[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4387-H4398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 245
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2004 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2004, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Armed Services now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution and those made in order by
a subsequent order of the House. Each amendment printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules may be offered only in
the order printed in the report (except as specified in
section 2 of this resolution), may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment (except that the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for the
purpose of further debate on any pending amendment), and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against amendments printed in the report are waived.
After disposition of the amendments printed in the report,
the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No
further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by
a subsequent order of the House.
Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
Sec. 3. During consideration of the bill under this
resolution or by a subsequent order of the House--
(1) after a motion that the Committee rise has been
rejected on a legislative day, the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole may entertain another such motion on that day
only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services or the Majority Leader or a designee; and
(2) after a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been
rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H4388]]
from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule
for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. It waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill.
Finally, it allows that the chairman of the Committee of the Whole
may recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, but not sooner than
1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
This is a fair rule, it is the traditional structured rule for
defense authorization, and it provides for a debate on a number of
pertinent issues, including nuclear policy, border security, and an
assessment of NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
H.R. 1588 is a good bill. It firmly shows our commitment to restoring
the strength of our Nation's military. The Committee on Armed Services
has recommended $400.5 billion be authorized for the Department of
Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy
in fiscal year 2004.
I commend President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and our
military leaders for taking the fight to those who would do us harm. We
stand committed to provide the resources to ensure our continued
success.
The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a
renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men
and women in uniform. Their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a
testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their
commitment to defend our freedom.
With U.S. military personnel risking their lives on the front lines
of the war on terrorism, H.R. 1588 is more than just a signal to our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that this Nation recognizes
their sacrifices. It is the means by which we make our commitment to
providing them a decent quality of life by providing an across-the-
board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, so as to sustain
the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer Armed
Forces, and the families that support them.
Even before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism and
the commitment to homeland security, the Armed Forces had insufficient
manpower for existing wartime and peacetime requirements. A lesson
learned is that with the likelihood of the open-ended, long-term
manpower requirements of stabilizing Iraq and the continuing war on
terrorism, it is now crucial to begin addressing existing shortfalls.
I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Chairman
Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), for crafting this legislation that will strengthen America's
military.
Today, our forces must be able to respond quickly to rapidly changing
threats. As such, nothing could be more important to our military than
its current state of readiness. The pace of current operations has
placed huge demands on personnel and equipment already suffering from a
decade of underfunding. This legislation reduces non-warfighting
spending and puts the money where it is of best use, training for our
service members, maintenance of equipment, and support for the cost of
operations.
I am pleased that H.R. 1588 authorizes $35.2 million for 39 Knight
family systems to the Army National Guard. The Knight system is a high
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle-mounted system which incorporates
a Bradley fire support vehicle mission equipment package of a laser
rangefinder, thermal sight, hand-held computer and global positioning
systems. It is used to locate targets for laser-guided munitions.
As the Department of Defense increases the use of precision-guided
munitions in combat, this money will help North Carolina's 30th Heavy
Separate Brigade Armor use the Knight system to locate targets in
support of these munitions.
H.R. 1588 makes the preparation and modernization of our National
Guard a top priority.
I also want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes), for his work on strengthening the ``Buy
American'' provisions included in this bill. His language will ensure
that all of the components of DOD uniforms come from American
companies. The language specifically works to more adequately cover
domestic textile and leather industries.
However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order
that I strongly oppose personally, the Sanchez amendment. It would
allow abortions on our military bases overseas. Military treatment
centers, which are dedicated to nurturing and healing, should not be
forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the
child in the womb.
For the past 6 years, the House has voted to keep abortion-on-demand
out of military facilities, and I urge my colleagues to stay on this
course and vote against this amendment.
That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass the rule and pass the
underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will
be making our homeland safer, supporting our sons and daughters serving
in the military, and preparing for war, thereby ensuring victory. At
this crucial time in our history, this bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. Frost asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting America's troops,
there is no partisan divide in this Congress. Democrats and Republicans
join together in saluting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
who serve America. More importantly, we work to provide them with the
resources they need to do their jobs that we have asked them to do. So
every year, Democrats and Republicans work very hard to put together a
defense authorization bill that is as bipartisan as it is robust.
There is much to be proud of in this bill. Its core is a bipartisan
product that provides more for national defense than the President
requested and more than this Republican Congress approved in its
budget. As always, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the
ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, deserves a lot of
credit. He remains an unwavering advocate for the men and women in
uniform who put their lives on the line every day to defend the United
States.
As a longstanding supporter of the U.S. military, I am especially
pleased by the success of Democrats' efforts to include substantial
quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and
their families.
Specifically, this bill includes a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay
for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for
midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant
officers to enhance retention. It also builds on our efforts to support
the National Guard and the Reserves, who bear more and more of the
burden of defending America at home and abroad.
{time} 1200
For instance, it ensures is that when they serve in areas where those
on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will also.
Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Committee on Armed
Services for including in this bill my legislation to make life easier
for the National Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and
their families by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They
and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation, and
they deserve our support.
Additionally, this bill continues to invest in the wide range of
weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the
world. It includes $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the
next generation multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the
Navy and Marines. It includes $4.3
[[Page H4389]]
billion for the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance
fighter for the Air Force. It also includes over $1.6 billion for the
V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, all of these important, pro-defense provisions have
strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of
Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that the U.S.
military has the resources it needs.
Unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are neither bipartisan
nor necessary to maintain the strength of the U.S. military. Indeed,
some are nothing more than extremist, right-wing ideology piggy-backed
on an otherwise bipartisan bill.
For instance, does anyone really believe that national security
requires that we gut environmental protections? Of course not.
But rolling back America's environmental protections is practically
the Holy Grail of the Republican party. So Republicans stuck into this
bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
Similarly, Republicans are trying to use this bill to weaken the
workplace protections of the patriotic men and women employed by the
Pentagon. They even defeated a Democratic attempt to preserve the
current rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, these anti-environmental riders and attacks on the men
and women who work at the Pentagon are not about supporting the
military. There are about supporting the Republican party idealogy, and
they have no business in a bipartisan bill to provide for the men and
women of the United States Armed Forces.
So Democrats have filed amendments with the Committee on Rules to
free this bipartisan bill of these partisan riders. Unfortunately, Mr.
Speaker, the House Republican leadership has chosen to make ideology of
such paramount importance that they have shut out two of the most
important Democratic amendments.
First, the Republican ideologues have denied the House the
opportunity to even consider the amendment offered by the ranking
members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. The Rahall-Dingell amendment is a common-sense and reasonable
alternative to the anti-environmental language reported by the
Committee on Resources and incorporated in the Committee on Armed
Services bill relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. This rule instead makes in order an amendment
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. It claims
to fix the most egregious provisions in the Committee on Resources
bill.
The fact that the Republican leadership has chosen to shut out
Democrats in this manner gives many Members on this side of the aisle
more than ample reason to oppose this rule.
Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules said last night that it
was still possible for additional amendments to be considered for
inclusion in the second rule on this bill to be considered by the
committee later today. But I doubt any Members will be holding their
breath.
The fact is, the Republican leadership would have done well to give
this House the opportunity to have a vote on the Rahall-Dingell
substitute, rather than risking losing this rule by shutting out so
many reasonable Democrats who support the bill.
Additionally, the House Republican leadership has chosen to tell the
second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Member who has extensive
expertise in the issue of nuclear threat reduction, that his amendment
is just too hot to handle. The Spratt amendment sought to restore the
President's requests for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. That is
the President's request that he sought to restore. Yet the Republican
leadership has refused to make this amendment in order, in spite of the
fact that President Bush asked for this money.
Again, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told me last night that
it might be possible to consider including the Spratt amendment in the
second rule, but, again, Members will not be holding their breath.
Such arrogance practically begs pro-defense Members on this side of
the aisle to oppose this rule, and it ought to give plenty of reason to
oppose this rule to Republican Members who value fair play and
institutional integrity or President Bush's national security
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, serious Members on both sides of the aisle have filed
many other substantive amendments. But after seeing so many significant
amendments blocked in this first rule, what do they have to look
forward to in the second rule? Will they be shut out again just as
their colleagues have today?
I, for instance, have submitted three important amendments that
address defense issues I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant
soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to reservists
called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian Defense Department
employees serving in combat zones.
Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to
honor the long-standing tradition of allowing full consideration of
substantive amendments like these on the defense authorization bill.
That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep
partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces bill and, in fact,
has been followed in previous Congresses, both when the Democrats were
in charge and even when the Republicans have been in charge. But this
first rule has abandoned that cooperation.
For that reason, I urge Members to vote no on this rule so the
Committee on Rules can go back upstairs and start this process over.
Maybe on the second try the Republican leaders will allow us to get it
right.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Let me say to all my colleagues, this is a great defense bill that is
coming to the floor, and I hope everybody supports it. It does a lot of
things for America's troops. They have just finished this extraordinary
operation where they pushed up through Iraq in very dangerous
circumstances, engaged in many conflicts at very close ranges and
secured their objective and carried out their mission with
extraordinary talent and capable and courage.
Now it is our turn. It is our turn to support the troops. It is our
turn to provide the readiness capability. It is our turn to provide for
modernization of old platforms, and it is our turn to not only fix what
we need to win now but to look beyond the horizon and fix and create
and produce what we are going to need tomorrow, and this bill does
this.
It provides for many of the very important enablers. And I call
enablers things like tankers, tanker aircraft, that allow us to
maintain that aircraft bridge between the United States or a base that
we have overseas and a potential point of conflict where we can keep
aircraft going back and forth, whether those aircraft are cargo
aircraft to supply the troops or strike aircraft that are putting
rounds on target. And because of that we have got provisions in this
bill to provide for tankers. We have a tanker fund that allows us to go
forward on either a buy or a lease. We have got that provision in.
We have got provisions in for more of our airlift with C-17 aircraft,
these great aircraft that are providing the centerpiece of our airlift
today along with our older C-5s and our in-theater C-130s.
We worked on other so-called enablers. We have ramped up this stock
of precision-guided munitions we need, those munitions that allow you
to go in and hit one strut on a bridge and knock it down, instead of
having to carpet bomb the entire bridge with hundreds of bombs. We have
a so-called deep strike package that allows us to spend $100 million on
a new system to replace these bomber aircraft that we are using today.
And the newest B-52 was made in July of 1962, so it is more than 40
years old. We have 21 B-1s, and we now have a small batch of 21 B-2
aircraft, our stealth aircraft. We now have a very small fleet of B-1
aircraft, because we had pulled 23 B-1 aircraft out of the fleet
because we could not
[[Page H4390]]
afford the spare parts to keep all of those aircraft running. We put
those 23 aircraft back in the fleets, or as many of them that can be
retrieved, and we provide for the spare parts and the sustainability to
keep that part of our important deep strike fleet going.
We provide for the 4.1 pay increase. That is the average pay
increase, and we do target parts of that to various aspects of the
service where we need critical skills.
We do a good job with respect to housing for our troops, for our
families. Today you do not just bring a troop, a uniformed person into
the services. You bring a family into the services, and you have to
provide for those families. We do that in this bill.
This bill has many good things; and our great subcommittee chairman
and subcommittee ranking members and my colleague, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my great partner who himself is home to the B-2
fleet in America, have done I think an excellent job on putting a great
package together.
I want to speak to one aspect of this package that has been talked
about a little this morning because people have said, are you killing
the environment? Are you hurting the environment? Are you revamping the
environment? The answer is no.
What we are doing is providing for freedom to train for our troops.
What we have heard over the last many years now is that our bases
around the country where these great troops that you saw in Iraq have
an opportunity to train, whether they are hitting a beachhead or firing
on a range or going through some type of amphibious warfare, those
troops need to have places to train and those training grounds are
becoming more and more constricted and more and more off-limits to our
troops because of application, and I think wrongful application, of our
environmental laws.
Let me show you a case in point.
This is a picture of the Marine base at Camp Pendleton in California.
There is some 17 miles of beach here, and this is the beach on which
the United States Marine Corps practices Iwo Jima. That is where they
practice going ashore under heavy fire, where they know they will take
substantial casualty for us, for freedom. And guess what we have done
with our environmental laws? We have closed them out where they cannot
practice.
This is a 17-mile beach. This is a base that is in excess of 100,000
acres. And I want to show my colleagues the various overlays, how the
environmental applications have crept in and closed down more and more
of this critical training base, and then I want to relate it to bases
across this Nation.
Let us turn over to that first overlay. This is your 100,000-acre
base. Here is the first overlay where training is now locked out. It is
called the estuarine sanctuary. So training is locked out at Camp
Pendleton. No Marines can go inside that estuarine sanctuary.
Now we have another restriction. These are the gnatcatcher
restrictions. We found a small bird that is considered to be
endangered; and because of that these huge areas and, remember, this is
a 100,000-plus acre base, these huge areas are now restricted.
Now we have another restriction at Camp Pendleton. Let us turn the
third page over. This is the rare plants restriction. It looks to me
approximately another 10, 20,000 acres are now restricted from training
activity.
Let us turn the next page. These are the riparian areas and the
vernal pools which are now also restrictions.
So my point is, the United States Marines came in and talked to the
Committee on Armed Services and they said, we used to try to work
around these restrictions when we had just a couple of them. Now we can
no longer work around them. And, incidentally, there is a lawsuit
pending right now and there is an injunction in place for the Marines
being able to practice amphibious operations on the vast majority of
this beach that we put in place to allow them to practice Iwo Jima for
the United States of America. So we have to do something.
So what did we do? Did we do something radical? No, we did not do
anything radical. We simply said we want to balance conservation
requirements and training requirements.
So what we are going to do is put together a process. It is called an
inramp, which is a fancy term for saying if the Fish and Wildlife
Department of the United States makes an agreement with the U.S. Marine
Corps or the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force and they
also make an agreement with State Fish and Wildlife in the State, so if
it is California, New Jersey, New York or whatever, everybody gets
together and you take an area and you make a decision that allows you
to balance these two important priorities, conservation and training,
and you say, for example, we will allow the rifle range to be here. We
will allow the gnatcatcher environment to be here. And maybe if the
gnatcatchers migrate in the fall and they leave this area, we will let
you have training in this area until they come back. It allows you to
make a flexibility adjustment that takes care of both priorities, both
conservation of endangered species and training.
Once Fish and Wildlife and State Fish and Game and the military makes
this agreement, you cannot come on in after the agreement is made and
place another critical habitat over the top of it and paralyze the
training operation. That is what we do.
I think it is a very reasonable thing. This was passed first out of
Resources with a bipartisan vote, and we passed it in the Committee on
Armed Services. And the final vote on the Committee on Armed Services,
I might add, when all the smoke cleared and all the dust settled and we
had our final vote, I want to thank my ranking member from Missouri for
his great leadership here, we had a vote of 58 to 2 in favor of this
bill.
{time} 1215
So this bill has really good stuff in it for the United States of
America, and it balances some very important competing interests the
American people have. I do not think any American, if you stopped them
on the street and you went over this diagram of how training has been
cut back further and further and further, at places like Camp
Pendleton, where those Marines that went up the An Nasiriya Corridor
trained, I do not think any American would disagree with the idea that
you get together Fish and Wildlife and the Marine Corps, you make an
arrangement, you set some land aside for the birds, set some land aside
for the Marines, and let them both go through their operations.
So I want to thank the gentlewoman for letting me get up and explain
this important aspect of the defense bill; and let me urge all Members,
Republican and Democrat, to vote for this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Does the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) seek to control the time of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost)?
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection the gentleman is
recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our minority whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Once again, once again, this Republican majority shows no
compunction about turning even the most bipartisan legislation into a
vehicle of divisive and unnecessary partisanship.
The defense authorization traditionally unites Members on both sides
of the aisle. I have always voted for it. The American people expect
that. Our brave men and women in the service deserve no less. However,
today the majority has purposefully loaded up this bill with extraneous
and controversial provisions and forced the rule to deny our side of
the aisle a fair opportunity to be heard.
Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished
chairman of the committee, who is now speaking to the Committee on
Rules chairman, just spent 10 minutes explaining how reasonable the
provisions of the bill are. But they do not have the courage of that
representation to allow us to debate fully on the floor and present an
alternative.
My, my, my, how confident they must be of the reasonableness of their
position. Again, the majority is trying to insulate sweeping policy
changes from serious scrutiny by invoking the words ``national
security,'' and casting anyone who raises questions as, at
[[Page H4391]]
best, an impediment to national security and, at worst, unpatriotic.
The further down that road we go, the less democratic we will become.
Make no mistake, this bill contains many, many important provisions.
It provides good pay, housing and training for our men and women in
uniform, and funds important modernization priorities that will ensure
that we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. I
support that. Not only that, I have supported it for 23 years in this
House.
However, the addition of controversial measures that will gut the
civil service system and harm the environment only subvert the
democratic process and demean this House. This bill would exempt the
Defense Department from compliance with the Endangered Species Act and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, even though both laws currently allow
case-by-case exemptions. And here is the crucial point: the Pentagon
has never before sought the exemptions that the majority would bestow
today.
Fairness. Fairness. The American people expect fairness, and it
dictates that the majority make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order.
It was not. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who is the dean of the House,
the senior Member in this House of Representatives, yet the Committee
on Rules refused to allow him to offer an amendment. That is
unconscionable. Furthermore, the process by which the civil service
reform measures have been rushed to this floor is nothing short of
appalling. This proposal was conceived by a handful of the President's
advisers.
Without doubt, there are some problems in the Federal personnel
system, reforms that I would support, but our military's stunning
success in Iraq shows there is not a crisis. Mr. Speaker, we ought to
consider this thoughtfully, and we ought to allow amendments to be
offered on this floor which would provide for full debate. We are not
doing that.
Vote against this rule. Vote against the previous question.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I
really am somewhat perplexed to hear all of the criticism of our
attempts to be bipartisan on this legislation. Someone's been shut out
in this process? Let me explain this rule to our colleagues, Mr.
Speaker.
It is a rule which makes in order 2 hours of general debate, and it
makes in order nine amendments for consideration that had been
submitted to the Committee on Rules by the deadline we stated. But let
me tell my colleagues what happened last night in the Committee on
Rules. In our quest to try to have as many proposals as possible
considered, what happened? It is the first time that I can remember, in
this number, that this has taken place.
Three proposals were offered by our Democratic colleagues to actually
knock out consideration of amendments that are made in order under this
rule; meaning that while we were trying to provide an option of debate
and then an up-or-down vote so we could in a bipartisan way address
these issues, the Democrats were trying to shut out Members from having
the opportunity to offer amendments. Now, I do not want to say it is
unprecedented, but I do not recall it happening on three occasions as
it did last night.
This should be, Mr. Speaker, a totally noncontroversial rule, because
it is the same process that we have gone through. What we have done,
Mr. Speaker, is we have said that we want to go with the two-rule
procedure, which the Democrats did regularly and which we Republicans
have done regularly in consideration of this massive Department of
Defense authorization bill.
The great chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), was here and he has talked about the fact
that this is a $400 billion measure. As was said so well by my friend,
the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I agree
with the fact that on an issue as important as our national security we
should proceed in a bipartisan way, and we want to do that.
Now, we know that one of the issues of concern, and that has gotten a
great deal of attention, is the environmental question. That was raised
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) when he made his
presentation from the well. And I want to say that we have been
sensitive to that. I happen to believe that the provision that is made
in order under what will be tantamount to a manager's amendment offered
by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) does in fact move towards
addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the members of
the minority.
I will acknowledge that there are some who would like to do more. But
we happen to believe that the step that is taken by addressing the
issues that were raised by our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley), will in fact be able to be effectively addressed.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, because I think this
is an important procedural issue. And I have a quote of yours in my
pocket, but I am not going to take it out.
Mr. DREIER. I think I may have heard it before.
Mr. HOYER. I am not going to regurgitate it, in terms of fairness.
But what my colleague is saying is that the dean of the House comes
to your committee and wants to offer an amendment, and your committee
responds, no, Dean, you have served here 40-plus years, but we know
better than you do.
Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules
has not said that. The Committee on Rules acted on one of two rules
last night when we passed out this rule granting 2 hours of general
debate and allowing for the consideration of nine amendments, which we
hope to proceed with in just a few minutes.
We will be meeting sometime mid-afternoon for consideration of a
second rule which will allow for consideration of other amendments when
we proceed with this tomorrow. So I think that it is really incorrect
for anyone to conclude that all of the action on the Department of
Defense authorization rule has in fact been completed. It has not been
completed.
But I want to say that the issue of the environment is one that is
very important to me as a Californian. It is one that is very
important, I believe, to a broad cross-section of the membership of
this House, Democrats and Republicans. We also know that there have
been requests made by this administration to deal with the situation
that was outlined so well by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services, where in fact we may be jeopardizing the lives of our men and
women in uniform if we do not take some action.
So I understand this is going to be debated. This will be discussed.
There is no doubt about the fact that this will be a topic of
discussion when the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) comes up, and this will be a topic of discussion as we consider
this rule as it is right now, as well as the second rule which we plan
to report out tomorrow.
Let me just say that this should be a noncontroversial rule, and I do
not want to foreclose the opportunity to consider any proposals that
were submitted to the Committee on Rules. We will, in fact, have an
opportunity to do that this afternoon, and then tomorrow we will debate
a second rule that will allow for further consideration.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman again yield?
Mr. DREIER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield further, but
I do not know how we stand time-wise. We are using up our time here.
Mr. McGOVERN. It looks like you have plenty of time.
Mr. DREIER. Excuse me. I think it is wonderful for the gentleman from
Massachusetts to come to that conclusion, but let me just suggest we do
this. I will yield back my time now to my friend, and I am happy to
stand here and field questions from the minority on their time.
[[Page H4392]]
Mr. McGOVERN. I just have a question that requires a one-word answer.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has yielded
back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern).
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman does not wish to yield to me?
Mr. McGOVERN. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who are outraged
by this unfair rule.
Mr. DREIER. We have a lot of people who wish to speak on this issue
as well.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for giving me the opportunity to rise in strong, but
reluctant, opposition to this rule.
By and large this is a good bill. It puts forward the opportunity for
the United States military to continue research and development,
procurement, training, attracting the bright young men and women who
serve, and to continue to educate them along the way to think
strategically, operationally, and tactically. Yet I find that this
particular rule is shutting out some amendments that I thoroughly
believe should be made in order. I hope that the Committee on Rules, on
the second look, in the second rule that it will adopt, will hear our
recommendations from the committee hearing yesterday and take us quite
seriously.
Let me further state, though, that it is a pleasure working with the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter). And I thank him for his hard work, for his
dedication, for his strong feeling for the military, and for his
sincerity. I think that we should let it be known that he is a strong
advocate for our national security.
This is a big bill, Mr. Speaker. It authorizes almost $400 billion
for the Department of Defense and energy. This bill is over 600 pages
long. The Congress has a constitutional duty, as you know, to raise and
defend the military in law. I had highlighted three major issues when I
testified before the Committee on Rules. The first are the changes in
the civil service system. That has not been ruled upon yet. Revising
our environmental laws. That has been addressed in a manager's
amendment here, as I understand it. And our nuclear weapons policy has
not been fully faced in this first rule.
On the face, amendments made in order by this first rule seem
uncontroversial. However, I do take issue with amendment No. 73. This
is a mere 10-minute alleged technical amendment that literally corrects
spelling errors. But tacked on to that is the amendment that changes
the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Regardless how Members might feel about the substance, it is not only
unacceptable; but, quite honestly, it is outrageous.
{time} 1230
This is not the full debate that this House deserves on major policy
changes. It is not right to cram changes to our environmental laws into
technical amendments. It is not right to not make in order a major
Democrat amendment on the environmental provisions, the Dingell-Rahall
amendment, and not give us the full time and full debate. Ten minutes,
that is all we are given.
I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the second look, the second
rule, that the Committee on Rules must come forward with it, it will
allow us to more fully debate and fully discuss all the issues that I
have put forward to them in my testimony yesterday.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my neighbor and a member of the Committee
on Armed Services.
(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for
consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004.
The legislation we have crafted in the Committee on Armed Services is
targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a
healthy and robust military quality of life and readiness. For the
soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force
Base respectively, the ability to adequately care for their families
and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues
second to none.
I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas
and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue prosecuting
the war on terrorism. A recent trip to Iraq served to strongly
reinforce my existing pride in our Nation's war fighters. These brave
men and women served with honor and distinction as they liberated a
nation. Troops from the Eighth Congressional District of North Carolina
have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of
Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution
in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women deserve our support for
this rule and the underlying bill.
This legislation takes care of our most vital asset, our people. It
provides every service member with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It
also boosts military special pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment
bonuses. It funds programs to improve living and working facilities on
military installations.
The bill under consideration indicates we have come a long way since
the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s and are seeing the results
of a restoration of national security funding in our victories in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
I believe we must continue to provide adequate funding for our
Nation's military. President Kennedy spent 9 percent of our gross
domestic product on national defense. President Ronald Reagan 6
percent. The legislation today spends only 3.4 but is inching upwards;
and with the security threats we face today, I believe we must continue
moving upward with our defense allocations.
I would like to highlight two issues the National Defense
Authorization Act addresses which are of particular concern to me. The
first is domestic violence.
Last year, in the wake of several murders involving soldiers
stationed at Fort Bragg, I requested the Committee on Armed Services to
conduct a series of fact-finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the
Fayetteville community to examine the problem of domestic violence in
the military. Working close with the community and the Defense Task
Force on Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their
recommendations.
The bill before us provides a provision that allows chaplains to work
more closely with military families and gives them the maximum
flexibility to work with all family members to prevent potentially
tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and
transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons
of personal safety. It provides traditional compensation for victims
and additional measures for implementation of the task force
recommendations.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh),
and the subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this matter
and look forward to continuing their work to put an end to domestic
violence.
The National Defense Authorization Act addresses another critical
issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that
the DOD purchases products that are made in America. My two top
priorities are national and economic security. There is seldom, if
ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered mutually
exclusive.
I have vowed to always work to protect and promote the U.S.
manufacturing industry, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so.
Strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions is the right thing to do
for our workers and soldiers. Protecting national security is
important; economic security is important as well.
Mr. Speaker, we debated this bill for 25 hours, and we had a good
debate. It is time to support this rule in the underlying rule that
supports our men and women in uniform.
[[Page H4393]]
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for
consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for
Fiscal Year 2004. The legislation that we have crafted in the Armed
Services Committee is targeted at two of the most critical areas
crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military--quality of life
and readiness. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg
and Pope Air Force Base respectively, the ability to adequately care
for their families and train for the mission for which they are called
are the two issues that are second to none. I believe this legislation
makes significant progress in these areas and will enable our men and
women in uniform to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. My
recent trip to Iraq served to strongly reinforce my pride in our
Nation's war fighters. These brave men and women served with honor and
distinction as they liberated a nation. Troops from the 8th District of
North Carolina have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the
dark reign of Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post
conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women
deserve our support for this rule and the underlying bill.
This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital
asset of our military, our people. It provides every service member
with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It also boosts military special
pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment bonuses. Furthermore, it
funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military
installations.
The bill under consideration today also indicates that we have come a
long way since the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s, and we are
seeing results of the restoration of national security funding in our
victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we must continue to
provide adaqaate funding for our Nation's military. President John F.
Kennedy spent 9 percent of American's gross domestic product on
defense. President Reagan spent six. The legislation in front of us
today spends 3.4 percent and is inching upward. With the national
security threats we face today, I believe we must continue moving
upward in defense spending.
I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two issues
the National Defense Authorization Act for FY04 addresses that are of
particular concern to me. The first is domestic violence. Last year, in
the wake of several murders involving soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg,
I requested that the Armed Services Committee conduct a series of fact-
finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the Fayetteville community to
examine the problem of domestic violence in the military. Working
closely with folks in the community and the Defense Task Force on
Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their
recommendations. The bill before us today contains a provision that
allows chaplains to work more closely with military families and gives
them the maximum flexibility to work with all family members to prevent
potentially tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and
transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons
of personal safety. It provides transitional compensation for victims
and additional measures for implementation of the Task Force
recommendations. I commend Chairmen Hunter and McHugh and the staff of
the Total Force Subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this
matter and look forward to continuing to work with them to end domestic
violence.
The National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 also addresses
another critical issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base,
ensuring that the Department of Defense purchases products that are
made in America. My top two priorities are national security and
economic security. There is seldom, if ever, a reason that these two
goals should be considered mutually exclusive. I have vowed to always
work to protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing industry and this is
a perfect opportunity to do so. Strengthening the ``Buy American''
provisions is the right thing to do for our workers and our soldiers.
Protecting our national security is important but it's just as
important to protect our economic security here at home. I have worked
hard with Chairman Hunter to mandate more accountability on the
specialty metals used in all of the components used in DoD projects,
ensure that all of the parts of DoD uniforms come from domestic
sources, and require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress in
writing of the factors that would ever lead to a decision to waive the
domestic sourcing requirement. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the
other body will recognize the need to protect U.S. jobs and work with
us through the conference process.
Mr. Speaker, it is a gross injustice and misfortune that it took the
tragedy on September 11th, 2001 to focus the public eye on the need for
a more robust defense budget. But I feel that the legislation in front
of us today will help our troops accomplish their mission and the Rule
that provides for its consideration is fair and effective. We are
establishing a clear and strong course to rebuild our Nation's
defenses. I urge my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--that we will strongly support
you and give you the resources necessary to perform the mission at
hand. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of
H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2004.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of our House, who it appears was shut
out of the process by the Committee on Rules last night.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. It should be defeated.
My Republican colleagues have done the same thing that they usually do.
They have gagged the minority. They have denied us a right to discuss
important questions, and they refuse to give us the right to offer
amendments.
The chairman of the Committee on Rules appears in the well of the
House and tells us what a wonderful job they have done at being fair.
If they were fair, they should have had the courage and decency on that
side of the aisle to let us offer the amendments that should be offered
to allow matters to be properly discussed.
This is the language of the Endangered Species Act. There is no need
for them to take away the right of the government to properly protect
our national symbol, the bald eagle, and other endangered species.
There is no reason for the other side to afford the authorities that
the leadership in the Department of Defense have sought. Indeed, the
members of the agency itself, the fighting soldiers have not asked for
and do not want it.
It is interesting to note that they not only amend the environmental
laws, but they have amended many more, and they again foreclose the
opportunity for amendments.
Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules comes down and says we are
going to have more opportunities. We are going to be considering it
again. Well, if we have to consider it again, why did they not offer us
a fair rule in the first place? Why do they have to do it this way?
They have basically a sound bill, but they have sought to change all
manner of environmental laws, and they will put more on the floor if
they are permitted to do so.
Indeed, one of the remarkable things that my Republican colleagues
have sought to do is to change the Civil Service laws and to repeal,
amongst other things, the laws against nepotism. Perhaps there is a
little Cheney or a little Bush in the woods somewhere that needs a job,
or perhaps a little Wolfowitz. There might even be a relative of the
membership on that side of the aisle who happens to need employment.
We should address these issues properly. This is the People's House.
We are supposed to discuss great national issues. We are supposed to,
under the traditions and the practices of this body, to have the
ability to discuss matters which the public thinks are important.
Certainly the protection of conservation values, certainly the
protection of Civil Service laws, certainly the protection of the
values that all of us think are important enough to be discussed in
this body and not strangled by the Committee on Rules when the chairman
comes down and says, oh, we have been fair.
[[Page H4394]]
Well, if the gentleman from California has been fair, why in the name
of common sense does he not have the goodness to allow us to have an
opportunity simply to offer the amendment? Is it because my Republican
colleagues are scared to death and afraid to permit an honest
discussion, to have an honest application of the rules of the House
with regard to the offering of amendments? Why are they so afraid on
the other side of the aisle to have the truth brought forth and to
offer a fair procedure?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because it
makes a needed change. By including the Hefley amendment in the
manager's amendment, we make a change narrowing the application of this
DOD authorization bill on the environment just to DOD events alone. I
think that is what the committee wanted to do originally. It is what
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Readiness support.
For those of us who are very strong supporters of the environment, we
wanted this change made at the full committee, but because of
jurisdictional reasons it was not made. By the manager's amendment
including this, I think a change that the Committee on Armed Services
wanted to have happen has happened. Now we are making the necessary
modifications to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, as narrowly applied, to support the Department of
Defense but not with broad application. To make this early in the
process in the manager's amendment is the right decision by the
Committee on Rules, and I urge adoption of the rule and commend the
committee for making that decision.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I certainly associate myself with the
comments the distinguished dean of the House, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Therefore, I also rise against this rule.
As many Members know, the underlying bill contains broad exemptions
from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
which go far beyond what the military requested. For those of who found
that the DOD has provided little in the way of justification for its
own proposals, these broad exemptions were extremely troublesome.
In fact, under the guise of maintaining national security and
military readiness, H.R. 1588 would weaken the ESA to allow critical
habitat designations which are necessary for the recovery of imperiled
species to be done on a discretionary basis and to do so in all
instances, not just as it may apply to the military. In fact, when it
came to marine mammals, any nonmilitary, nongovernmental activity also
would be covered by the weakened standards of this bill.
Let me be clear, H.R. 1588 goes far beyond what even the military
requested. As far as what DOD requested for itself, we have had two
recent GAO reports which found that the Pentagon has failed miserably
to provide any compelling examples to verify their allegation that the
ESA and the MMPA are undermining the training and readiness of our
fighting forces. In Iraq, we watched on live television the
overwhelming strength and bravery of our Armed Forces. We salute them
for a job well done. There is no doubt they were well-prepared for
battle, and they did it under existing law.
Further, we know that existing law already provides exemptions to all
laws when national security is at stake. Yet the military has not even
availed themselves of those exemptions in current law.
However, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and myself are
reasonable people. We are strong supporters of our military. We on this
side of the aisle, just as strongly as anybody in this Chamber, support
our troops. We are proud of the great sacrifice our fighting men and
women have made to protect our Nation.
As such, we submitted to the Committee on Rules an amendment which
would have, first, limited the proposed revisions to the ESA and the
MMPA contained in this legislation strictly to military activities.
Second, we would have ensured that those revisions, while providing the
military with some compliance flexibility, would not have diminished
the letter and intent of the ESA and the MMPA.
This reasonable amendment was not made in order. Instead, buried
within the text of what was supposed to be a technical manager's
amendment by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, we find a
sleight-of-hand trick is being played.
Yes, the Hunter amendment revises the broad ESA and MMPA exemptions
contained in H.R. 1588. It limits these changes to the military, but it
does not do so in the prudent, protective manner that was part and
parcel of the Rahall-Dingell amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues that we not be lulled into
believing that the Hunter amendment would have accomplished what the
Rahall-Dingell amendment would have. On process and substance, the
Hunter amendment should be rejected. Therefore, I urge a no vote on the
previous question; and if that fails, I urge a no vote on the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
It is my understanding that the bill before the House contains three
sections that are largely based upon H.R. 2122, the Project BioShield
Act which the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered reported just
last week; is that correct?
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct.
Mr. TAUZIN. The Committee on Energy and Commerce worked in a
bipartisan fashion at the request of the President to report a strong
BioShield bill. We expect the bill to be on the floor very shortly.
However, just this week I learned similar DOD provisions have been
incorporated in the bill that may not be wholly consistent with our
efforts in this area.
{time} 1245
We accomplished many of the gentleman's objectives in our bill.
Because my committee will not have a chance to work its will on the
gentleman's BioShield provisions, may I have his assurance that he will
work with me as the bill heads to conference to ensure that any
provisions agreed to there are properly drafted and not inconsistent
with the President's proposed program?
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my good colleague and the chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a guy who has a great
dedication to the Armed Forces, we appreciate all his support and all
of the hard work that his committee has done in this area. He has my
assurance that we will work with him as this bill walks down through
the process.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him
and the administration in ensuring that we properly implement the
BioShield program and congratulate him and the committee for, again, a
great effort in this bill to help secure our country and protect her.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, there were 99 amendments filed to the
defense authorization bill. Nine were made in order: six for
Republicans, three for Democrats. Among those not made in order was an
amendment that I offered along with the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff) which would simply have restored this bill so that the
President's request for cooperative threat reduction, our efforts
better known as Nunn-Lugar to get rid of Russian nuclear materials,
chemical weapons and biological weapons, could be fully funded and
fully expressed, freed of some encumbrances entered into the bill in
the committee mark and allowed to go forward basically and only as the
President has requested.
[[Page H4395]]
That is all we sought to do. But this is critically important because
it addresses a particular facility in Russia called Schuch'ye which has
maybe 75 percent of the deadliest chemical weapons, sarin and VX and
other nerve agents, contained in Russia. We are right now at the
threshold of beginning a project that would destroy those weapons, and
this bill as now written without my amendment would hamstring and
hinder the undertaking of that project.
Mr. Speaker, I have served in the Congress for 21 years, and all
these years I have served on the House Armed Services Committee. I am
the second ranking Democrat on the committee. I do not suggest that
time served or rank necessarily entitles a Member to be heard on the
floor, but when a Member has a serious and substantive provision, there
should surely be some deference, some comity. We have always extended
it in the past. In the 20 years I have served there, it has been done.
I think it has been understood in the past if we are to have good
policy, we have to have good debate on the House floor. And when you
stiff-arm good proposals, worthy ideas, when you shut us out, you do
not just diminish me, the individual Member who would offer the
amendment, you diminish the House of Representatives. That is exactly
what you are doing here.
My amendment is not as important as Nunn-Lugar, as the other
amendments which have been addressed here, but it is important. We
should have a right to be heard on this amendment, and we are
diminishing the House. Every Member who respects this institution and
has any sense of comity and fair play should vote against the previous
question and against this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill that we are debating here
today. Every Member of this body deserves to be heard. In the Committee
on Rules yesterday, I urged that we have a free and open debate and
that at a minimum on important issues like the environmental rollbacks
and our worker protections and rights and our nuclear weapons that we
have an opportunity to deliberate and offer amendments. Instead, the
Republican leadership appears to be shutting the door on an open debate
and it appears has denied outright amendments from distinguished
Members like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The majority has an opportunity to try to repair some of the damage,
and they can start with the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment. There are
almost 700,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense who
serve this country proudly and patriotically. But with the stroke of a
pen this bill will strip them of their most basic rights and
protections.
This is a dangerous door that we are opening. We are clearing the way
to allowing political and personal favoritism to enter our civilian
workforce, which is precisely what our Civil Service system is designed
to prevent. This is wrong.
I am sick and tired of those on the other side of the aisle messing
around with the lives of American workers. The Republican leadership's
arrogance and insensitivity to working Americans is astonishing. The
Cooper/Van Hollen amendment would fix these offensive provisions and
would reinstate the most basic worker rights and protections. We do not
want our civil servants to look like some corrupt Third World
dictatorship.
Chairman Dreier last night declared that he would prefer that the
Democrats offer a different amendment. Well, that is not how this
process is supposed to work. If Chairman Dreier believes so strongly in
a different amendment, then he should go and offer it. But the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen) followed the procedures set by the Committee on Rules.
They have a good amendment, and it deserves a vote up or down.
We are sick and tired of being shut out of this debate in this House.
The minority has rights, and we expect the Republican leadership to
honor them. The Committee on Rules could do the right thing when it
meets later today by making the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment in order
for tomorrow's debate.
This is not a trivial matter. This is an amendment on one of the most
significant provisions in the defense bill. Anyone who wants to vote
against it can vote against it, but it deserves genuine debate. We
deserve to have our voices heard, and we deserve a vote on this
amendment.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this rule is not in the finest traditions of
this House. As it applies to Washington State, we have three icons in
Washington State: the United States Navy, orca whales in the Puget
Sound, and the Columbia River. All of them can live in perfect
cohabitation if we come up with a rule that respects the values of all
three. This rule does not allow this House to do that, because it
seriously weakens the protections of the orca whales in the waters of
the State of Washington. That is wrong. It is unnecessary. The bill
that we will be considering without allowing an amendment proposed by
Democrats would seriously strip the protection of orca whales in a way
that is not necessary. We have proposed a way to protect both the
strong U.S. Navy and a strong orca whale population.
In the Columbia River system, we are now allowing potential leachate
from radioactive materials being buried in unlined trenches, and the
majority has denied us an amendment to solve that problem to keep
radioactive waste out of the Columbia River system.
The State of Washington says we ought to have a strong Navy, a strong
orca whale and a strong Columbia River; and this rule does not allow
any of those to take place.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, this budget is 13 percent higher than Cold
War levels, with money for a missile defense system which does not
work, money for previously prohibited research on low-yield nukes and
$626 million for a space-based laser. From Star Wars to fear wars, this
administration led this Nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq
was an imminent threat, which it was not. The Secretary of State
presented pictures to the world he said was proof. Today, despite
having total control in Iraq, none of the very serious claims made to
this Congress, this Nation and the world have been substantiated.
Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Indeed, what was the basis
for the war? We spent $400 billion for defense. Will we spend a minute
to defend truth? The truth is that this administration led America into
a war with such great urgency and still is refusing to account to the
American people for the false and misleading statements which brought
America into war. The American people gave up their health care,
education and veterans benefits for this war. And for what? Answer the
questions, Mr. President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time.
This is a strong and good bill on which there are points of serious
disagreement. One of those points of disagreement is the extent to
which environmental protection laws should be rolled back in the case
of military operations. Many of us on our side and some on the other
believe they should not be rolled back as much. There are those on the
majority side who believe that this is the right way to go. What we are
asking for is a chance to debate that question and take a vote.
In this bill, there is a serious disagreement about the rollback of
the civil protective rights of civilian workers in the Department of
Defense. We believe it goes far too far. Many on the other side believe
it is the right thing to do. All we are asking for is the right to
debate that question and take a vote.
[[Page H4396]]
It is the supreme and bitter irony that the world's greatest fighting
force that defends democracy around the world with great skill and in
whom we take great pride, that the bill that funds that fighting force
is not being pursued under basic democratic principles. Our military
force defends democracy around the world, but we do not have democracy
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question, and I
am going to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that will make in order the Rahall/Dingell amendment that was
offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight
party line vote.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that today the Republican
leadership is throwing away the long-standing tradition of bipartisan
cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. It is a very sad
day indeed when something as important as defending our Nation takes a
back seat to partisan politics. In fact, it is more than a sad day. It
is shameful, and it is wrong.
This bill is supposed to be about protecting our Nation and providing
the very best policies and tools to help our brave servicemen and women
defend this great land. Instead, it is a vehicle for fulfilling
ideological agendas, agendas that have no place in this critical
debate.
I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. This vote is a matter of fair play. Whether or not a Member
supports the Rahall/Dingell substitute, Members of this body should
support the right of other Members to be heard. There is no rational
reason why any Member of this body should be denied the right to
register his or her opinion on the alternative position advocated by
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and many, many, many Members of this body.
I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House taking
up the Department of Defense authorization. However, voting ``yes'' is
a vote to shut out alternative points of view, a point of view that
happens to represent the views of millions of Americans. I stand firmly
in my belief that ensuring a strong national defense is one of the most
important duties I have as a Member of Congress. But I also stand
firmly in my belief that the United States House of Representatives is
supposed to be a representative body. It is not supposed to be an
institution where the minority rights get shut out. Join with me to
bring back some democracy in this institution by allowing the House to
debate and vote on the Rahall/Dingell substitute.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 245--Rule on H.R. 1588, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
amendment to h. res. 245 offered by ____
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment specified in section 5 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative
Rahall of West Virginia or a designee. That amendment shall
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent. Section 2 shall not apply to
the amendment numbered 1 or the amendment specified in
section 5.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
Strike section 317 (page 59, line 16, through page 60, line
24) and insert the following new section:
SEC. 317. MILITARY READINESS AND CONSERVATION OF PROTECTED
SPECIES.
(a) Limitation on Designation of Critical Habitat.--Section
4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) The Secretary shall not designate as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for
its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing
that--
``(I) the management activities identified in the plan, for
the term of the plan, are likely to provide conservation
benefits for the species within the lands or areas covered by
the plan;
``(II) the plan provides assurances that adequate funding
will be provided for the management activities identified in
the plan for the term of the plan; and
``(III) the biological goals and objectives, monitoring
provisions, and reporting requirements provide reasonable
certainty that the implementation of the plan will be
effective to achieve the identified conservation benefits.
``(ii) Nothing in this paragraph affects the requirement to
consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency
action (as that term is defined in that section).
``(iii) Nothing in this paragraph affects the obligation of
the Department of Defense to comply with section 9, including
the prohibition preventing extinction and taking of
endangered species and threatened species.''.
(c) Consideration of Effects of Designation of Critical
Habitat.--Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``the
impact on national security,'' after ``the economic
impact,''.
Strike section 318 (page 61, line 1, through page 64, line
7) and insert the following new section:
SEC. 318. MILITARY READINESS AND MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION.
(a) Definition of Harassment for Military Readiness
Activities.--Section 3(18) of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1362(18)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) In the case of a military readiness activity, the
term `harassment' means--
``(i) any act that has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or
``(ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild by causing meaningful
disruption of biologically significant activities, including,
but not limited to, migration, breeding, care of young,
predator avoidance or defense, and feeding.''.
(b) Exemption of Actions During War or Declared National
Emergency.--Section 101 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) is amended by inserting after
subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Exemption of Actions During War or Declared National
Emergency.--(1) The President, during time of war or a
declared national emergency, may exempt any action undertaken
by the Department of Defense and its components from
compliance with any requirement of this Act if the Secretary
of Defense determines that such an exemption is necessary for
reasons of national security.
``(2) An exemption granted under this subsection shall be
effective for a period of not more than two years. Additional
exemptions for periods not to exceed two years each may be
granted for the same action upon the Secretary of Defense
making a new determination that the exemption is necessary
for reasons of national security. However, exemptions granted
under this subsection shall terminate not more than 180 days
after the end of the war or declared national emergency.
``(3) The President shall submit to the Congress, during
the period of the war or national emergency, an annual report
on all exemptions granted under this subsection, together
with the reasons for granting such exemptions.''.
Strike section 319 (page 64, line 8, through page 65, line
15).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 245 will be followed by 5-minute votes on
adopting the resolution, if ordered, and on questions previously
postponed with respect to H.R. 1170 and H.R. 1911.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 203, not voting 6, as follows:
[[Page H4397]]
[Roll No. 201]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--6
Becerra
Cox
Gephardt
Levin
Sherwood
Simmons
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). The Chair
would inform Members that they have 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1317
Messrs. JEFFERSON, ALEXANDER and POMEROY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 200, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 202]
AYES--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--200
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
[[Page H4398]]
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Becerra
Combest
Conyers
Gephardt
Hefley
Levin
Peterson (PA)
Sherwood
Simmons
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining to vote.
{time} 1324
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________