[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.

                          ____________________