Special Operations Variant.
These aircraft are all important components in our national arsenal,
and moving forward on their production sends a clear signal that the
United States has no intention of relinquishing our air superiority.
Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Armed Services has reported a
truly bipartisan effort, I should note that 101 amendments to the bill
were filed with the Committee on Rules. This rule makes in order 36 of
those amendments, and provides that an additional rule providing for
the consideration of further amendments to the bill will be considered
before the House votes on final passage later this week.
Mr. Speaker, while it is not unusual for the Committee on Rules to
report more than one rule providing for the consideration of amendments
to the Department of Defense authorization, in the past the Committee
on Rules pursued this course in order to ensure that a full and fair
debate on the issues of the day would follow.
The rule now under consideration will certainly allow the House to
debate the issue of the continued presence of U.S. ground forces in
Kosovo, an issue on which there is a genuine split of opinion in this
body.
While I do not agree with the amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), I cannot object to the House having
the opportunity to debate the issue.
While I disagree with the amendment to be offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), which seeks to cut 1 percent of funding
in the bill, I certainly believe that this is an issue worthy of debate
in this body. The other 34 amendments made in order in this rule are
also certainly deserving of consideration of the House.
So far so good, Mr. Speaker. What concerns me is the fact that there
are several major amendments that have not been included in this rule
and may not be included in the second rule to be acted on later. Mr.
Speaker, one can only hope that when the Committee on Rules meets later
today to report the second rule for H.R. 4205, the Republican majority
on the Committee on Rules will allow these issues to be fairly aired
and considered by the House.
Let us take, for example, Mr. Speaker, the issue of health care for
military retirees. Members will be hearing from the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on this issue shortly. The ranking member of
the Committee on Armed Services has called this the year of health
care, and the bill does indeed make substantive improvements in the way
health care is delivered for active duty military personnel and their
dependents. These improvements are long overdue, and the committee is
to be congratulated for taking these positive steps.
But Mr. Speaker, the bill is seriously deficient on the issue of
health care for Medicare-eligible retirees. Mr. Speaker, I have serious
concern that the two thoughtful amendments addressing this issue, that
is, the issue of health care for Medicare-eligible retirees, might not
be made in order when the committee meets this afternoon. One proposal
by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) would expand and make
permanent the TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration, more commonly known
as Medicare subvention.
The other offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) would
give all military retirees the option of participating in FEHB, or
remaining in TRICARE after they become Medicare-eligible.
I have a serious concern that the only reason the House will be
denied the opportunity to debate either of these amendments presented
to the Committee on Rules will be for purely partisan political
reasons.
Let us also take the issue of the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico.
The committee bill has chosen to ignore an agreement negotiated between
the President of the United States and the Governor of Puerto Rico
about the future of this island as a training facility for the Navy and
Marine Corps, and has instead adopted language that directly
contravenes this agreement.
I remain hopeful that when the Committee on Rules meets later this
day, the Republican majority will see fit to allow the ranking member
of the committee the opportunity to offer an amendment which will
strike the committee language and insert language which will allow the
President's negotiated position to go forward.
In the interests of fairness to the people of Puerto Rico, I would
hope that the Skelton amendment will be part of the second rule. The
only reason to not allow his amendment to be considered would again be
for purely partisan reasons. I would hope that this truly bipartisan
bill will not be marred by such action.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the committee bill, but I do believe
the House should be given the opportunity to address the issues I have
just mentioned, as well as a number of other issues that have been
raised in the 101 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules.
The bill is one of fundamental importance to our great country, and
the policies and programs that are contained within it certainly are
worthy of extensive debate. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but I
hope that the bipartisan approach to the committee bill will be
extended to the second rule providing for its consideration. To do less
is a disservice to this House and to our military.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and for H.R. 4205,
the Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from
South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for his hard work and dedication in
putting together a measure that helps our fighting men and women. The
efforts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) should not be underestimated. It
is truly apt that this legislation we debate today is named after the
gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence).
Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the President has brought us
a reasonable defense budget for consideration. Over the last 7 years,
the President's budget has failed the military service chiefs and our
fighting men and women in uniform.
While the President's budget was reasonable this year, it still
failed our armed services to the tune of $16 billion. However, under
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence),
the Committee on Armed Services has once again added funding to support
our defense requirements.
While still living within a balanced budget, we have added $4.5
billion to the President's defense budget request. For example, the B-2
bomber was an
[[Page H3188]]
essential part of the success story from the air war in Kosovo. The B-
2's success in this conflict underscored our needs for an adequate and
modern bomber fleet.
We also learned some very valuable lessons about the effectiveness of
our smart bombs during the war. Unfortunately, the President failed to
fund the research and development of the 500-pound JDAM and 500-pound
JDAM bomb rack, even though the Service Chiefs wanted it.
It was the Committee on Armed Services, under its able bipartisan
leadership, that added funding for these upgrades and advancements. In
total, the committee added funding of $96 million for upgrades on the
B-2. These include the Link 16 upgrades that will modernize the cockpit
and allow for in-flight re-planning, research, and development of the
500-pound JDAM and the integration on the B-2.
With the success of the B-2, these upgrades will allow our military
to exert further strength to keep freedom and peace abroad, thus making
the B-2 truly the spirit of America.
I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for
implementing legislation I introduced last year on the Joint Strike
Fighter program. As we all know, one of the pillars of the Joint Strike
Fighter program is affordability. My legislation called for a cost
study to be conducted on possible production sites for the Joint Strike
Fighter. While I contend that Air Force Plant 42 offers the best
opportunity for savings, I believe that the Defense Department owes
Congress and the American people a study showing the savings
opportunities that the different production sites offer.
Mr. Speaker, these two programs are just a few of the many success
stories found in this legislation. Again, I want to thank both the
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this important
legislation. Yet again, the Committee on Armed Services has worked in a
bipartisan manner in order to put the national security of the United
States ahead of politics.
It is for this reason that the legislation passed in committee with
an overwhelming majority and deserves the votes of the Member of this
House. I urge a vote on this rule and for this important legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am wholeheartedly in
support of this rule. I suppose the politic thing to do would be to say
I will vote for this rule and await the second rule.
But I feel constrained to express my reservation, because there is no
assurance that one of the most important issues will come before this
body, that which deals with military retirees. Even though this rule
does not touch upon that, and there is the possibility of the second
rule being adopted with the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) therein, I have no such assurance. I feel
constrained to voice my reservation.
{time} 1130
This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is an excellent bill,
by and large, with some exceptions. And I also wish to tell the Members
of the House that in honor of our chairman, it is named the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and it
is a very, very proper recognition of this fine gentleman from South
Carolina, who does such a fair and decent job for us in the committee,
for us in the House.
I wish I could say on this very first part of the split rule that I
could support the rule, but I do not have the assurance. Now, if I have
that assurance in the next few minutes, that would be fine, but I do
not have that. I do not see it forthcoming, because I cannot very well
bifurcate the two rules, and as a result, I would have to vote against
this first rule because of the lack of assurance that the second rule
will contain the amendment that is so important to military retirees.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlewoman
from Charlotte, North Carolina, (Mrs. Myrick), my very good friend, the
former mayor, who has done a wonderful job managing this rule. She has
just come back, and we are all happy to see her doing so
extraordinarily well, and it is very fitting that we would be here on
an issue which is near and dear to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick), and that is the national security of the United States
of America, that she is leading the charge in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
said, I want to recognize the fact that this is a great accomplishment
and a great tribute to a wonderful individual to have the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Reauthorization Act established in his name,
and I believe this is a very, very important piece of legislation,
because as has been pointed out, we are really beginning this effort to
rebuild our capability.
This morning in the Republican Conference, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence) referred to the fact that over the past decade
and a half, we have seen this continued diminution in the level of
expenditures for national security, and we have been trying in recent
years to rebuild it, and the steps that we are going to begin taking
today will go a long way towards doing just that.
This has been one of the four top priorities that this Republican
Congress has established for us, along with rebuilding our defense
capabilities, saving Social Security and Medicare and, obviously,
providing tax relief to working families, that has been a priority, and
then improving public education. Those have been the four guides that
we have had, but nothing is more important than our national security,
because as we look at the issue, these other issues can be dealt with
by a different level of government, but only Washington can deal with
our national security.
My friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter) in
1980 came in and got on to this Committee on Armed Services so that he
could make sure that we proceeded as vigorously as we could at
rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. We did that during the
Reagan years, as we all know so well, but we have had this pattern of
reduction; the threats have changed.
The thing that I find very, very troubling has been over the past few
years we have had continued requests made by the administration.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the gentleman's
dialogue.
Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from Missouri has done that already, so I
am happy to yield to the gentleman, in light of the fact that he
already interrupted me.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the chairman of the Committee on Rules
understands my concern for the military retirees, that it is a major
problem. They were told when they joined if you stay with us 20 years,
we will take care of your health care for life. And I think that there
should be some assurance that we would be able to at least debate the
issue on a proper amendment, and that is why I said what I did a few
moments ago. I really do not have a great deal of problem with this
part of the rule; however, I cannot in my own mind bifurcate the two
parts of the two rules, and that is why I said what I did.
I would certainly hope that the Taylor amendment would be made in
order in the second go-around.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend. I appreciate his
requests. Let me say that we all know that the reason that we have
dealt with this two-rule process is due to the tragic situation that
hit the Stupak family, and the fact that many of our colleagues are
this afternoon going to go to Michigan, and that led to this situation.
[[Page H3189]]
We are still working on the issue that my friend has raised, and we
hope to have a resolution to that. I can assure the gentleman that when
we meet later today in the Committee on Rules, we hope to have what I
hope will be a satisfactory response.
Let me just conclude by saying as we look at where we are going in
our Nation's national security, we have had a pattern over the past few
years of seeing an administration which, unfortunately, has called for
deploying troops all over the world, in fact, 139 countries with
265,000 Americans. We have seen that number, and at the same time there
have been reduced requests for the level of commitment from Washington
to our national defense.
Look at what it really has brought about. Unfortunately, it has
brought about reduced readiness. We know that there is lower morale
that exists in the military today; recruitment difficulties, we have
heard many stories about those. And we have in this high-tech economy
today a need to focus more investment on high-tech for our national
security.
We have some real problems that need to be addressed, and I believe
that this bill will go a long way towards doing just that. And again,
as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend, has just said
making sure that we have everything that is necessary for our men and
women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have begun this debate. It is an
important one that we will be having, and I hope very much that my
colleagues will join in support of the rule and in support of the bill
when we finally get to passage.
I should say just before I do that that the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), my friend, and I are going to be jointly offering an
amendment to deal with the issue of high-speed computers, which is an
important one, that allows us again to maintain our commitment to
national security, but at the same time our competitiveness around the
world, which is a priority.
I urge support of the rule and support of the Dreier amendment that
will be coming up later and support of this bill itself.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this
rule. I appreciate the horror that has happened to the Stupak family. I
understand the reason that we will be meeting on a short schedule
today. It makes perfect sense for as many Members to be with the
Stupaks during this horrible moment as possible.
It also makes a golden opportunity for the Committee on Rules to meet
and to make amendments in order. In fact, they should have been doing
that right now. It is a good national defense bill. It actually
improves spending for the first time maybe in a decade. It does a lot
of good things, but what it does not do is solve the problem of health
care for our military retirees.
If we think about it, they are the only Americans who were promised
health care, the only Americans who were promised health care if they
serve their country honorably for 20 years. They have done that. Every
recruiter in every custom house for every branch of the service since
the 1950s has been telling young 18, 19, 20 years old if you serve your
country honorably for 20 years, then when it comes time for you to
retire, for you and your spouse, we are going to take care of you at a
military facility for the rest of your life. But what they are being
told, because of the defense drawdown and because money is tight, is
that when they hit 65, I am sorry, Chief; I am sorry, Sergeant; I am
sorry, Colonel, yes, we asked you to go to Vietnam. We told you to go
to Korea. We sent you to Kosovo. We sent you to Bosnia.
We sent you to all these places you did not want to be, where you got
shot at, where you were away from your family, but we are not going to
keep our end of the bargain. Congress for the past decade has failed to
address this issue. I am saying it is time for Congress to address
this.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Committee on Rules. This was the
third amendment brought before the Committee on Rules, the third of
over 100. They chose not to even vote on it. That is how good, that is
how much they care about our Nation's retirees. We have absolutely no
guarantee that this amendment will be brought to the floor. We have
none.
We have asked repeatedly. This amendment has four Republican
cosponsors, including three Members of the Committee on Armed Services,
one of which is a subcommittee chairman.
This is not partisan. This is Republicans and Democrats trying to
solve a sincere problem for the folks who deserve it the most. And we
cannot even get a vote in the Committee on Rules.
I am asking every single Member of this body, if they care about
those folks who have served your country honorably, if they think it is
time that they keep getting told, well, next year, maybe we will get
around to it in a couple of decades. Doggone it, we found time for tax
breaks for millionaires. We found time to honor or condemn just about
every group under the sun. You do not think we can find time for our
military retirees?
Vote against this rule, that sends the Committee on Rules back to
work. Let us make the Taylor-Hefley-Pickering-Tanner-Abercrombie
amendment in order, Democrats and Republicans trying to solve the
problem of health care for military retirees, to fulfill our Nation's
promise. And doggone it, if we do not make it in order, then I am
asking as many of you as possible to shut this place down.
We are not going to vote on this bill until we have an up or down
vote on whether or not we are going to fulfill our promise to our
Nation's military retirees.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think, to a large degree, this is a historic bill.
This is the first defense bill of this century, and in a bipartisan
way, I believe it reflects some of the lessons of the century. After
World War II, we had an enormous military, over 8 million people in
arms, we rushed to throw our weapons away when General Marshall was
asked how the demobilization was going. He said, this is not a
demobilization, it is a rout, we are literally disarming before the
world.
If we look at the correspondence between the Communist Chinese and
Stalin's Russia, we can see their understanding of the fact that
America over just a couple of years became extremely weak, and we found
ourselves in June of 1950 being driven off the Korean Peninsula by a
third-rate military. And before we had regrouped and managed to push
our forces back and establish the stalemate that had endured, we lost
50,000 Americans killed in action.
We have seen in this last century what these bloody wars do, this
enduring lesson that we achieve peace through strength. As the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), one of the great Members of
this House, who came in with me in 1980, and I and a number of other
people sought to do with Ronald Reagan, and I know the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, were members of this
movement, we sought to rebuild America's defenses in 1980. And by doing
that, we backed down the Soviet Union and ultimately dismantled the
Soviet Union.
The interesting thing about that dismantlement is that dismantlement
actually led to enormous savings of money by American taxpayers. What I
am talking about is the fact that this bill that we are offering today
is about $125 billion less in military spending than Ronald Reagan's
bill of 1985. We have saved probably $1 trillion by the Reagan
dismantlement of the Soviet empire, the fact that we no longer have the
requirement to meet those massive Warsaw Pact divisions in military
Europe.
We achieved something by being strong. I think it is important that
we carry that message into the next century. This bill is a start of
that. But I want to remind my colleagues, it is only a start. We still
have massive problems.
Our mission capable rates have dropped about 10 percent, and they are
[[Page H3190]]
hanging there. They fell off the cliff, and they are hanging there
around 70 percent throughout the services; meaning that about 30
percent of our aircraft cannot get off the carrier deck or the tarmack
to go do their job and in return cannot do their mission. We still have
shortages of ammunition. We have shortages of spare parts.
We do have people problems; instead of 800 pilots short in the Air
Force, as we had last year, we are going to have about 1,200 short this
year. But we are making some improvements, and this House voted for a
$4 billion increase in national defense, I think reflecting the mood of
the people in this country and their understanding that we do achieve
peace through strength.
Mr. Speaker, we passed that in the emergency supplemental, and
working with the other body, it came back as an add-on to this defense
bill that we are debating today. We have started the upgrading and
modernization of our forces, but I want to remind everybody what Bill
Perry, President Clinton's former Secretary of Defense, said about the
blueprint that he, himself, helped to put in place for defense
spending: It looks like we need about $10 billion to $15 billion more
per year. Jim Schlesinger, another former Secretary of Defense, said it
is actually closer to $100 billion more per year that we need.
{time} 1145
So we need to increase defense spending. That is clear. Members of
Congress recognize that. This bill is a start. It is only a start, but
I would hope that all Members would support this bill and support this
rule.
And with respect to my friend from Mississippi, I think, and I have
confidence in the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), that they
will be able to work out the subvention issue before this bill is
finished. So please support this bill. It is good for America.
Peace through strength is what we want to achieve, and we are on our
way at least to achieving it. And I am going to talk about him a little
later, but I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky),
too, our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of
the Committee on Armed Services, for the wonderful job that he has
done.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, for reasons stated by the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I rise in
opposition to this rule, although I believe the underlying bill is a
good bill.
I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their hard work in
putting together such complex and important legislation. I urge
particular support for the health care provisions. The gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor),
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) have done a great job of putting together a
bipartisan package that improves the Tri-Care system and increases
health care access for retirees.
I want to focus on the provision to extend the pharmaceutical benefit
to military retirees over the age of 65. Prescription drug coverage is
a vital issue for all seniors, and I am pleased this committee has made
a small but important contribution to provide affordable and meaningful
coverage to a segment of the Medicare eligible population. I hope that
other committees will follow suit.
The Tri-Care Senior Pharmacy Program in this bill allows all military
retirees to participate in the DOD pharmacy program. Under this
government-run prescription drug benefit, the Defense Supply Center in
Philadelphia negotiates prices for its beneficiaries that are as low or
lower than those obtained by other Federal agencies.
The Defense Supply Center receives some drugs off the Federal supply
schedule and negotiates pricing agreements with more than 200
manufacturers, using as a starting point the mandated 24 percent VA
discount. DOD estimates that these negotiated prices are 24 percent to
70 percent lower than the average private sector price.
My bill, H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act,
would give the rest of the Medicare eligible population the same
discounts that this provision provides. We have 153 cosponsors, but
none so far are Republicans. I hope that they will now embrace my bill
as warmly as they have embraced the Tri-Care Senior Pharmacy Program.
Now, I do not accept the accusation that H.R. 664 involves price
controls. But those who do must also conclude that this prescription
drug benefit for military retirees is, indeed, a price control. Like
the Democratic Medicare prescription drug plan, the Tri-Care Senior
Pharmacy Program is administered by a Federal agency making good on the
government's promise to provide health care for life for military
retirees and the promise to provide health care in the golden years for
the over 65 population at large. It uses the government's volume
purchasing power to negotiate and achieve the same price discounts that
favored large purchasers obtain.
Unlike the Republican prescription drug plan, this program does not
throw military retirees to the whims of the private insurance market
leaving them guessing about whether they can get prescription drug
insurance from an industry that says it cannot offer such insurance
anyway.
As we cast our affirmative vote for this legislation, and I hope we
all will, please consider these questions. If Congress can provide a
government-administered prescription drug benefit with negotiated price
discounts to one segment of the Medicare eligible population, military
retirees over 65, why can we not offer the same benefit to the rest of
our Nation's seniors? If Congress can give 1.4 million Medicare
eligible military retirees access to the best prices the government can
negotiate, why is Congress not giving the other 38 million seniors the
same access to the best prices that the government can negotiate?
I urge support for the bill and for affordable and meaningful
prescription drug benefits.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the time remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). Each side has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I appreciate the work done by all the members of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that I support the cause of peace, I
support the defense of the United States and the men and women who
serve.
I also support the taxpayers of the United States of America. That is
why I rise in opposition to this rule, because it authorizes a $2.2
billion boondoggle called the national missile defense, NMD. The NMD
will consume defense budgets, undermine legitimate military
expenditures, and contribute to the erosion of the readiness of our
forces. Taxpayers will regret the day we authorize $2.2 billion in
wasteful spending for the NMD.
Everything is wrong about spending $2.2 billion for the missile
defense building in the bill. First, the technology is not feasible, it
is not testable, and it would not and could not be reliable.
Second, there is no real threat that such a missile defense system
could protect anyone against anything.
Third, it clearly violates the ABM Treaty of 1972. The concept of the
ABM Treaty recognizes that countries have nuclear missiles, swords, but
could not deploy shields. If the U.S. tells Russia, we want a shield,
what can Russia conclude, other than they may need a shield and more
swords, more nuclear missiles?
The deployment of the NMD will decouple all arms agreements. It will
undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It will negate the anti-
ballistic missile treaty and, furthermore, will frustrate SALT II and
SALT III. It will
[[Page H3191]]
lead directly to the proliferation by nuclear nations. It will lead to
transitions towards nuclear arms by nonnuclear nations. It will make
the world less safe, and lead to the impoverishment of people of many
nations, as budgets are refashioned for nuclear arms expenditures.
The United States would be willing to risk a showdown with Russia or
China and the rest of the world over the unlikely possibility that
North Korea may one day have a missile that could touch the continental
United States. What that argues for is talks with North Korea, not the
beginning of a new worldwide arms race.
The fourth reason why this bill is wrong is that it lacks adequate
funding for the cooperative threat reduction program, Nunn-Lugar, which
helps in denuclearization and demilitarization of the states of the
former Soviet Union. Nunn-Lugar has proven real and successful and
effective in reducing nuclear threats, yet this program receives only
$143 million in comparison to a total of $5.2 billion for an imaginary
ballistic missile technology, the NMD, which has proven to be
unworkable and easily defeated by countermeasures.
Fifth, the NMD is a waste of taxpayers' money: $2.2 billion for a
system which everyone knows does not and cannot work will only serve to
undermine taxpayers' confidence in the spending for the military.
Today's Washington Post reports that three high-level Pentagon
officials, who have served in this administration are saying that a
national defense missile system is expensive and unnecessarily
alienating to the Russians. The Russians just passed START II and a
comprehensive test ban treaty. We are saying the Cold War is over. If
the Cold War is over, what are we doing putting together a national
missile defense shield?
The officials conclude in The Washington Post that the development
and testing of the system is not mature enough for the United States to
make a confident deployment decision this year.
Let us recommit to nuclear arms reduction. Let us recommit to nuclear
disarmament. Let us do this for ourselves and future generations. There
is no security in a future saturated with nuclear weapons. The Cold War
is over. The benefits of the end of the Cold War ought to start coming
back to the taxpayers, not to arms contractors for a missile shield
that does not work.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the bill that my friend, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), was talking about with regard to
subvention was written in San Diego by my veterans. It was actually
written before I became a Member of Congress in 1990, and we support
that particular bill.
The gentleman from Mississippi has got good intentions on this. There
are many of us that would like this bill to come forward, and we have
talked to both the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and to the
Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). But let me tell my
colleagues something. Before we shut this House down, I would say to my
friend, it is important that we move forward. Subvention, Tri-Care,
FEHBP, we have promised our military veterans too long that we are
going to take care of them. We are losing thousands of World War II
veterans every month. If we wait and keep on delaying, those veterans
are not going to get the care that was promised to them.
We looked at the subvention bill itself. When I originally introduced
the subvention bill, we had it as 100 percent. Because of the cost
analysis and different reasons, the White House said no, we want to
make it a pilot program. They were going to limit it just to two, one
in the Senate and one here. It was my bill and my hospital was not even
going to get in the subvention mix. I fought tooth, hook, and nail, and
we were able to get that expanded.
But even then we were stopped. And if my colleagues will look at why
subvention and some of these others have not passed, the White House
itself did not push. DOD did not push these bills. Matter of fact, they
told people if they got involved with subvention or FEHBP, they may not
get back onto the regular program. So the numbers were very, very
deficient. And they put out outlandish numbers; that the cost would
reach out too much.
I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, that I will
work with him. But he is also aware that whether it is Tri-Care,
whether it is FEHBP, and I personally think FEHBP, which a civilian
has, is better than my original subvention. The same thing that a
civilian Federal worker has that will guarantee subsistence beyond
Medicare will actually be better. But the commission, Republicans and
Democrats, were put together and tasked with what do we need to put
together to really keep the promise of our health care promises to our
veterans.
I remember in 1993, when the other side of the aisle increased taxes,
increased spending and they cut military COLAs. They cut veterans'
COLAs and they increased taxes on Social Security. So what we are
saying, there is fault on both sides. Do not try to demagogue the
veterans issue. Work with us in providing this health care plan.
We are well aware that the White House came over to the Democrat
leadership and now every single bill the minority leadership is going
to try to stop, to show a do-nothing Congress. Every one of these
bills, whether it is riders, whether it is this issue, the Democrats
are going to try to shut down the House or delay and end up with a
monumental appropriations package at the end because the White House
wants $20 billion more. Will they get some of that? Probably, yes,
because we cannot control the Senate. But what the minority wants is to
where they can get the whole $20 billion and work in taking the
majority. I think that is disingenuous.
I support the gentleman from Mississippi, and I think he is very,
very caring in what he wants to do for veterans. But look at the big
picture and help us work through this process. Support this rule. Let
us push on forward and let us work for the betterment of the American
people.
{time} 1200
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, all that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is
asking for is a vote. All he is asking for is the House to have the
opportunity to vote on his proposal. That is not an unreasonable
proposition. All the platitudes on the other side will not do any good
if they do not give us a vote on the Taylor amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his comments. I certainly do not
claim to be the inventor of subvention. Someone else is. It might
possibly be the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). It is a
good idea, though.
What I would like to tell the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) is that he is right. I am disappointed also that the
administration has not been more helpful. But a reading of the
Constitution will tell both of us that no money may be drawn from the
Treasury except by an appropriation by Congress.
Just because the administration did not help enough no way absolves
us from doing our job. I am asking for the opportunity for the 435
Members of this body to do their job, to take care of our military
retirees. I hope the gentleman will help me in that effort.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
As the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Rules know,
the rule makes in order my amendment to provide the Department of
Energy additional tools to manage the reduction of the overall number
of Federal employees in the workforce at Rocky Flats and the other
nuclear weapons facilities while also keeping those sites on track for
expedited closure. In addition, the DOE would be able to provide
assistance for employees to make successful transitions to retirement
and new careers.
I am here to say that I greatly appreciate the Committee on Rules for
allowing this important matter to be
[[Page H3192]]
considered. I also appreciate the cooperation and assistance of the
leadership and staff of the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Based on my discussions
with them, I have agreed to some revisions in the amendment; and it is
my understanding that the amendment, with those revisions, probably
will be included as part the en bloc managers amendment.
Here is a brief description of the revised amendment:
The amendment deals with the DOE weapons sites that are scheduled for
expedited cleanup and closure--(1) Rocky Flats in Colorado and (2)
several sites in Ohio: Fernald, Columbus, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula.
The amendment is based on an Administration request. It would give
DOE additional tools to meet the challenge of downsizing the federal
workforce in ways that will both facilitate accelerated closure of the
site and also assist DOE's employees to make successful transitions to
retirement or new careers.
DOE wants this authority as a way to avoid reliance on the standard
reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures by offering incentives for some
employees to voluntarily separate and for others to remain.
The goal is to manage the reduction in the overall number of federal
employees at the site while still retaining the proper mix of people
with needed skills despite the high attrition rates that can be
expected as closure approaches--so, the amendment would allow DOE to
offer incentives for some people to leave early and for others to
remain.
Similar--not identical--language has been incorporated as section
3155 of the Senate version of the bill. As modified, the amendment
would allow DOE to authorize--additional accumulation of annual leave;
payment of lump-sum retention allowances; and continuation of health-
care benefits for employees who are separated (voluntarily or
involuntarily) from Rocky Flats or one of the other sides covered by
the amendment.
The amendment would require inclusion of information about the use of
these incentives in the required periodic reports on the closure.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
(Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I am
disappointed with the rule as it stands before the body. But the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is very urgent
for the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Committee
on Rules to reconsider their decision on many amendments that do not
appear before the House today.
The bill before us builds upon last year's achievements and continues
our efforts to improve the quality of life for our military personnel
retirees and their families. I am particularly pleased that the bill
includes several provisions, which I support, to improve the military
health care system, particularly for our Medicare-eligible retirees and
their families.
This year, the Year of Health Care, we have made significant
improvements in the military health care system in response to concerns
raised by service members, retirees, and their families. The health
care provisions of this bill will greatly improve their quality of
life, particularly for Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents.
The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program will restore access to the
National Mail Order Pharmacy, the network retail pharmacies, and the
out-of-network pharmacies. It is a major step towards improving health
care for our Medicare-eligible retirees. We have improved access to
TRICARE. We have reduced and streamlined the administrative costs, and
we are using the savings to improve health care benefits for our
military personnel, retirees and their families.
I am particularly pleased that this bill includes provisions which we
have supported on our side of the aisle, and I am particularly pleased
to have been able to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman
Buyer) to see that everything has been included.
It includes improvements to pay, it reduces out-of-pocket housing
costs for service members, and provides funding for the Military Thrift
Savings Plan. These provisions help us build upon our achievements of
last year, which was the Year of the Troops.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services, for their leadership in producing a bipartisan bill that will
improve the lives of our service members.
I particularly want to commend again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer) for working with me and other members on the committee to ensure
that our men and women in uniform have the quality of life that they
deserve.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to say that H.R. 4205
is a very good bill. I would like to commend the gentleman from South
Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the ranking member, for bringing it forward with excellent
bipartisan cooperation. It is a difficult challenge with defense
because of so many needs and not enough dollars to go around, but they
have done an excellent job this year.
I would also like to reassure the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the ranking member, that the gentleman from California
(Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules are very sensitive to the
issue of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and will work to
achieve a satisfactory result.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 201, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 190]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
[[Page H3193]]
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (CO)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Baldacci
Campbell
Coburn
Collins
Crowley
Davis (VA)
Delahunt
Doyle
Largent
Lipinski
McIntosh
Stupak
Udall (NM)
Wamp
{time} 1226
Messrs. Maloney of Connecticut, Strickland, Hall of Texas, Rahall,
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Lampson, and Mr. Pastor changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________