[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2245-H2248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4546, BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 415 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 415
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. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003, 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 the 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
and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution.
(c) Except as specified in section 4 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 as specified in the report and 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 part B
of 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
[[Page H2246]]
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
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. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
{time} 1045
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). 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. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It is a
traditional structured rule for defense authorization and it provides
for debate on a number of pertinent issues, including nuclear policy,
missile defense, quality-of-life issues for our servicemen and women,
and a number of noncontroversial concerns.
H.R. 4546 is a good bill. This legislation firmly shows our
commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. This is
the fifth straight year of real increases to defense spending after 13
consecutive years of real cuts to defense budgets, and the largest
increase in military manpower since 1986.
With U.S. personnel risking their lives on the front lines of the war
on terrorism, H.R. 4546 is more than just a signal to our soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines that this is a Nation that recognizes their
sacrifices. It is the means by which we meet our commitment to
providing them a decent quality of life, by providing an across-the-
board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, as well as
improving benefits and continuing to build new housing and working
facilities. The housing conditions have been deplorable, and certainly
they deserve better.
I commend my colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and the ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for
crafting legislation that will make America a safe place. It improves
our defense against terrorists, rogue nations, against chemical and
biological warfare and nuclear weapons.
However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order
that I strongly oppose, the Sanchez amendment. It would allow abortions
on our military bases overseas. Military treatment centers, which are
dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to
facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the
womb. For the past 5 years, the House has voted to keep abortion on
demand out of military medical facilities. I urge my colleagues to stay
on this course and vote against this amendment.
That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass this rule and pass the
underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will
be making our homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and
daughters who are serving us in the military. We will be preparing for
war, if necessary, thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in
our history, this bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, after September 11, the world saw something that we have
known for a long time: Ensuring the security and liberty of the
American people is not a partisan issue. Regardless of our differences
on domestic issues, like Social Security and education, Democrats and
Republicans are united behind our troops and committed to providing
them the resources to defend the people of this great country. We are
all Americans, we are all patriotic, and we are all here to promote the
best interests of this great Nation. A strong national defense stands
as one of the great pillars of the might of our country, and this bill
largely reflects America's bipartisan support for national defense, the
war on terrorism, and our men and women in uniform.
In light of this bipartisan cooperation in the war on terrorism, it
is particularly outrageous that the Republican majority has given us
such an unfair and one-sided rule on this important bill. Mr. Speaker,
the ranking minority member and the chairman of the House Committee on
Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), respectively, deserve real credit
for this bill. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in particular
has fought very hard to keep this process bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell, this bill provides the resources to win
the war on terrorism and to ensure America's military remains the
world's finest. It meets the President's overall defense request, which
is a large increase over current spending, and it provides substantial
resources to fight terrorism.
Additionally, Democrats and Republicans have again worked together to
make significant improvements in the troops' quality of life.
The bill provides for another substantial military pay raise, at
least 4.1 percent for all servicemen and women, and up to 6.5 percent
for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers. It authorizes $10
billion for military construction and family housing because our troops
and their families should not have to live in substandard conditions.
And for military retirees, the bill ends the current practice of
reducing veterans' retirement pay when they seek disability
compensation.
I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules rejected
my amendment to remove some of the obstacles faced by more than 15,000
legal immigrants in the armed services who want to become citizens.
Their service reflects the tremendous pride and patriotism of our
immigrant communities, particularly among Hispanic immigrants, and I
will keep working to make sure this becomes law.
I am also disappointed Republican leaders did not make in order the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one
of the strongest supporters of the military in this Congress, to allow
the House a clean vote on another round of base closures, something we
have not yet had. And the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows),
another pro-defense Democrat, had a worthy amendment to allow military
retirees the same health coverage as Federal employees, but Republican
leaders refused to allow it.
This bill does, however, continue our bipartisan approach to ensuring
America's military superiority throughout the world, providing $3.7
billion more than the President requested for important weapons
programs. In particular, it authorizes over $5.2 billion for the F-22
Raptor, the Air Force's next generation air dominance fighter. It
includes $1.6 billion for the services' various versions of the Osprey
aircraft. It provides $562.3 million for the Global Hawk UAV. And the
bill provides $3.4 million for the Joint Strike Fighter, the high tech
multi-role fighter of the future.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the majority of this bill reflects the
bipartisan support our armed forces enjoy in this Congress. So I am
frankly mystified that Republican leaders are insisting on using the
war on terrorism as an excuse to continue their long-time attack on the
environment. It verges on ideological war profiteering, and they should
be ashamed of themselves.
Some Republicans have squirreled away in this bill provisions to
exempt the Pentagon from landmark environmental protections that have
been on
[[Page H2247]]
the books for decades. America has fought and won numerous wars while
respecting the Endangered Species Act, for instance, but now some
Republicans insist on undercutting it. Since Republican leaders know
they cannot defend in the light of day their attack on the environment,
the Committee on Rules last night refused to allow the House to even
vote on Democratic amendments to strike these environmental rollbacks,
as well as many other amendments offered by Democratic Members.
Additionally, there are several very important issues in the bill
that the Committee on Rules majority has given short shrift to by
limiting debate to 10 or 15 minutes. Given the magnitude of nuclear
weapons testing, missile defense, and other matters of global reach, it
seems irresponsible to give Members of this body so little time to
debate. In years past, the defense authorization bill has taken several
days, if not a full work week of floor time. So I am disappointed the
Republican leaders are rushing through this bill in one day so they can
get out of town.
Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to oppose the previous question so
that this bill can be improved in a way that will make it truly
bipartisan. If the previous question is defeated, it is my intention to
offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider
amendments addressing the environmental issues in this bill as well as
the other issues proposed by Democratic Members.
I urge Members of both political parties to join me in opposing the
previous question when it is ordered. In that way we can protect the
environment and preserve the bipartisanship that has been so important
to the war on terrorism. Then we can overwhelmingly pass this
bipartisan bill for the troops.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I congratulate her on her management of this rule.
Let me say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas describe this
rule, it is not quite the one that I recall our having crafted late
last night. In years past, we have had 150-plus amendments filed to the
Committee on Rules on this legislation. The success of passage of this
Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act, which is very appropriately titled
for our colleague who is going to be retiring at the end of the 107th
Congress, in fact brought a total of 83 amendments, the lowest number
that I can ever remember. And I am very pleased that of those 83
amendments filed, we have made in order 25 amendments. There are 10
amendments authored by Democrats, there are 12 amendments authored by
Republicans, and there are 3 bipartisan amendments that have been made
in order. So we are clearly going to have the opportunity to have a
full debate on this issue.
In years past, Mr. Speaker, we have had sometimes 2 weeks of
consideration of this measure because it has been so contentious. This
is probably the least contentious, the least divisive defense
authorization bill that we have had, again, in a long period of time,
in large part due to the fact that we have come together as a Nation to
win the war on terrorism and to make sure that we have a defense
capability second to none so that we do not face the kinds of tragedies
that our country has faced in the past.
So I believe that we have a very good rule here that allows for a
full debate on a wide range of issues. This rule, I am happy to say, is
going to enjoy bipartisan support. I know there are concerns that have
been raised by a number of people, but one of the things we know in
this institution is that we are never going to make everyone happy when
it comes to the process of amending legislation. But I do believe that
this measure is a very appropriate one.
The structure for this rule was in fact designed by our late former
colleague, Les Aspin, who put into place this procedure that we are
using right now, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
and the former Secretary of Defense Mr. Aspin. So I believe that we
have done this in a very fair and a very balanced way.
I want to congratulate, along with the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), my
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my home State of
Missouri as well, who has made a number of proposals to us. And I know
he has some concerns, but I am very pleased that we will, as I said,
enjoy bipartisan support for this rule and will have very strong
bipartisan support for this measure at the end of the day.
{time} 1100
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the strength of a democracy is to be able to have full
public debate on important national issues such as national defense. We
stand for a strong national defense. Many of us in this caucus have a
long history in that regard; but we also stand for the proposition that
the American people can be trusted with the facts, and that there
should be a full discussion on important issues of national defense.
The majority has ignored that and ignored the past practices of this
House of having a full airing of national defense issues, and having a
bill that would be on the floor for several days, perhaps even a week.
That is in the best tradition of this country. We stand for a strong
America, and we stand for a strong and complete discussion of the
issues that make America strong, not the kind of rule which has been
presented today.
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 rise to express some concern that I have;
and as Members know, I had an opportunity to testify yesterday before
the Committee on Rules. I intend to vote against the previous question.
However, should the previous question pass, it is my intention to vote
for the rule. But let me first tell Members of my serious concerns.
A number of key Democratic amendments and proposals were not made in
order. They include, but are not limited to the amendment of the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) requiring 12 months notice
to Congress before nuclear testing. It makes sense to debate that. Or
another amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on
cooperative threat reduction. What is more important than that issue?
It makes sense to debate the Allen amendment prohibiting nuclear-
tipped interceptors. That was put to bed back in 1982. It makes sense
to debate the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
on the Colombian troop cap, or the gentleman's amendment of last year
repealing last year's base closure law; the Rahall amendment on the
environmental provisions; the Hinchey amendment on environmental
provisions; as well as the Hooley amendment. These are items which
should have been, in my opinion, made in order because we are in favor
of a full and fair debate. Nevertheless, we forge ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I stated that I would vote against the previous question
because of the fact that these amendments were not made in order, that
we seem to be rushing to judgment without a full and fair debate that
the country is entitled to have.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the rule and the underlying legislation. The legislation before us
today will have a tremendous positive impact on improving the
environment in our country and ensuring the safety of all Americans.
But first, today's legislation authorizes $382.8 billion for national
defense, which is consistent with the House budget resolution. It
includes $7.3 billion for programs to combat terrorism, and it also
includes an increase of 4.1 percent for our men and women in uniform.
Further, this legislation keeps our commitment to our military
retirees by completing eliminating the unfair
[[Page H2248]]
practice of reducing retirement pay based on disability payments, and
this will be done by the year 2007.
I am very pleased that the legislation also includes the
administration's proposal to accelerate cleanup of former nuclear
weapon production sites throughout the country. This year the Bush
administration has made a strong commitment to our environment through
the environmental management, or EM, program at the Department of
Defense. As the chairman of the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, I
appreciate the commitment of the committee to ensure that our Nation's
commitment to cleaning up these sites, which represent the greatest
environmental challenges in the country, will continue on track.
The legislation provides at least $800 million to a new cleanup
account to accelerate and reform cleanup of the highest risk
environmental threats in the U.S. in a new and profoundly different
manner. This new account will implement the results of the Department's
year long, top-to-bottom review of the EM program. The account will
direct dollars to accelerate cleanup throughout the Nation without
compromising safety and embracing reforms to ensure that the best
commercial practices and technology drive the program in the future.
Most important, however, is the commitment to drive more program
dollars directly to cleanup and risk reduction, which will accelerate
cleanup by decades at these sites throughout the country and save the
American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in the future.
I am convinced that this program will be successful, and I am proud
that the Hanford site in my district has led the Nation in reaching the
first agreement under the new cleanup account. This agreement, which
was agreed to by the Bush administration, the Governor of the State of
Washington and the EPA, will direct $433 million out of this new
account to Hanford. This historic agreement, when fully implemented,
will result in cost savings of $33 billion and will accelerate cleanup
by 35 to 45 years. This is truly a remarkable commitment to our
environment, and I look forward to additional sites reaching similar
agreements in the future.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement will provide a 5-year funding commitment
instead of the year-to-year hassle that we go through every year.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4546, the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. It
is noteworthy that it is named for the chairman, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump), and it will be a tremendous legacy once finalized.
The bill has flaws, however, and there were numerous amendments that
were offered by Members on both sides of the aisle which were not made
part of this rule.
However, I do feel overall that the rule will allow for support for
our fighting men and women as they wage war against terrorism. It
equips them with the technology, training and personnel that they need
to attain victory, and also demonstrates our commitment to providing an
improved quality of life in granting of funds for military living and
working facilities.
However, due to the structured rule, we have been denied the
opportunity to debate several amendments, including one I introduced.
The amendment I introduced would have increased funding currently
authorized for military health care by $2.5 million, with the necessary
offsets that would not have affected the Pentagon at all. Not $25
million, not $250 million, but just $2.5 million specifically for
retirees and their dependents.
In addition to serving active duty, the military and their families,
the military health system provides services to military retirees and
their dependents. While the number of people on active duty is not
projected to increase dramatically over the next few years, the number
of retirees and their dependents, especially over the age of 65, will.
We face immense challenges in this regard.
I regret that the structured rule has denied me and other Members the
opportunity to provide a much-needed boost to the military health care
system. Be assured that my support, as my colleagues, for our military
extends to support for veterans and their families, and I will continue
to support them however, wherever, and whenever I can.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 4546, the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This
bill shows the nation's unwavering support for our fighting men and
women as they wage war against terrorism. It equips them with the
technology, training and personnel they need to attain victory. It also
demonstrates our commitment to providing an improved quality of life in
the granting of funds for upgrades to military living and working
facilities.
However, due to the structured rule, we have been denied the
opportunity to debate the amendment I introduced.
My amendment would have increased funding currently authorized for
military health care by $2.5 million, specifically for retires and
their dependents.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to serving active duty military and their
families, the military health system provides services to military
retirees and their dependents. While the number of people on active
duty is not projected to increase dramatically over the next few years,
the number of retirees and their dependents, especially those over the
age of 65, will.
The greatest challenge facing the military health care system is
caring for retirees--especially those over the age of 65.
Again, I regret that the structured rule has denied me the
opportunity to provide a much needed boost to the military health care
system. Be assured that my support for our military extends to support
for veterans and their families and I will continue to support them
however, wherever, and whenever I can.
Mr. Speaker, there are a few other aspects of this bill that remain
troublesome--one concerns our environment and the other concerns the
deployment of American troops in Colombia. Regrettably, this structured
rule has denied us the opportunity for further debate on these two
important issues.
This bill grants special exemptions to the Department of Defense
environmental programs. This provision is, and I quote, ``intended to
restore a balance between environmental responsibilities and military
readiness.'' It relieves DoD, when conducting training exercises, from
observing the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Act, and the
Marine Mammal Act.
The ESA already contains a provision that permits DoD to request a
waiver from compliance with the Endangered Species Act if that
compliance poses a threat to national security. I question the
necessity of granting the Department of Defense with a blanket
exclusion from the laws that the rest of us must adhere to.
An amendment, offered by Mr. Maloney sought to strike this language
from the bill, and another from Ms. Sanchez required annual reports
from DoD on its stewardship of the environmentally sensitive areas on
military bases. Both of these amendments would have initiated a much
needed debate on this issue, but we have denied that right by the rule
that has been invoked.
Secondly, Mr. Taylor offered an amendment to limit the number of U.S.
troops in Colombia to not more than 500. Mr. Speaker, I have some grave
concerns about the necessity of increasing the number of American
troops currently in Colombia and would have welcomed the opportunity to
debate this issue with my colleagues.
____________________