[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2359-H2371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H2359]]

House of Representatives

                              {time}  2045
   BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                              (Continued)

  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, 
agree or disagree with the merits of reproductive freedom, the fact 
remains that women of the United States have a constitutional right to 
these services. So why do we choose to place our overseas female 
soldiers and military dependents into a subclass of citizenship? 
Currently servicewomen may fly back to the United States to obtain 
reproductive services, but only after they have authorization from a 
commanding officer and can find space on military transport.
  If your daughter, your wife, sister or friend had to make this tough 
reproductive choice and was stationed overseas, do you believe that as 
adult women they should be required to disclose this to their 
commanding officer? Would you want to put her on a plane alone? Our 
servicewomen and dependents overseas deserve better.
  My amendment allows military personnel and their dependents serving 
overseas to use their own private funds to obtain safe, legal abortion 
services in overseas military hospitals. No Federal funds would be 
used.
  The amendment will only affect U.S. military facilities overseas. My 
amendment will not violate host country laws, nor does it compel any 
doctor who opposes abortion on principle to perform one. It will, 
however, open up reproductive services at bases and countries where 
abortion is legal.
  Vote for the rights of our servicewomen and dependents abroad. Vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). This amendment simply 
introduces a controversial issue of abortion into a national security 
debate. The amendment does not address an operational need for the 
Armed Services or ensure health care benefits extended to our men and 
women in uniforms and their families.
  Under current law, government-funded abortions may be performed in 
the Department of Defense medical treatment facilities whenever the 
life of the mother would be endangered if the baby were carried to 
term. Additionally, self-funded abortions may be performed in these 
medical treatment facilities in cases in which the pregnancy is the 
result of an act of rape or incest.
  If this amendment is adopted, self-funded abortions would not be 
limited in military medical treatment facilities outside the United 
States to cases in which the life of the mother would be endangered if 
the baby were carried to full term or in cases in which the pregnancy 
is the result of the act of rape or incest. Elective abortions can be 
performed in military medical treatment facilities outside the United 
States.
  Proponents of the amendment claim that the amendment is necessary 
because female service members and dependents overseas are denied equal 
access to health care. This is simply not true. In those overseas 
locations where safe and legal abortions are not available, service 
members and their dependents currently have the option of using space 
available travel to return to the United States or to some other 
overseas location to obtain an abortion. As a result, the argument that 
the DOD personnel overseas are denied equal access to health care just 
is not true.
  Additionally, abortions are generally available overseas. For 
example, in Italy abortion services comparable to those in the United 
States are available from Italian providers. In Japan abortion is legal 
and generally unrestricted. And in Germany when a woman has an abortion 
she can have it during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy.
  In short, there is simply not any truth to the claim that our 
servicewomen and dependents overseas do not have equal access to 
abortion services.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the co-sponsor of this 
amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
which I have co-authored with the gentlewoman from California for 
years. Since 1995, we have tried each year to change the policy that I 
think truly does harm to women serving in our military overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, as we deploy women all over the world in the war on 
terrorism, it is urgent that they know they have our full support, our 
prayers and the same rights as every other American woman under our 
Constitution.
  I listened to the last speaker, my good friend the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun), and it is not the case that military women have the 
same rights to pay for abortion services overseas as military women who 
serve at home. There are limited rights to abortion services overseas, 
but they are not the same rights that military women in America have. 
It is this difference that we seek to eliminate with this amendment.

[[Page H2360]]

  Mr. Chairman, over 100,000 women, active service members, spouses and 
dependents of military personnel live on military bases overseas and 
rely on military hospitals for their medical care. It is not fair for 
them to have to violate their personal privacy to reveal that they are 
pregnant in order to get permission to fly home to have a safe abortion 
in an American hospital.
  We are not asking the Federal government to pay for abortions 
overseas. We are not asking military doctors who have moral, religious 
or ethical objections to perform abortions overseas. All we are asking 
is that servicewomen stationed abroad have the same constitutional 
rights as servicewomen living here.
  Mr. Chairman, they have earned those rights. They are putting their 
lives on the line to preserve our freedom. We should not ask them 
potentially to sacrifice their lives to secure an abortion.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak 
against this amendment to expand abortion services in military 
hospitals overseas. Let us be clear on what we are really talking 
about. What this amendment does is to allow the use of hard earned 
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in our military overseas hospitals. 
This violates the strongly held convictions of millions of Americans 
who do not want their tax dollars going to fund activities that they 
believe are wrong.
  The other side will argue that the procedure will be paid for by the 
woman seeking the abortion. But this clearly ignores the obvious fact 
that the infrastructure, the medical facilities, the equipment are all 
paid for with taxpayer dollars. This amendment is fundamentally about 
how we use our taxpayer dollars, which should not be a controversial 
issue. The overwhelming majority of taxpayers oppose the use of 
publicly held Federal dollars for abortion.
  This amendment has been rejected six times by the same House. Do the 
right thing today and vote against the passage of this amendment again.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just for the gentlewoman's sake, the individual who 
would get the abortion done would have to pay for the abortion herself. 
This is not a public expense.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), my colleague on the committee.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I take a point of personal privilege first to 
wish the best of luck to Hoover House at the University of Chicago in 
their ancient and honorable scavenger hunt.
  I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment because it guarantees 
American women in uniform that they can use their own funds for all 
legal options in their health care. As a Naval officer I served at 
Incirlik Air Base in Adana, Turkey. I know of the outstanding clinics 
available on base and also of the poor conditions available at the 
Adana Turkish City Hospital. I believe that U.S. service men and women 
should be treated on base by American doctors and that our women in 
uniform should not be forced into some clinic where English is not 
spoken.
  I commend the gentlewoman, and this amendment should be adopted.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
note that terminating the life of a fetus is not properly defined as a 
reproductive service.
  For many years we had no law respecting whether abortions could or 
could not be performed in medical facilities. We simply did not need 
one because military medical personnel would not perform abortions. 
Abortions for life of the mother, rape or incest are currently 
permitted in military facilities. And what this amendment asks for are 
abortions that fully 80 percent of Americans oppose; that is, abortion 
for birth control.
  When you remove life of the mother, rape and incest, that is all that 
is left. Approving this amendment would be a major affront to our brave 
military medical people who do not want abortions performed in their 
facilities. Please vote against this motion.


          Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now 
rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 58, 
noes 325, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 50, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 148]

                                AYES--58

     Abercrombie
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Filner
     Frank
     Hill
     Holt
     Honda
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rodriguez
     Sanchez
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Wu

                               NOES--325

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland

[[Page H2361]]


     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--50

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Berman
     Boehner
     Burton
     Cannon
     Clay
     Clayton
     Combest
     Crane
     Culberson
     Diaz-Balart
     Foley
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Goss
     Hall (OH)
     Hilleary
     Hulshof
     John
     Kennedy (MN)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pence
     Platts
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Schaffer
     Simpson
     Souder
     Stark
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                              {time}  2117

  Mrs. MYRICK, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Mr. HOEKSTRA changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. SOLIS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez 
amendment. Women who volunteer to join the armed services, who risk 
their lives in faraway places, are asked now to compromise their 
constitutional right to choose. And she is also having to make a 
decision to compromise her health, because we are not talking about her 
life that may be at stake, but if she needs this medical procedure of 
an abortion to save her health, she may have to make the decision not 
to do that.
  Let us be clear. This amendment simply gives American women overseas 
the same legal rights they would receive if they are at home. It does 
not provide public funding for abortions. It simply allows women to use 
their own money to pay for the procedure. It does not force medical 
personnel at military hospitals overseas to perform the procedure. They 
would still be allowed the option not to perform abortions based on 
moral, religious, or ethical objections.
  This amendment is necessary for women's health. The current ban 
places women's health at risk by not allowing them the full range of 
reproductive health. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Sanchez amendment.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the 
gentlewoman from California, the amendment that she offers, if enacted, 
will result in babies being brutally killed by abortion and will force 
pro-life Americans to facilitate the slaughter of innocent children. 
This is an abortion facilitation amendment. It will turn our military 
hospitals into abortion mills.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time we ended our collective denial. Abortion is 
violence against children. Some abortion methods dismember and rip 
apart the fragile, precious bodies of children. Abortion methods also 
chemically poison children. There is nothing benign, there is nothing 
curing or nurturing about abortion. It is violence against children.
  We worry a lot about chemical weapons, especially in the post-anthrax 
scare that we had, which actually affected my own district. What do my 
colleagues think these abortion chemicals do to children when they are 
injected into the amniotic sac? A high-concentrated saline badly burns 
the baby. It is violence against children.
  Let us be about nurturing, promoting prenatal care and maternal 
health care, not the killing of babies.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and also for her persistence each year in trying to bring some 
equity to women and dependents who are serving in our Nation's 
military.
  I rise in strong support of the Sanchez amendment to overturn what is 
a very and extremely discriminatory policy of denying servicewomen and 
female military dependents from using their own funds, mind you, for 
abortions at overseas military hospitals. At a time when many 
servicewomen are overseas fighting in Afghanistan, it is wrong to deny 
them access to vital reproductive health services. Women in the 
military should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all of 
their health care services.
  A repeal of the current law ban on privately funded abortions would 
allow women access to the same range and the same quality of medical 
care available in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Sanchez amendment. We owe it to our women fighting abroad and 
serving in our military proudly throughout the world.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Despite what some of my colleagues have argued, American women in 
overseas military bases are not in danger if they cannot receive an 
abortion at a military facility. Pregnancy is not a disease. Those 
facilities are to treat illness and disease and provide normal health 
care.
  First, let us make clear what the United States policy is regarding 
overseas bases. For countries where abortion is banned, this amendment 
would do nothing to allow women stationed in these countries to have an 
abortion at a military facility. Why? Because U.S. military adheres to 
a country's local laws regarding abortions.
  For example, South Korea bans abortions, meaning they will always be 
banned on military bases located in South Korea. This amendment will do 
nothing to change that policy. Further, in countries where abortion is 
legal, such as Germany, women may travel off base to receive an 
abortion, if they choose. While I would hope these women would not 
choose to have an abortion, they are not denied transportation, and the 
procedure can be done in a sanitary facility.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, it is estimated that 
1,500 women have left military facilities to have abortions since 1993. 
That could have been translated into an average of about 150 abortions 
a year at taxpayer-funded medical facilities.
  This amendment would not do what its proponents claim. It is not 
about whether or not we want to permit our overseas military hospitals 
and facilities to perform abortions only; it is about spending taxpayer 
monies to do so.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Kansas for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  As a reminder, the same amendment has been rejected by the House six 
times previously. I receive letters from my constituents, current 
retired servicemen and women about their concerns over services through 
the military health care system and the budget crunch it is facing. The 
men and women of our Armed Forces face enough medical concerns already, 
including preparing for serious threats like biological and chemical 
weapon attacks, without turning them into abortion clinics.
  Adding unnecessary mandates to the current doctors and nurses would 
be a disservice. The primary mission of the military medical service 
system is to maintain the health of the military personnel. The system 
is designed to keep military personnel healthy so they can carry out 
their missions. In support of those in uniform, the military medical 
system also provides, where space is available, health care services to 
dependents of active-duty servicemembers and retirees and their 
dependents. These duties are enough to keep the system busy without 
adding unnecessary duties.

[[Page H2362]]

  Another reminder: for the 3 years abortions were allowed at military 
facilities under the Clinton administration, military physicians 
refused to perform them, forcing the Clinton administration to hire 
civilians to perform abortions.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this particular 
amendment, which would allow for self-funded abortions to be conducted 
at military hospitals, which is vitally important for servicewomen and 
female dependents overseas.
  This is about the availability of safe, sanitary facilities and well-
trained professional staff. It is also about confidentiality. No woman 
should have to explain to a superior, employer, or superior in the 
military why she wishes to avail herself of a right that is provided 
under the Constitution of the United States. Currently, it is required 
that service individuals, servicewomen, tell their superior officer 
what their situation is in order to be given the opportunity to come 
back to the United States to avail themselves of safe, sanitary 
facilities. That is wrong.
  I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Sanchez 
amendment. For 6 years in a row, the House has rejected the Sanchez 
amendment.
  As the former chairwoman of Feminists For Life, Frederica Matthews-
Green, said, abortion is violence. Abortion is the most violent form of 
death known to mankind. It is death by dismemberment, decapitation, 
ripping the body apart, or poisoning. And she said there are always two 
victims with an abortion: one is the mother, the other is the baby. One 
is dead; one is wounded.
  We should not be turning our military hospitals into abortion 
clinics. We should not be subsidizing with American taxpayer money 
military hospitals so that they can become abortion clinics. I urge 
Members to maintain the current law and vote ``no'' on the Sanchez 
amendment.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report 
the bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enactment 
clause be stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about why the motions to 
rise from the committee, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor), are a valuable contribution to this House, to the democratic 
principles, and actually to this bill.
  When we started debate on this bill earlier this afternoon, the 
Committee on Rules, which sits above this Chamber, a floor away, 
reported a rule that brought the defense authorization bill to the 
floor but did not allow a host of amendments to be offered on this 
bill, amendments that would make defense stronger; amendments that 
would save the taxpayer money; amendments that dealt with foreign 
policy and the amount of troops that could be in Colombia; amendments 
that would involve the BRACC commission and the closure of bases in 
this country.
  All those amendments were thrown by the wayside. And the body, 435 
Members of Congress, were told they could bring their ideas to the 
House floor, the people's House.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Chairman, if the Senate is called the deliberative people, we in 
this great body are called the people's House, and we are elected from 
Colorado and Indiana. We are elected from California and Maine and 
Florida. We are elected by 570,000 people to bring our ideas through 
amendments and legislation to this great hall, and to try to improve 
bills, to try to speak out on farm policy, on space policy, on banking 
regulations, to try to talk about the unemployed and the poor; and yes, 
to strengthen a defense bill.
  But today, Mr. Chairman, we are silenced. Yes, some Members could 
offer amendments, but most of the 435 could not. The gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has been trying to offer his amendment on base 
closures. I would probably oppose his amendment; but he has the right 
to offer that amendment, to have that speech in this body, to have that 
freedom that we have in the House of Representatives to debate ideas.
  After all, Mr. Chairman, our defense, our men and women, our troops 
overseas tonight, are in the cold mountains of Tora Bora fighting 
terrorists for us and for the principles that we hold dear in this 
Chamber. Ideas, speech, debate, all these wonderful things that the 
Founding Fathers put together 225 years ago, but we cannot do them 
today. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is what the 
great House is about. I think this could have been a much shorter day, 
quite frankly, if we would have been allowed the opportunity to debate 
just a few of these amendments.
  I know that there are Republicans that had good ideas, good 
amendments, good principles to bring forward here, but the Committee on 
Rules said no. The Committee on Rules said no to Democrats. This year, 
Mr. Chairman, a motion to recommit was denied the minority for the 
first time in 35 years, to offer our ideas as the minority party. Who 
knows who will be the minority party next year, but the minority right 
should rule around here, that we have an opportunity to offer a motion 
to recommit, and the right to offer amendments for debate, and let the 
majority vote them up or down.
  While the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) may have an 
amendment I disagree with, he has a right and a principle I strongly 
agree with, and that is the right to debate in this great Chamber.
  I would hope that we put partisanship and party behind us tonight, 
and put principle and value in front of us and allow more amendments 
tonight and more amendments in the future on our bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Is there any Member who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion; 
but in fairness to Members and staff that are here, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The motion was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining on the Sanchez amendment, and the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Sanchez) has 2 minutes remaining on the Sanchez amendment.


          Motion to Rise Offered By Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 75, 
noes 319, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 149]

                                AYES--75

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Wu

[[Page H2363]]



                               NOES--319

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeFazio
       

                             NOT VOTING--39

     BairdBallenger
     Barr
     Boehner
     Burton
     Cannon
     Clay
     Clayton
     Crane
     DeLay
     Dooley
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     John
     Kennedy (MN)
     Lewis (GA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pryce (OH)
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Schaffer
     Simpson
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  2159

  Mr. COX changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. ESHOO changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Sanchez-Harman amendment to H.R. 4546, which would simply lift the 
current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities 
overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, our service men and women take an oath of office like 
our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

                              {time}  2200

  Yet, they are denied their constitutional right to privacy and to a 
safe and legal, accessible abortion under Roe v. Wade.
  I have an opportunity to visit bases in my district very regularly, 
and I actually have been surprised, but I should not be, that I have 
been approached by servicemen and women about this issue, and by the 
men whose wives serving our country have to return home from their 
overseas station because of an unwanted and unexpected pregnancy. This 
is a fairness issue. For those protecting our freedom overseas, we need 
to allow them the same rights to access abortions as women in the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to read a little portion of a letter that I 
received from a woman who has spent 10 years in the Army serving her 
country, this country. She wrote about the fact that she had an 
unwanted pregnancy and the details of what she had to do in order to 
come back to this country to receive that reproductive service.
  She writes, ``I can remember thinking at the time how unfair it was 
that I had to resort to these drastic measures. Had I been in the 
States, it would not have been this way. I can remember being resentful 
of my fellow male comrades who were able to have vasectomies paid for 
by the military in Germany, and yet I had to use my leave time and own 
funds to fly back to the U.S. for what is also a reproductive choice. 
Women in the military are denied their right to control their 
reproductive process while abroad, although men in the military enjoy 
the same rights abroad as they do in the States.''
  And she ends, ``Please continue to fight for our service women. I was 
one of them, and I feel we are entitled to the same rights as our 
servicemen, or at least that is what I thought I was fighting for.''
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I have been around here for some time; this 
is my 28th year. Every year we talk about the military budget and 
military hospitals. I am convinced that the purpose of a military 
hospital is for military medical readiness and to save lives; to save 
lives, not to take life.
  Now, we have heard lots of words about the pregnant woman and her 
discomfort, and I sympathize with that situation very much so, but not 
one scintilla, not one thought, has been given to the unborn child.
  How many of my colleagues have held a newborn baby in their arms? 
That is what we are talking about. We are talking about abortion, not 
reproductive rights. Reproductive. There is nothing reproductive about 
an abortion. It is contra-reproductive. An abortion kills a little baby 
once it has begun its life.
  There is no choice involved except a dead baby or a live baby. That 
is the choice that is involved.
  Now, we know what an abortion is, even though we want to euphemize it 
by saying reproductive choice, the product of conception. The little 
baby is not killed; it undergoes demise. We know all of the beautiful 
euphemisms. But the other part of this equation is simply the fact that 
the American taxpayers contain millions of people who resist, as a 
matter of conscience, participating in this killing of an innocent, 
vulnerable, defenseless, unborn child, and their tax dollars are 
involved, because tax dollars have built the hospital, tax dollars 
maintain the hospital, and the consciences of those people ought to be 
respected.
  Vote no.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez 
amendment, which

[[Page H2364]]

would allow military women and dependents stationed overseas to obtain 
abortion services with their own money. I want to thank my colleague 
Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this important issue.
  Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These 
women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful 
nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And 
yet, these women--for the past eight years--have been denied the very 
Constitutional rights they fight to protect.
  My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and 
would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny 
constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? 
Mr. Chairman, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we 
have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while 
serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy 
at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed.
  This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions 
because no federal funds would be used for these services. This 
amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures 
they are opposed to because they are protected by a broad exemption. 
This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the 
ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access 
safe and legal abortion services.
  Mr. Chairman, as our nation works to preserve our freedoms and 
democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the path of our 
troops overseas. We know that the restriction on abortion does nothing 
to make abortion less necessary--it simply makes abortion more 
difficult and dangerous.
  It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our 
military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the pro-choice Amendment 
offered by Representative Sanchez to the Defense Authorization bill. 
This amendment restores the right of female service members and 
dependents who are stationed overseas to use their personal funds to 
obtain abortions.
  Current law prohibits United States military service members and 
their dependents stationed overseas from obtaining an abortion in 
military hospitals, even if they pay for the procedure with their own 
funds. The defense authorization bill that we are considering today 
leaves this prohibition in place, while the Sanchez amendment removes 
this restriction.
  This ban threatens women's health and privacy. Women stationed 
overseas rely on their base hospitals for medical care and are often in 
areas where local health care facilities are inadequate or unavailable. 
This ban may compel a woman to postpone the procedure while she looks 
for a provider, or may force a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy to 
seek an illegal, unsafe abortion. Alternatively, she may have to inform 
her superiors about her need for an abortion and wait until there is 
space available on a military flight back to the United States, 
sacrificing her privacy and increasing her health risk with potentially 
risky delays. The ban is especially unjust because the government is 
not determining how and where American tax dollars are spent; it is 
dictating to women what they can and cannot do with their own money.
  Women serving overseas, defending Americans' liberties, should not be 
denied the very rights they are charged with protecting simply because 
they are serving abroad. I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-
choice strategy and vote for the Sanchez amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of 
Representative Sanchez's amendment.
  This amendment is about recognizing the rights and dignity of our 
women in the armed forces. It grants those serving overseas and their 
dependents access to appropriate reproductive health care. It is really 
a very limited amendment to correct a policy that never should have 
been enacted in the first place. This amendment does not impose 
Department of Defense funding for abortion. Rather, it simply allows 
women to obtain safe abortion services using their own funds in U.S. 
military hospitals outside of the United States.
  The current ban increases women's health risks and denies women their 
basic constitutional right to privacy. It requires a woman to inform 
her superiors of her need for abortion and wait until there is space 
available on a military flight back to the United States. This delay 
puts women's lives in jeopardy.
  Furthermore, women serving our country today depend on their military 
base hospital for medical care in areas where local health care 
facilities may be inadequate or unavailable. The health of a 
servicewoman is threatened when she has to look outside of the base for 
a safe provider of the medical attention she needs. The current policy 
may even force a woman to seek back alley or unsafe abortion when 
facing a crisis pregnancy.
  In addition, the ban discriminates against the women serving our 
country overseas. This amendment would ensure equal access to 
comprehensive reproductive health care for all U.S. servicewoman and 
dependents, regardless of where they are stationed.
  We should provide the best possible medical attention to our military 
personnel, and that includes reproductive health services. We ought to 
pass this amendment now. We owe it to the women in our armed services 
who risk their lives everyday to protect liberty and fight for our 
freedom. They work hard every day to promote our safety, lets act today 
to protect their safety. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sanchez 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8.


          Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, 
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  One hundred Members being present, the point of no quorum is 
overruled.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 83, 
noes 312, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                                AYES--83

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gordon
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--312

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler

[[Page H2365]]


     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--39

     Barr
     Berman
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Clay
     Clayton
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     English
     Everett
     Hall (OH)
     John
     Kennedy (MN)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Maloney (CT)
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Ose
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Saxton
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Traficant
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. LEWIS of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in part A of House Report 107-450.


              Part A Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Goode

  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Goode:
       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ____. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND 
                   NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request 
     consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 
     to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States to prevent the entry of weapons of mass 
     destruction, components of weapons of mass destruction, 
     prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug 
     trafficking items.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members 
     under subsection (a) may occur only if--
       ``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Attorney 
     General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service; and
       ``(2) the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary 
     of the Treasury (as the case may be) is accompanied by a 
     certification by the President that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat 
     to national security posed by the entry into the United 
     States of terrorists or drug traffickers.
       ``(c) Training Program Required.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together 
     with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training 
     program to ensure that members receive general instruction 
     regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the border 
     areas in which the members may perform duties under an 
     assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed 
     at a border location pursuant to an assignment under 
     subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed 
     the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions of Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is 
     assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service 
     is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the 
     assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the 
     agency concerned shall accompany the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Establishment of Ongoing Joint Task Forces.--(1) The 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     establish ongoing joint task forces when accompanied by a 
     certification by the President that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request to establish a joint task force is 
     necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed 
     by the entry into the United States of terrorists or drug 
     traffickers.
       ``(2) When established, any joint task force shall fully 
     comply with the standards as set forth in this section.
       ``(f) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     notify the Governor of the State in which members are to be 
     deployed pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a), and 
     local governments in the deployment area, of the deployment 
     of the members to assist the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service or the United States Customs Service (as the case may 
     be) and the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
       ``(g) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(h) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made 
     or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 
     2005.''.
       (b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program 
     required by subsection (b) of section 374a of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall be established as soon as 
     practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment 81. Amendment 81 is a 
very simple amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service if requested by the head of INS or, if 
requested, the Secretary of Defense could also, if requested by INS, 
use the Armed Forces to assist in cases of drug trafficking and also, 
if needed, to deal with the illegal situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been on both sides. I have been in law 
enforcement and I have been in the military, and I will say one thing, 
law enforcement and military matters do not mix. And I am just 
wondering whether my colleagues know that we have 120,000 troops 
stationed and deployed throughout the world.
  I think that we need to focus now on the war that we are fighting 
now. The new war includes many fronts, including law enforcement on our 
borders, we have Customs, we have Border Patrol, we have INS and others 
doing a great job. Since September 11 in the Commerce-Justice 
appropriations last year,

[[Page H2366]]

we funded an additional 570 border patrol men and 348 immigration 
inspectors. And not only that, Mr. Chairman, in the border security 
bill that we passed yesterday, we added another 1,600 INS inspectors 
and investigators. Besides, Mr. Chairman, many of the border States 
already have the National Guard helping INS, helping the Border Patrol.
  We did not want to have a negative impact on the readiness of our 
troops to bring them from the military role that they are playing now 
and put them in a civilian role. I think this is wrong, and this is why 
I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, it is not news to anyone in this House 
that the borders of this Nation for the most part are porous and 
undefended. As a result, millions of people have over the last several 
years entered this country illegally. Most of them come with benign 
intent. Others come with malicious intent. Among the latter are those 
that bring drugs into the country.
  I recently returned from a visit to the Coronado Forest near Nogales, 
Arizona, a forest I should say that is under siege, inside siege. This 
is an area that is experiencing the highest traffic of both humans and 
illegal drugs. There are so many people coming through in this part of 
the border into that particular area that the forest has been degraded. 
There are literally hundreds of footpaths that have been worn into the 
mountains. There are thousands of acres that have been torched as a 
result of people leaving their campfires. Mostly these people are 
undocumented aliens coming through starting campfires and moving on. 
Most of these people coming through or a great many of them are 
carrying narcotics on their backs in homemade backpacks. They come in 
large numbers, they come in small, but they carry tons of illegal 
narcotics.
  Mr. Chairman, they come through in small numbers and in large. They 
come through with people protecting them with M-16s, and not only that 
in the same area which had several incursions by members of the Mexican 
military and of the Mexican federal police. In fact, in the year 2001 
there were 23 such incursions along our border, along our southern 
border, 23 times. In the last 10 years there have been over 100 such 
incursions. These people are not just lost down there, Mr. Chairman.
  This Nation is in fact under siege. Our need, our ability to defend 
our own borders is well known. Our inability to do so with the 
resources now available is also well known.
  Mr. Chairman, the reality is this, that we cannot protect and defend 
the borders of the United States at the present time with the present 
resources, and that is one of our primary and sole responsibilities.
  The Federal Government is the only entity charged with the 
responsibility of defending our borders. We are not doing it now. More 
help is needed. It is appropriate to give the Department of Defense, it 
is appropriate to give the President, it is appropriate to give the 
Attorney General the ability to use the Armed Forces in a case where 
this Nation is in fact threatened, and I believe we are threatened. We 
are threatened by drug trafficking. We are threatened by massive 
immigration. It is definitely an amendment that deserves our support.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), my good friend, the Vice President of the 
Hispanic Caucus.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, I oppose the amendment that has been raised. Let me 
first of all say that this amendment is a very serious amendment 
because of the fact that the President right now has the right to call 
for troops if he wants them. He has the right to call them. What this 
amendment allows is the opportunity for the Department of Defense or 
the Secretary of Defense with a request of the Secretary, Attorney 
General and Secretary of Treasury to be able to have that influence and 
be able to move on that as consented by the President. We ought to 
leave this responsibility to the Commander in Chief and to the 
President and to do this is a major constitutional change.
  In addition, the increase of U.S. troops on the border with Mexico is 
a dangerous proposal that will leave border residents in danger and 
reduce military readiness. Our military is the world's best trained 
fighting force. They are not police officers and they are not border 
patrol agents. They are trained to fight. And we put our own citizens 
at risk.
  As we know, we have had cases in the past, 4 years ago, when we had 
the young man killed on the border at Redford, Texas, 18 years old. He 
was a high school student killed by Marines, so that has already 
occurred.
  At the present time I also want to share with you that for the very 
first time in recorded history we have over 79,000 both guardsmen and 
reservists doing full time. At a time when the Army has asked for over 
40,000 troops, this bill that we are dealing with today will call for 
2,500 additional Army people. But we need over 40,000 of them. So it is 
a serious situation. When we ask them to do additional work such as 
this, it is unfair to our fighting men and women and it harms our 
national security.
  The military can provide assistance in numerous ways without this 
unwarranted diversion of troops. All of our budgets are tight. Putting 
troops on the border is extremely costly. It is bad to use scarce 
resources that drain our defense budget and put our readiness at risk. 
So I ask we vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, our President has stated that 
this is a war like none other we have ever fought. Before September 11 
no one ever dreamed that we would have our Armed Services guarding our 
airports.
  Certainly we should permit the disposition of our troops anywhere 
they might be needed in the future to protect our national security and 
our vital interests, and this certainly includes the border. This is 
not obligatory legislation. This is only permissive legislation. How 
could we not vote to prevent the disposition of our troops on the 
border if in the view of our Commander in Chief, and it will not be 
done without his knowledge and therefore his presumed ascent, how could 
we preclude him from using the our troops that he feels is necessary on 
the border? There is no valid reason that this legislation should not 
be passed. I urge its acceptance.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) that just spoke a few minutes ago was in actuality 
setting up a scenario of guerrilla warfare on the soil of the United 
States of America.
  Frankly, this amendment is not needed. Just a few weeks ago this 
House passed H.R. 3231, the Immigration Reform bill, which enhanced the 
services and the dollars for our border patrol agents. There is no 
proof that any military at any points of entry anywhere on September 11 
could have prevented the heinous and horrific acts of terrorists coming 
and doing the tragedy of September 11. There is no proof, no proof that 
military could stop terrorists coming across the border. There is no 
proof that the terrorists who acted on September 11 walked across our 
border.
  We have very able border patrol agents, professionally enhanced with 
the dollars that we are providing in the immigration bill, and we 
should focus our attention to making sure that we have the resources 
for our civilian Border Patrol.
  Under the terminology of the posse comitatus, we should not use the 
military for police and local functions.
  I think it is important for this House to make several statements: 
One, we will protect this Nation and the people within it, but 
immigration does not equate to terrorism. And the use of the military 
for this reason undermines

[[Page H2367]]

the very purpose of their service. If we begin to take military 
personnel out of individual units across this Nation, we will have a 
domino effect of ineffectiveness and unreadiness to be able to fight 
the kind of wars and the kinds of circumstances that our military brass 
determined that they should fight.
  I will also note that years ago, some years ago or a couple of years 
ago, when this bill came forward, it was well known that the Defense 
Department is not for it, the Department of Justice is not for it, and 
it does not provide any additional powers to the President of the 
United States that he does not already have. It sends a very bad 
message on behalf of this Congress on what we stand for, putting 
military personnel at the border for no purposes, and I do believe that 
we are protected by the strong enforcement or reinforcement of our 
border patrol agents and the new funding sources that we are looking to 
provide. Let us not willy-nilly provide scare tactics for this country.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goode) for yielding me time, and I support his amendment.
  I rise in support of the Goode amendment and the Bob Stump National 
Defense Authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to address another 
part of the bill that is especially germane.
  In recent days there has been a great deal of discussion, speculation 
and media coverage about the Crusader program, and let me clarify some 
issues because I believe there are some myths out there that are 
flowing around through the airwaves.
  First, our bill merely funds the President's budget request, no more, 
no less. Even at this late hour in the authorization process the 
President's budget proposal has not formally been revised. Full funding 
of the Crusader is part of what the President sent over earlier this 
year, and more importantly it is what our fighters say they need. 
Additionally, the Crusader funding level is $475 million, or about 1.2 
percent of the overall DOD budget. For this relatively modest 
commitment in the overall budget, this Congress will provide protection 
and security for our soldiers.
  The Crusader is something that our service chiefs, the combatant 
commanders and service secretaries have been unanimous in their support 
in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services here and in the 
Senate.

                              {time}  2245

  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, a number of critics of Crusader mistakenly 
believe it is the same program that critics focused on in 1999. At that 
time, it weighed close to 60 tons. Now it weighs under 40 tons. It has 
downsized. It has modernized. It has been a poster child for 
transformation.
  Mr. Chairman, speculation about alternatives to Crusader is pure 
theorizing at this point. Crusader has 8 years of development under its 
belt, and hypothetical replacements would have start-up costs, research 
expenses and all the hiccups of a new program.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that if we intend to have the best ground 
forces possible for force protection and future fire support, the 
answer is Crusader. I am proud of the committee and this bill for 
recognizing that and for supporting full funding of what this very 
important system will provide for our men and women in uniform.


          Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 249, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               AYES--154

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--249

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Berman
     Brady (TX)
     Burton
     Cannon
     Clay
     Clayton
     Combest
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crane
     Culberson
     Dooley
     Hall (OH)
     Hulshof
     John
     Kennedy (MN)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Millender-McDonald
     Nethercutt
     Ose
     Oxley
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)

[[Page H2368]]



                              {time}  2309

  Mr. CLYBURN, Mrs. CAPPS, and Messrs. LIPINSKI, DEUTSCH, OBEY and 
OLVER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. On the pending Goode of Virginia amendment No. 8, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia. And while I share my 
colleague's goal of promoting national security by ensuring the safety 
of our borders, I am convinced that the unintended consequences of this 
amendment would cause it to do more harm than good.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of September 11, it is more essential than 
ever that we provide the tools necessary for our military to defend 
this country. Yet this amendment would give the men and women of the 
armed services the mandate of acting not only as soldiers but as 
policemen, customs agents, and border patrol officers.

                              {time}  2311

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment requires that before any troops be 
allowed to serve on the border they must undergo a law enforcement 
training program. This would require valuable time and money that could 
be spent training our troops to do the job they signed up to do, rather 
than to be police officers and customs agents. If we want to provide 
more security at the border, we should provide more resources to the 
INS and Customs Service, not ask military to duplicate the work that 
existing agents are performing.
  Mr. Chairman, the President already has the power should he need it, 
but this amendment is counterproductive to the goals of this 
legislation. Let us not stretch them thinner by asking them to not only 
do their jobs, but the jobs of others as well.
  While I share my colleague's goal of promoting national Security by 
ensuring the safety of our borders, I am convinced that the unintended 
consequences of this amendment would cause it to do more harm than 
good.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of September 11, it is more essential than 
ever that we provide the tools necessary for our military to defend 
this country. In a world of limited resources, this means giving our 
military a clear and specific mandate that will allow it to most 
efficiently use the resources we give it. Yet this amendment would give 
the men and women of the armed services the mandate of acting not only 
as soldiers, but as policemen, customs agents, and border patrol 
officers. This is an unreasonable burden to place upon our troops at a 
time when we need them to be prepared to join the war against terror at 
a moment's notice.
  I believe that this amendment would be extraordinarily expensive and 
counter-productive. The amendment requires that before any troops be 
allowed to serve on the border, they must undergo a law enforcement 
training program. This would require valuable time and money that could 
be spent training our troops to do the job they signed up to do, rather 
than to be police officers and customs agents.
  Furthermore, even after they are trained, the amendment would require 
that all members of the military working on the border be accompanied 
by a civilian law enforcement officer at all times. This creates an 
enormously duplicative yet costly role for troops that we desperately 
need elsewhere. If we want to provide more security at the border, we 
should provide more resources to the INS and customs Service, not ask 
our military to duplicate the work that existing agents are performing.
  Mr. Chairman, the President already has this power should he need it. 
But this amendment is counter-productive to the goals of this 
legislation. I have heard many Members in this Chamber today claim that 
our military has been over-burdened and under-funded in the past. Lets 
not stretch them even thinner by asking them to not only do their jobs, 
but others' jobs as well.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we adopted this amendment last year. After September 
11, the times demand that we adopt it even more this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) to close on this amendment.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by first acknowledging the 
work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for his efforts to 
recognize the true national security interests that we have and the 
domestic security interests that I believe the gentleman is trying to 
raise through this amendment.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the President did not request this amendment. The 
Department of Defense did not request this amendment. The Department of 
Justice, which houses the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 
the Border Patrol, did not request this amendment. The Department of 
the Treasury, which houses our Customs Service, did not request this 
amendment. The governors and the States that control our National Guard 
did not request this amendment. So why are we doing this amendment?
  This is the House of Representatives. This is not the war room or the 
White House situation room. We should let those who know best how to 
deploy our military services, our men and women in uniform, to make 
those decisions. We are not day to day the best judges of how to deploy 
our troops, but that is what this amendment goes to.
  Let us remember something here. If we have civilian law enforcement 
work and oversight and deployment that must take place, we have 
civilian law enforcement to do that work, our Border Patrol, our 
Customs agents, our National Guard. They should be doing that work 
along the border. Right now the President has the authority if there is 
an emergency to deploy our troops. But why clutter the law with 
something that does nothing to make it clear how we best use our 
troops.
  In fact, this undermines our security. It undermines our readiness 
because it takes troops from their units where they are best deployed 
by the minds of the generals in our services and places them, based on 
the minds of people who sit here today, along our borders. That is not 
the way to conduct military operations.
  I am not in the military, but I can tell Members something, I know I 
do not know as well as our generals where to put our troops. I will put 
my faith and confidence in our generals. Members should do the same.
  This amendment, while perhaps well-intentioned, does nothing except 
cost us more money and undermine our readiness, and for that reason it 
should not be approved.
  I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), I think he is 
well-intentioned, but I do not believe that this goes where we wish to 
go. If Members do not believe that, just look at our past history. The 
one time when we recently deployed our troops along the border, what 
was the reminder, what was the relic of that brief deployment, the 
death of a U.S. citizen, an 18-year-old by the name of Ezequiel 
Hernandez, who was herding his sheep and was killed by our own Army 
personnel by mistake. Let us not make the mistake again.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not know what terrorist event in the future may 
demand the need for the Secretary of Defense to have this authority. 
This is not a mandatory bill, this is just simply giving that authority 
where it is needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in Part A of 
House Report 107-450.


               Part A Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H2369]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 10____. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROHIBITION OF USE OF FUNDS 
                   FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

       It is the sense of Congress that none of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to authorizations of appropriations in 
     this Act should be used for any assistance to, or to 
     cooperate with or to provide any support for, the 
     International Criminal Court.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the cosponsors of this 
amendment, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Cannon), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  This amendment is not complex at all. It is a sense of Congress 
resolution as put in the bill. It says, ``It is the sense of Congress 
that none of the funds appropriated pursuant to authorizations of 
appropriations in this Act should be used for any assistance to, or to 
cooperate with or to provide any support for the International Criminal 
Court.''
  This amendment is to urge the President not to use any funds for the 
International Criminal Court. I would like it to be a mandate. It is 
not, but it is still very, very important. I think this sends a message 
to our servicemen that they will never have to be taken into court 
against their will in the International Criminal Court.
  On December 31, right before the last day of the treaty, the Rome 
Convention, could be signed, our President signed this convention, but 
it has never been ratified. It has not been brought to the Senate. It 
was too late, and our President now does not have any intention. We 
might say why worry about it, but just recently we all know that the 
President has essentially rescinded the signature on this treaty to 
make the point that we do not want our servicemen called in and tried 
in International Criminal Court as war criminals. So it is a protection 
of the servicemen.
  But the interesting thing is that under this Rome Convention, the 
agreement is once 60 nations sign the treaty, it goes into effect. Even 
with what the President did by rescinding the signature and saying we 
do not want any part of it, we are still under international law under 
the understanding that our servicemen could be called into 
International Criminal Court.
  We have to make this message very loud and clear. This is not overly 
strong, but I think we should make this message and say that none of 
these funds should be spent, but we still have to offer protection to 
our personnel that they never be called into this International 
Criminal Court. To me, it is an issue of national sovereignty, and it 
is an issue that is important to a lot of Americans. It is what our job 
should be, to protect our country. For this reason, I think this is 
very important. I hope I can get Members to agree with the amendment 
and pass it.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this week President Bush took the bold step of 
renouncing the signature of the United States on the Rome Statute of 
the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration, in 
explaining this move, correctly pointed out that this court has 
unchecked power that contradicts our Constitution and its system of 
checks and balances; that the Court is ``open for exploitation and 
politically-motivated prosecutions;'' and that ``the ICC asserts 
jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the 
treaty''--which undermines American sovereignty.
  President Bush, in renouncing the U.S. signature and declaring that 
the United States would have nothing to do with the International 
Criminal Court, has put the Court on notice that the United States will 
defend its sovereignty and its citizens. The president is to be most 
highly commended for standing strong for American sovereignty in the 
face of world-wide attempts to undermine that sovereignty with this 
deeply flawed global court.
  But there is no time to rest on this victory. As Secretary of Defense 
Donald Rumsfeld stated this week, upon our renunciation of the ICC: 
``Unfortunately, the ICC will not respect the U.S. decision to stay out 
of the treaty. To the contrary, the ICC provisions claim the authority 
to detain and try American citizens--U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
Marines, as well as current and future officials--even though the 
United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty.'' 
Secretary Rumsfeld added, ``When the ICC treaty enters into force this 
summer, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a 
court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no 
obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.''
  Secretary Rumsfeld is correct. It is clear that the International 
Criminal Court has no intention of honoring our president's decision to 
neither participate in nor support their global judicial enterprise. 
According to the Statutes of the court, they do indeed claim 
jurisdiction over Americans even though the president has now stated 
forcefully that we do not recognize the Court nor are we a party to the 
Treaty.
  I have introduced this amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, 
therefore, to support the president's decision and to indicate that 
Congress is behind him in his rejection of this unconstitutional global 
court. it is imperative that we not award the International Criminal 
Court a single tax dollar to further its objective of undermining our 
sovereignty and our Constitutional protections. How could we do 
anything less: each of us in this body has taken an oath to protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States?
  I am also introducing today a Sense of the Congress bill to commend 
President Bush for his bold and brave decision to renounce the United 
States' signature on the Statute of the International Court. We must 
support the president as he seeks to protect American servicemen and 
citizens from this court. I hope all of my colleagues here will co-
sponsor and support this legislation, and please call my office for 
more details.
  In the meantime, I urge enthusiastic support of this amendment before 
us. We must speak with one voice in denying the International Criminal 
Court a single American tax dollar!
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment introduced by the 
honorable gentleman from Texas that would prohibit the use of funds to 
assist, cooperate with, or provide any support to the International 
Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court is a reality, as the 
gentleman has stated. The Rome statute, the treaty establishing the 
court, has been ratified by the 60 countries needed for the court to 
come into existence, as has been stated as well.
  The court will function with or without United States support or 
participation. A prohibition on U.S. support will not protect the very 
same American citizens the gentleman from Texas wishes to protect from 
the court's jurisdiction. In fact, our lack of participation in the 
court's mechanisms will harm U.S. national interests by making it 
impossible for the United States to affect the development of the 
court. We will thus be completely unable to protect any Americans that 
do find themselves before this court.
  Opponents of the court have argued that U.S. servicemen and women 
will be subject to politically motivated trials. But since national 
courts have primary jurisdiction and since the U.S. military is 
committed to fully investigating any charges of war crimes committed by 
U.S. military personnel, the military in my opinion has nothing to fear 
from an ICC prosecutor run amuck. The case of U.S. Army Sergeant Frank 
Ronghi proves that U.S. servicemen have nothing to fear from 
international tribunals. Ronghi was accused of raping and murdering an 
11-year-old Kosovar girl. Despite the fact that the ICTY statute gives 
the tribunal primacy over national courts' own jurisdiction, the United 
States faced no obstacles from the tribunal to launching its own 
investigation, conducting its own court-martial, and eventually 
sentencing Sergeant Ronghi according to the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.
  Earlier this week, as stated by the gentleman from Texas, the Bush 
administration announced that it would

[[Page H2370]]

remove the United States' signature from the Rome statute, an 
unprecedented step that has damaged the moral credibility of the United 
States and serves as a U.S. repudiation of the notion that war 
criminals and perpetrators of genocide should be brought to justice. 
The unsigning of the statute will not protect American citizens from 
being brought before the court. Furthermore, our rejection of the court 
encourages autocratic leaders to ignore their own international 
commitments. It will also make it more difficult for the United States 
to ensure that war criminals from Iraq, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, 
Cambodia and other countries face justice for their atrocities.
  The administration's unsigning of the Rome statute places the United 
States in the company of notorious human rights abusers like Iraq, 
North Korea, China, Cuba, Libya, and Burma. By approving the amendment 
in question, Congress would add insult to injury by further repudiating 
the International Criminal Court, which is an important instrument of 
international justice.
  Mr. Chairman, the resolution being discussed today would hinder U.S. 
national interests. Ironically, by preventing the United States from 
cooperating with the court in any way, it will actually endanger, in my 
opinion, American lives. It would, for example, prohibit Defense 
Department officials from responding to court investigators when they 
ask for information that would help exonerate an American serviceman 
brought before the court. It would also prevent a member of the U.S. 
Armed Forces from testifying in support of our NATO allies who do 
support this court. Finally, it would prevent us from supporting a 
trial of a figure as notorious as Saddam Hussein were he to be brought 
before this court for crimes against humanity.
  According to this amendment, the United States should not support the 
court with intelligence, information and legal expertise that could 
convict someone like Saddam Hussein and his cronies of crimes against 
humanity, despite the fact that the administration itself has already 
embarked on an ambitious effort to build a war crimes case against 
Saddam Hussein and his associates.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would hinder our ability to 
wage war on terrorism. We have asked virtually every country in the 
world to support the implementation of U.S. domestic law designed to 
combat terrorism on such things as terrorist money laundering. Now, 
with this amendment, Congress is refusing to cooperate with the 
international community in its efforts to bring war criminals and 
terrorists to justice.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment accomplishes very little. The 
administration has already stated its intent not to cooperate with this 
court. Endorsing the amendment would only put Congress on record as 
having prevented the United States from cooperating with an institution 
that will help promote the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
associate myself with the remarks that the gentleman just made. I 
believe that the best way to protect our U.S. servicemen is to become 
part of the International Criminal Court and thereby retain our 
complementarity which allows us to try our own soldiers before they 
would ever be tried by an International Criminal Court, thus protecting 
our own soldiers. Whereas if we do not sign and do not go ahead with 
the criminal court, we really subject our soldiers to this court 
without the protections that our signing would allow us to have.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas for yielding time in support of this very 
important amendment.
  The previous speakers are operating in some Alice-in-Wonderland 
world. Let me see if I can get this straight. It is hard to even 
diagram it out, their logic or lack thereof.
  We have an International Criminal Court or a court that calls itself 
an International Criminal Court, not subject to or bound by the 
constitutional guarantees that would otherwise in every instance apply 
to United States servicemen and women and citizens and those who commit 
crimes in this country, even though they are not citizens. Yet they are 
saying that because the United States has renounced the improper 
signature of a previous chief executive in this country that our men 
and women would therefore not be subject to protections.
  Well, of course we are not going to be subject to the protections 
offered by the International Criminal Court because we are not subject 
to it. That is the whole point of this amendment. To say that our men 
and women, our policymakers, our commanders, those who order our men 
and women into harm's way to protect our national security interests 
that might run afoul of some foreign dictator that might go to the 
International Criminal Court and seek to have bogus charges brought 
against our men and women would somehow not be protected because we 
have not signed or deemed ourselves not bound by this criminal court, 
where is the logic in that? There is no more logic in that than there 
would be in saying that we ought to subject our men and women to the 
International Criminal Court in the first place, Mr. Chairman.
  The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration took a very 
bold step, and yes, it is unprecedented, but the signing of this 
International Criminal Court treaty by the prior administration in the 
waning days of the prior administration's tenure in office was itself 
unprecedented and improper. I commend the Bush administration for 
saying that we shall not be bound, our policy-makers, our men and women 
in uniform should not be bound by this kangaroo court. I commend the 
gentleman from Texas for bringing forth this amendment that says very 
clearly, and I hope that our colleagues on the other side understand 
this, yes, it would renounce in a very, very substantive and very 
concrete way this so-called International Criminal Court.
  Contrary to their illogical arguments that somehow this course of 
action would deny our men and women protection, it would in fact clothe 
them fully in the protection of our Constitution and not subject them 
to the lack of protection that they would have if we allowed them in 
any way, shape or form to be subject to this foreign international 
jurisdictional court.
  So what we are stating here today with this amendment, which I ask 
all of our colleagues to support, we are saying that our men and women 
that go out under that flag will continue to have the protection of 
that flag, of our Constitution, of our Bill of Rights, and not be 
subject to some international kangaroo court that folks on the other 
side may like for some reason, but let us stand up for America, let us 
stand up for our Bill of Rights and not subject our men and women to a 
foreign court that has no jurisdiction.
  Mr. CROWLEY. I would inquire as to how much time we have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) has 4 minutes 
remaining and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the Paul amendment which was approved by 
the Committee on Rules and made in order is an amendment that prohibits 
funds to be spent on the international court. Some would argue that 
that is a good government amendment and he had every right to bring 
that for debate and a vote in the House of Representatives.
  There were five Members of Congress that went before the Committee on 
Rules to try to get a similar amendment on a prohibition of funds for 
the Crusader, which is a 155-millimeter howitzer which does not have a 
military requirement anymore, which does not have the support of this 
administration; and I fear, Mr. Chairman, that if Congress cannot even 
vote on a system that the Pentagon does not even want anymore, has 
recommended that

[[Page H2371]]

we kill it, what kind of confidence with good government do the people 
of this country have that we are doing our business here in this 
Congress?

                              {time}  2330

  There are compelling arguments to make that this body has an 
obligation to debate these issues, to consider them, and to vote on 
them. That is one of the reasons the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) has been making the motions that he has made all night long, so 
that Members of Congress can do their duty, their principled 
obligation, to bring ideas to the floor, get debate, work with Members 
of the Republican majority party, and get amendments put into bills or 
have them defeated.
  Now, the Crusader has a military requirement that Napoleon may have 
used, may have benefited from; Ulysses S. Grant sure could have 
shortened the Civil War; John Pershing really could have used it 
probably in World War I. But Secretary Rumsfeld says he does not want 
it to fight terrorists. He does not need it in this new century to 
fight wars against our enemies. Why, then, does the Congress refuse to 
have a debate on this issue? Maybe the opponents would lose; maybe they 
can convince us. But not to have this debate in this great body says to 
the American people, and the headlines tomorrow will be Congress has 
never met a weapons system, even in war, that the Secretary does not 
want that they will not approve, that they cannot kill.
  Now, the President of the United States has supported Secretary 
Rumsfeld. They have both said they do not want it. The military 
requirement is no longer there. What about using the $11 billion that 
this Congress wants to spend on that and put it toward the war on 
terrorism? What about buying some more ships? What about health care? 
What about an additional pay raise for our military? Those are things 
that we could do with $11 billion on a Crusader that we do not need, 
that is not a requirement, and that this administration does not want. 
But we cannot even debate it. We cannot even have a vote on that 
important amendment.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has asked the question why we 
cannot debate it, and he is entitled to an answer. It would be a little 
embarrassing for people who have been arguing almost all the time that 
with a war going on, we must rally around the President and support the 
Commander in Chief, give the Defense Department what it asks for. It 
would be embarrassing for them to then have to vote exactly contrary to 
that.
  Now, the rules of this House do not require consistency. The rules do 
not require Members having stated a principle to live by it, so they 
could say that, but it would be embarrassing. So that is the answer to 
the gentleman's question. The majority clearly could not simultaneously 
continue to argue that it is everybody's patriotic duty to rally around 
the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense on military 
matters, and then vote to repudiate them. So the way they do this is by 
silence.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented to repudiate a signature 
on a treaty, but it is very important. They must have felt it was 
extremely important for the protection of our soldiers. So it is this 
discomfort we might feel about the repudiation of a signature versus 
doing what we think is best to protect our troops. I honestly believe 
that this is very necessary.
  Now, the argument that all of a sudden we are going to capture Saddam 
Hussein and we are not going to have the international criminal court 
to deal with him, that is really not a good argument because the 
special tribunals for Yugoslavia as well as Rwanda can and still be set 
up. It has nothing to do with that, so that would still be available.
  And it is the jurisdiction, it is the sovereignty, it is the civil 
liberties of the American soldier that we are dealing with. The 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) brought this up, and this is very 
true. These trials, they do not have juries. The judges are appointed 
in secret. They cannot face their accusers. And we are going to join an 
organization like that, endorse it, send money and say that our troops 
may become subject to this? To me, it is an extremely dangerous 
situation that we have here now, because we did not even ratify the 
treaty. We have repudiated the signature and they are still saying this 
is going to apply to our soldiers. We have a serious problem on our 
hands and we should at least do this very little thing here, because 
this is a sense of Congress resolution that we would not like to have 
the President spend any money on this, and this would support his 
position.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in part B of 
House report 107-450.

                          ____________________