Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)

[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

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

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.

____________________