[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4542-H4556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER 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 247 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 247
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 further
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. No
further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
and amendments en bloc described in section 2. Each amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules shall be
considered only in the order printed in the report (except as
specified in section 3), may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Each amendment
printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes
(unless otherwise specified in the report) equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 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). All points of order against
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 2 are waived.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed of or
germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en
bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as
read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en
bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike
may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment
to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original
proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record
immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 3. 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. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
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 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.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule
for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004. This rule provides for further consideration of the bill and
makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules
report accompanying the resolution and amendments en bloc described in
section 2 of the resolution.
The amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, except as specified in section 3 of the
resolution, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, unless otherwise
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment, except
that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed
Services may each offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of
further debate on any pending amendment.
Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
This is a fair rule. It is a traditional, structured rule for defense
authorization, and it provides for debate on 30 additional amendments
that deal with pertinent issues, including personnel issues, maritime
security, quality-of-life issues for our servicemen and women, and a
number of noncontroversial concerns.
The most controversial of these measures is certain to be the
modernization of the personnel system. Modernizing the management
system is imperative to national security and the retention and
recruitment of civilian personnel.
The Committee on Armed Services believes that the important lessons
learned from various demonstration projects within DOD should be
applied across the Department. These projects have shown to improve the
expeditious hiring of qualified personnel, have been valuable in
providing flexible personnel compensation and assignment systems, and
have improved organizational efficiency. These demonstration projects
have also been highly successful in attracting and maintaining high-
quality work forces.
The reforms included in this legislation would be similar to the
flexibility provided to the Department of Homeland Security.
Finally, I believe that the Secretary of Defense should have more
flexible management authority.
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 meet our commitment to providing them a decent
quality of life by providing an across-the-board 4.1 percent pay
increase for military personnel, so as to sustain the commitment and
professionalism of America's all-voluntary
[[Page H4543]]
Armed Forces and the families that support them.
While our men and women in uniform have swiftly dispatched our
enemies abroad, they face increasingly complex personal and
professional challenges at home. We must do more to take care of those
who are putting their lives on the line to defend our freedom, and for
the families that support them.
Currently, the Survivor Benefit Program for the survivor of an
injured or ill service member who lives long enough to be disability
retired is better than the benefit for the survivor of a service member
who dies instantaneously. I am deeply concerned about this inequity and
am pleased that this legislation recommends that the Secretary of
Defense review SPB procedures and propose legislation to ensure
equitable treatment for the survivors of all members of our military,
regardless of their circumstances.
With Memorial Day on Monday, it is only fitting to remember those who
gave the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our country. Let us take
this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to those who are currently
defending our homeland and abroad by passing this rule and the
underlying legislation.
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, for all of my 25 years in Congress I have
worked for a strong national defense. Like so many pro-defense
Democrats, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work
together to support America's men and women in uniform. That
cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan
politics from polluting the Armed Forces.
So, repeatedly on the House floor and in the Committee on Rules, I
have urged the Republican leadership to stop their assault on the
bipartisan cooperation that has defined our approach to defense policy
for so long. In response, the chairman of the Committee on Rules kept
holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, in this second rule for the
defense authorization bill the committee would allow a full and
bipartisan consideration of serious defense issues.
Last night, very late, the Committee on Rules reported out the second
rule. Guess what? It does even more violence to the tradition of
bipartisanship than the first rule did. For the second day in a row,
the Republican leadership has prevented the House from considering
serious and substantive issues in the defense authorization bill. For
the second day in a row, they cast aside bipartisanship to protect the
partisan and right-wing ideology that has been attached to this defense
authorization bill. This is a shameful way to run this institution, an
institution that is supposed to allow the voices of all Americans to be
heard.
For instance, Republican leaders used this rule to again defend their
assault on America's environmental protections. The ranking members of
the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), offered their reasonable substitute to
Republicans on environmental language. Republican leaders refused to
allow the House to vote on this substitute.
To prevent terrorists from getting nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the second
ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services and an acknowledged
expert on defense issues, once again tried to strengthen America's
cooperative threat reduction program, but the Republican leadership
once again refused to allow his amendment, in spite of the fact that it
simply does what President Bush has asked for.
To protect the American taxpayers, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) tried to require that contracts over $1 million be awarded only
in open bidding process, but Republican leaders decided to make it
easier for big companies, for example, Halliburton, Brown and Root,
Bechtel, to get private deals, so they rejected the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a staunch defense hawk
from Mississippi, had a substantive amendment relating to the next
round of base closures. But instead of allowing him and the House the
vote they deserve, Republican leaders simply shut out his amendment.
Similarly, Committee on Rules Republicans blocked three important
amendments that I offered to address defense issues that 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 employees serving in combat zones.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using this rule to rig
the game in favor of their attack on worker rights at the Pentagon.
Now, these are the same Pentagon employees who showed such bravery and
sacrifice on September 11. So the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cooper), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) proposed an employees' bill of rights.
It is a common-sense approach to protecting those public servants who
work to protect us. It has the support of America's firefighters. But
Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote to protect
Pentagon employees.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes a mockery of the bipartisan
cooperation that has been the keystone to our approach to defense
policy, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow
the House to consider the Pentagon employee bill of rights. If the
previous question passes, I urge a no vote on this rule. This is the
only way to restore some semblance of bipartisanship to this process
and to safeguard America's national defense policy from the
partisanship and right wing ideology that are tainting this bill.
{time} 1200
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It
follows the procedure which, as I said here yesterday, has been
addressed year after year.
We are coming forward with a second rule which has a wide range of
amendments. Contrary to what my friend from Dallas just said, this is a
very bipartisan bill. And I will make a prediction, Mr. Speaker. At the
end of the day we will have strong bipartisan support, Democrats and
Republicans, voting for the Defense Authorization Bill.
Now, as we proceed with this process that has just been described as,
frankly, less than bipartisan, the rule that we are addressing here
happens to include amendments from my fellow Californian (Mr. Lantos),
the ranking minority member of the Committee on International
Relations; my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), has
an amendment in order; my Committee on Rules colleague, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), has an amendment that is made in order.
There is a bipartisan amendment that my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), is working with some Republican colleagues
on.
We have amendments made in order by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). The
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has two amendments that are made in
order. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), came to
me and asked that we make in order an amendment that dealt with an
important issue to him. We made that in order.
Those are all Democrats I have talked about, Mr. Speaker. So I think
it is clear that we have, in fact, proceeded in a bipartisan way to try
to allow some concerns that have come forward by our Democratic
colleagues to be addressed.
[[Page H4544]]
Now, I do know that these two hot buttons of civilian personnel and
environmental questions are still out there. Now, I happen to believe
that while we did consider this process, as we considered the option of
other amendments, we did come to the conclusion that, in fact, the
Hefley language that was included in the Hunter amendment was the
appropriate way to deal with this issue.
Yesterday, a number of us had a chance to meet with our colleague,
with our former colleague, now Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
and talked about the environmental consequence and what impact this
will have on our young men and women in uniform. And I know that the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), has talked about that and we heard some horror
stories of what compliance has in fact done. But this measure does not,
in fact, eliminate the compliance with important legislation like the
Endangered Species Act and the Mammal Protection Act.
Now, I know on the civilian personnel question we also have this
issue that has come to the forefront. Now, I went through this
explanation and I know that my very good friend, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), has come forward and we have now had, and I
will acknowledge a change in positions, but initially a request was
made of me that we consider making in order an amendment that would
strike out the civilian personnel provisions. Why? Because they have
made it very clear that they do not like those provisions.
Well, what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is there has been a change that
has taken place since that time. I recognize we could, in fact, deal
with that change; but we chose to approach the minority leadership and
indicate that we would be willing as was first asked of me to make in
order an amendment that would allow for the striking of the civilian
personnel provisions; and they decided that they did not want to have
that considered. And so now they are complaining that we have not made
another amendment in order. And, yes, it is true, we had nearly 100
amendments submitted to us. We did not make an additional amendment in
order on that issue. But we still, Mr. Speaker, are proceeding in a
bipartisan way making numerous amendments. In fact, 11 amendments that
Democrats have submitted are made in order.
I will be offering an amendment in a bipartisan way with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Northern California (Ms. Lofgren), to
deal with the very important computer security issue which I hope we
will have bipartisan support on.
So I do want to say, contrary to what we will be hearing, the spirit
of this rule has been pursued in a bipartisan way as has been the
legislation. I urge support of the previous question. I urge support of
the rule, and I urge my colleagues to come together and provide strong
support for the critically important defense of our Nation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend from California, the chairman, I am afraid has somewhat of
a selective memory. I have handled the defense authorization rules on
this floor for 25 years; and when we were in the majority, we always
made in order the main issues of contention under the defense bill.
Sometimes they were amendments that I personally opposed and that other
prodefense Members on the Democratic side opposed, but we made them in
order so that the House could express its will on the main issues
raised in the Defense Authorization Bill.
This happened on numerous occasions. Sometimes those amendments came
from people to my left in the Democratic Party who perhaps wanted to
eliminate certain weapons systems. Sometimes those amendments came from
conservative Republicans who did not like things that were in the bill.
The main issues, not peripheral issues, and we appreciate the fact that
some issues were made in order, some amendments were made in order that
individual Members felt strongly about; but when we were in the
majority, when there were significant issues that had support from a
large number of Members either on our side or on the Republican side,
we made those amendments in order and let the House express its will.
There were numerous instances when I personally voted against
amendments that were included in the rule that we made in order and
that other prodefense Democrats opposed, but we thought that the House
should have the opportunity to express its will.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would
simply respond by saying, first, I do appreciate the fact that when
Democrats were in the majority, they did allow for consideration of a
wide range of Members. I would argue that we made every attempt to deal
with both the civilian personnel issue as well as the environmental
issue; and we tried to do so in a bipartisan way, as I outlined, by
approaching the minority leadership saying the request that was first
made of me, that we allow for a striking provision to be made in order.
We said we were willing to do that.
On the issue of the environment, the Hefley language, which I know
was worked on in a bipartisan way, is in fact included in the Hunter
measure. I would argue that we tried our doggonedest to do just what
was said.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, I would point out to the gentleman
that when we were in the majority we did not try and dictate what
amendments the minority will offer. We did not say, we will give you a
Democratic amendment on that subject but the Republicans cannot offer
the amendment they want. That is exactly what they have done in the
reverse here. They said, we will give you a Republican amendment on
this subject, but we will not let the Democrats offer the amendments
they want. Of course, Democrats would offer a different amendment on a
particular issue than Republicans would. Republicans would offer an
amendment which was, of course, much more friendly to the basic
provisions in the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, during the floor debate yesterday, the
Committee on Rules chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), addressed our complaints by saying, what are you arguing
about? We have another rule coming up. Your complaints are premature.
As if to suggest we would have another day.
Well, that day has come. Rule number two has arrived; and just to
show you how much bipartisanship there is, my amendment which deals
with an important project, cooperative threat reduction, destroying
weapons of mass destruction in Russia, the former Soviet Union, the
Dingell-Rahall amendment which would correct outrageous grants of
authority over environmental laws granted to the Department of Defense
under this bill, the Cooper-Davis-Van Hollen amendment which goes to
the most radical revision of the civil service in the last hundred
years with respect to the Department of Defense, all of those
substantive amendments are not made in order.
So what we will have here is a sterile, almost pro forma, debate
because what is left in contention, really challengeable, is not what
is really at fault in this bill at all. We cannot have that debate. We
see that substantive alternatives which we are offering, not
controversial, not partisan gotcha bills, substantive alternatives
simply cannot be brought up here.
What the Republican majority is doing is using procedural devices
which they control with a thin majority to deny us fair consideration
on substantive issues of the utmost gravity. They may not agree with
it, but they cannot dispute the fact that all of these are grave and
significant issues.
Let me tell you what my amendment would have done. My amendment would
simply have taken this bill and removed from it all kinds of
encumbrances, fences, conditions that the President did not seek,
request, and does not want with respect to a program called Cooperative
Threat Reduction, known better to some as Nunn-Lugar, and with respect
in particular
[[Page H4545]]
to one project, Shchuch'ye, which is the largest repository of the
deadliest chemical weapons that the Soviet Union ever produced. After
years of negotiating, years of preparation, we are finally at the
threshold of beginning a facility that will destroy those weapons.
I was there last May. I have got two posters here that show you what
those facilities look like. Wooden roofs. Look at the windows over here
with the makeshift bars on them. That is the kind of security they have
got. And on the racks, rack after rack, sitting on dirt floors, wooden
racks, what you find are little chemical warheads like that, literally
thousands upon thousands of them, gathering dust like bottles of wine,
barely secured, any one of which could wipe out the population of a
soccer stadium, all of which could poison the entire world. Nerve gas,
sarin. The deadliest stuff you could possibly imagine. Do we not want
to get rid of this?
Is there any reason to wait. Can we not have at least here in the
well of the House a debate on whether or not we need these conditions
that the chairman of this committee have imposed? I do not think we do.
All I ask is with the 21 years of experience that I have had is the
opportunity to make that case in the well of the House. You have
diminished the House and diminished this process by denying me that
opportunity.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 247. The Committee on Rules
has listened to hours of testimony and made in order 39 total
amendments, nine amendments in yesterday's first rule and 30 amendments
under the new rule before us today. We made in order 22 majority
amendments, 14 minority amendments, and three bipartisan amendments.
And while everyone will not be pleased by these decisions, it is a fair
rule that will give the House the opportunity to debate a wide variety
of national security issues.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, H.R. 1588, is entirely
consistent with what the founders envisioned when they wrote article I,
section 8 of U.S. Constitution, to ensure that Congress shall have the
power to support, maintain, and provide for military to provide for the
common defense.
First, this legislation provides adequate funding to help continue
the U.S. military's transition to the 21st century. H.R. 1588, for
example, authorizes funding for the U.S. Army to procure weapons and
tracked combat vehicles for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and
conversion and for the U.S. Air Force to procure additional aircraft,
including language to maintain the important F/A-22 program.
The authorization for these programs, along with others, will help
the U.S. military remain the most efficient, most lethal, and most
effective fighting force on Earth. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly
hope to maintain the level of excellence obtained by the U.S. military
without the achievements of men and women who proudly wear the uniform.
As a former captain in the U.S. Air Force myself, I continue to draw
inspiration from the resolve, patriotism, and strength of commitment
exhibited by our servicemen and women. This Congress must work to
reinforce that strength, and I believe H.R. 1588 works to that end.
I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 4.1 increase
in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 1588 also recommends a
reduction from 7.5 to 3.5 in the percentage of out-of-pocket expenses
military personnel must contribute toward housing cost. Both of these
provisions will not only help ease the burden placed on military
personnel and their families, but should also help ensure that the U.S.
military is able to retain these highly trained personnel.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is outrageous that the rule proposed by the
Republican leadership denies the 435 Members of this House the
opportunity to vote on the amendment to restore certain rights and
protections for the 700,000 civil servant employees within the
Department of Defense, rights and protections that are stripped away
under the underlying bill. It is particularly sad to see this just
after those civil servants joined together with our military in such a
successful military operation in Iraq.
Yet this bill does away with so many protections. For example, it
takes away the time-honored protections to ensure that civil servants
will have their professional career advancement based on merit and
professional conduct, rather than political litmus tests.
{time} 1215
Do we want our contract officers, do we want our procurement officers
to be looking over their shoulder to see if their decision is based on
what is best for the taxpayer or best politically for someone in the
Defense Department? And yet this bill eliminates those protections that
have been in place since Teddy Roosevelt.
Let me just say that the amendment that was proposed, and I will read
a provision of the amendment that is being denied an opportunity for us
to vote on: ``An employee shall have the right to be free of favoritism
or discrimination in connection with hiring, tenure, promotion or other
conditions of employment due to the employee's political opinion or
affiliation.'' But they do not want us to have an opportunity to vote
on that provision.
The head of the nonpartisan General Accounting Office, David Walker,
when he was asked about this issue, said, ``I do not believe that we
have the infrastructure in place in order to effectively and fairly
move to a more performance-based compensation structure at this time.''
In response to a question, he said, ``I think the agency has to
demonstrate that they have these systems and controls in place before
they should be given the flexibility.''
Mr. Speaker, do we want our Defense Department, the civil servants,
to be run using professional judgment, which I think is in the best
interest of national security, or do we want them to be driven more by
political considerations? I think our national security depends on a
nonpolitical, professional civil service; and it is very disappointing
that the amendment was not made in order.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
When I testified before the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, I
specifically asked that committee for several major amendments,
Democratic amendments, and that they be made in order. The first was
the Cooper amendment dealing with civil service changes, which would
establish a bill of rights for civilian workers within that department.
The second, the Spratt amendment, on cooperative threat reduction,
which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States
requested. The third, the Taylor amendment on base closure. We should
have a full and fair debate on that. And the Dingell-Rahall amendment
on the environment. The dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell), was not given that amendment. As a matter of fact, none
of those four amendments were made in order. That is, Mr. Speaker,
simply wrong.
Regardless of how Members might feel on the substance of amendments,
it is wrong that a major substantive policy amendment is kept from
debate. That should not happen. It should be allowed. It should be
debated fully on this floor. This is a deliberative body, and many have
said the most deliberative body in the whole world. Yet, Mr. Speaker,
we cannot debate key issues that come before us. This is not a full
debate. It deserves that. We in this institution do not deserve this
disservice, and I cannot agree, sadly, with this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
[[Page H4546]]
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Well, here we are again, my dear colleagues, deja vu all
over again.
The Republicans told us yesterday how they were going to have a
second rule. Well, the second rule is just like the first, unfair,
stifling debate, and not allowing discussion.
We are told it is bipartisan. It reminds me of the story of a fellow
who complained about the stew. He was told it is horse and rabbit stew.
He said, what is the recipe? They said, oh, it is simple. Equal parts,
one horse, one rabbit. He said, no wonder it tastes like hell.
The simple fact of the matter is that is what we have here. That is
the Republican definition of bipartisanship.
They exclude seven significant amendments. Why? I can only assume one
of several reasons: They are scared to death to debate them; they want
to be unfair; they have not got the vaguest ideas of what is fairness
or how a representative body should function. I suspect all of the
above are there. In any event, it tends to show they either know or
care less about fairness than a hawk does about a handsaw.
What have they denied us the right to do? Legislation to address
environmental concerns. Legislation to address the problem of chemical
and nuclear weapons. Imagine what is going to happen if the Spratt
amendment does not go into place and all of a sudden terrorists show up
with nuclear weapons, or they show up with weapons of chemical or
biological character because they got them out of a leaky stockpile in
Russia? They do away with the opportunity to offer an open bidding
requirement on contracts over $1 million. That says that they probably
are scared to discuss this issue. They will not discuss the question of
base closings. They refuse to help immigrant soldiers to get
citizenship and for us to offer an amendment to allow that.
Now there are certain things about a representative body that I have
to assume my Republican friends either do not care about or they do not
know about. My dear Republican colleagues serve here as the servants of
the people. This is the House of Representatives, with emphasis on the
word representatives. We are all supposed to represent the House. My
Republican colleagues are supposed to represent in the House the people
whom they serve. They are also supposed to respect all of the people
who are served here and to allow wide, broad, fair, discussion of
important issues.
Is there a shortage of time to debate? Absolutely not. We meet about
3 days a week. But my Republican friends do not seem to have time to
discuss important questions. I can only assume it is because they do
not understand our duty to the people.
My Republican colleagues are creating a precedent which is bad. First
of all, we do not debate the issues that are important. Second of all,
my colleagues are creating a poisonous atmosphere in this place which
is going to continue and to persist for a long time. The ability of
this institution to properly debate questions and to have respect for
each other and for the people we serve is being demeaned by this rule.
I say, shame.
Let us defeat the rule, let us defeat the previous question, let us
get the House back to being what it should be, the representatives of
the people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to second the remarks of
the dean of the House, my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
Last night, in this great Capitol building, about 10 p.m., the
Committee on Rules was meeting. Our friends on the other side of the
aisle had just come back from their lavish dinner at which the
newspapers report they raised some $22 million for the Republicans.
They voted on this rule, and they voted to deny this House the
opportunity to work its will on $47 billion in the DOD budget.
That is a matter of some concern, because that is one of the largest
items in the entire bill, and the House is unable to work its will on
it due to their denial of an amendment. But more important than that,
they denied over 700,000 DOD employees to have this section of the bill
aired and debated. Over 700,000 families who work for our Pentagon
worldwide are not able to hear their concerns aired on the floor of
this House.
This is the people's House, yet over 700,000 patriotic and loyal
Americans who have served this Nation well in the Iraq war, in the
Afghan war, and let us remember 65 of these civilians died in the 9/11
attack on the Pentagon, but, no, this House is too busy to consider
their concerns. That is not fair, that is not right, and this House
should demand justice.
These are important civil servants of our Nation. They work hard
every day to keep our Nation strong. Only last week our committee
bothered to commend them for their skill, their hard work and
dedication. But, no, their concerns are not important enough to be
aired on the floor of this House.
We had one hearing in the Committee on Armed Services, we had no
subcommittee markup, and now we are unable to debate the issue on the
floor of this House. It is an injustice.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman
yielding me this time.
First of all, civil servants have had a large role in shaping this.
There have been nine pilot programs the Department of Defense has
piloted through the years, and in all of those cases, civil servants
have, in many cases contrary to the labor bosses, opted for the new
system as opposed to the old system with which they are currently
operating.
The problem with the current system today is that we are contracting
out where we ought to be able to use Federal employees because we do
not have the flexibility in terms of deployment. So we are using
uniformed officers behind desks to get jobs done, Federal contractors
to get jobs done, what Federal workers are, in many cases, more capable
of doing, and that is wrong.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I agree with the gentleman. I think that this bill is going to
provide for more jobs for civil service employees because it is easier
when we have a job to do under this massive bureaucracy we have now and
the SECDEF says, I need that job done, can we have a civil servant do
it? And the answer is, we can in 6 months. So the Secretary then does
one of two things: He says, okay, let us get a contractor to do it, if
we cannot get one of our own guys to do it the other alternative is let
us get a sergeant to do it. The sergeant salutes and says, yes, sir,
and he goes and gets the information he needs to do the job and he does
it.
So the idea that we are going to be contracting the civil service
force as a result of this is absolutely not accurate. In my opinion, we
are going to have more people. Secretary Rumsfeld said there are, right
now, under his estimate, some 300,000 uniformed people, people in the
military, doing jobs that civil service folks could do if we could get
the bureaucracy out of the way.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman, but let me just say it is 320,000 uniform personnel
doing jobs that civil servants are certainly capable of doing. These
are 320,000 we had to call up from the Reserves to do work,
potentially, that could have gone and stayed with their families and
everything else because of these arcane rules.
In addition to this, Under Secretary Wolfowitz testified under oath
that this would increase the number of Federal civil servants. So this
idea that it is going to lead to more contracting out is not only bunk,
it is disingenuous, it is wrong, and I think it takes civil servants in
the wrong direction.
Let me correct a couple of other things that have been said in the
debate. We had a Member yesterday say that the right to receive
veterans preference is gone, the right to discrimination protection,
gone. Veterans preference, located in chapters 33 and 35 of title V,
those are nonwaivable under this legislation. Discrimination protection
is located in 2302(b)(2) of title V
[[Page H4547]]
and explicitly referred to in this legislation. Overtime pay in chapter
55 of title V, also nonwaivable.
In fact, for middle-level managers, what we have done is corrected
some inequities in overtime pay. Currently, GS-12s, 13s, and 14s
receive less working overtime than they receive in ordinary pay, and we
have corrected that in this. This is a benefit to managers. We have
raised the level that SES'rs and managers can get in bonus over what
the current level is. So we have raised the levels of what Federal
employees can earn.
As far as collective bargaining, NSPS states that we must ensure that
employees may organize, bargain collectively, and participate through
labor organizations of their own choosing. As for the right to an
attorney, which was alleged to have been taken away, we do not mention
it, but neither does the underlying legislation, and we have
established an independent review panel to consider employee
grievances.
We have worked hard on this legislation. We held a couple of hearings
in the Committee on Government Reform on this, but, most importantly,
this is designed from nine pilot programs where the Federal employees
themselves have spoken to this and have voted strongly to opt for the
new systems versus the existing system. It does not pay for
performance; it pays on a seniority basis.
This will allow us to expedite hiring. It will allow us to do the
kinds of things that we have already given other Federal agencies. This
is not new ground. There are numerous Federal agencies currently, in
sections 71, 73, and 75, that we have waived or altered, and we do this
here. In fact, there is less flexibility here than Congress recently
gave to the Department of Homeland Security.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, I might add, my colleagues who are arguing against this
opposed those provisions in the Department of Homeland Security bill.
We had an ensuing election on this issue. The voters spoke, and I think
we have visited this issue once. There are fewer flexibilities here
than we have in that as well.
I want to say a couple of other things. The Committee on Armed
Services also had a day-long hearing and a 2-day markup of the DOD
authorization bill. Dozens of the amendments offered there were also
offered in our committee, and the votes were party line on these
issues. They want to bring these same issues to the floor. I am not
happy with every part of this rule. I had several amendments,
particularly on the procurement side, that were part of the Committee
on Government Reform's markup that were not included in the DOD bill
that I could not get offered here. I understand the disappointment of
those Members who are not able to have those heard at this point.
But 40,000 employees with over 20 years of experience want a new
system, and defense of the current system not only leads to more
outsourcing, it does not lead to the kind of performance-based pay and
the salary levels that many of our best Federal employees are deserving
of.
I worked in the private sector for a number of years. I worked for a
company where our best asset was not our computers or our building; it
was our people. They walked out the door every night; and we prayed to
get them back because replacing them was costly, it created more
inefficiencies, and it made us less competitive.
Those factors in the private sector ought to be extended to the
public sector because our employees are our best asset, too. But I
think we need to treat them well, I think we need to give them
appropriate safeguards, which this legislation does. The unknown and
the concerns by some on the other side are that all of this is not
written by Congress. But we have put appropriate safeguards in this
legislation. This will be part of a later debate, but I certainly
support the rule.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
understand his assertion. His assertion essentially is that these
provisions that will affect our Federal employees are positive
provisions.
If that is the case, on our side we are very concerned that we are
not being allowed to debate these fully. As the gentleman knows, 30
amendments are allowed with 10 minutes per amendment. The gentleman
will admit, I think, that these are very substantial changes that we
are making in the law; am I correct on that?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. As I stated earlier, we debated these
thoroughly in both committees. I cannot speak to every amendment that
is being offered on the floor of the House. I understand the
gentleman's concern. I know we will get debate on the motion to
recommit, and we are debating it now. But I was also disappointed in
not being able to offer some amendments. In addressing that issue, I
think that is probably above my pay grade.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
tell my friend, and he and I work very closely on issues dealing with
Federal employees, there is a tendency to undervalue our Federal
employees, as the gentleman knows. But the concern we have is if the
other side is so concerned that the propositions it puts before us are
correct, then it is a shame that we do not allow this body to fully
debate them. I understand there were votes in committee. However, I am
not on the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Although we were privileged to have the
gentleman testify before us.
Mr. HOYER. I did appreciate the opportunity to come and testify,
notwithstanding the fact that the committee did not follow my advice.
My point is that the majority of Members on both sides of the aisle are
not on your committee or the Committee on Armed Services, and I think
it would have been appropriate for us to debate these items. If the
proposals are as good as the gentleman says they are, presumably they
would have been supported by the majority of this House.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and
we did take some of his suggestions in the markup. The gentleman's
testimony was not for naught.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the distinguished whip
on the other side has made a point that more time should be given to
this issue.
We are doing a $400 billion bill; and arguably the decisions on
hundreds of weapons system that we are approving, both whether we are
talking about the high-tech stuff or the low-tech stuff that we are
bolstering in this bill, those decisions could have life and death
impact, and yet we moved this bill through.
I want to assure the gentleman that we gave more time to this issue.
We did a 10-hour hearing on this issue, largely at the insistence of
the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), but we did a 10-hour hearing. That is more time than we gave
any single weapons system in the entire DOD bill. So the argument can
be made that we should have 10 times as many hearings as we have, and
the gentleman knows that in this House and on this floor we have a
myriad of responsibilities. We spent more time on this than any single
weapons system in the entire DOD bill, and we had a 25-hour markup. I
would say a very substantial portion of that markup, without limitation
to debate, was afforded all of the Members.
Lastly, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform makes a
good point. I listened to the concerns. I listened early on to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
We sat down and put together this independent appeals board that is
going to be afforded anyone and everyone. So we spent a lot of time on
this. This was not hastily thrown together.
Lastly, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) made a good point.
He said we are putting a major entrustment to the Secretary of Defense
to build a new system, and we all agree in many ways it is broken. I am
looking at this union dispute over whether they should have cancelled
the annual picnic, and it ended up costing $750,000 of taxpayer money
to decide whether or not you should cancel the picnic. There are
changes that need to be made.
Lots of good people involved themselves on this and worked on this;
and
[[Page H4548]]
this is an excellent, excellent product. I want to thank everybody who
had suggestions because a number of the concerns from Democrats and
Republicans were addressed. We are entrusting the Secretary of Defense,
who with his team took 300,000 American lives into a very dangerous
military theater, and answered to us and did a good job with that
entrustment. He deserves some degree of respect, and he has merited the
empowerment to move forward and build a new system under our guidance.
We are going to be reviewing everything he has done in a few months.
We can change things that he does that we do not like; but certainly
giving him an opportunity to revamp his shop to make it better, not
just for DOD and the taxpayers but also for the folks that live and
work in this system, the Federal employees.
Mr. Speaker, I think we did a good job of working this. We can always
spend more time, and I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) that could be said about every single weapons system that comes
up here.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make an observation to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The
gentleman and I served in this body when this bill had 5 full days of
debate, discussion and open amendments in which we had very extensive
discussions on not only weapons systems but other proposals contained
in the bill.
I am probably going to end up voting for this bill. As the gentleman
knows, I have consistently supported authorization bills and
appropriation bills. I believe this Nation needs a strong defense, and
I respect the Secretary of Defense. But I would say to the gentleman
that it would have been nice if the Secretary had respected the Members
of the House on both sides of the aisle and presented this at the
beginning of the year and not just a few weeks ago so we could have had
more extensive discussions, as we have had on some of those weapons
systems heretofore. None of them were offered just recently. They were
offered early in the year or in years past; but I recognize what the
gentleman said. Obviously, we do not have unlimited time for unlimited
debate.
I would suggest in this instance this proposal, a very substantive
one, came very late; and although the gentleman spent some time in
committee on it, appropriately, and I thank the gentleman for that, it
would have been nice if we would have had more extensive debate and
substantive amendments on this floor.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I include
for the Record an editorial from the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld,
printed in today's Washington Post.
Defense for the 21st Century
(By Donald H. Rumsfeld)
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) laid out a number of objections on
this page yesterday to the president's proposed Defense
Transformation Act for the 21st Century. I respect Mr.
Skelton's long service, but I disagree with many of his
stated objections. Here is why.
Skelton argues that this legislation is the most sweeping
overhaul of the Defense Department since the 1986 Goldwater-
Nichols Act. He may be right--but that is precisely the
point. We are at this moment fighting the first wars of the
21st century with a department that has management and
personnel systems developed decades ago, at the height of the
Cold War.
The threats we face today are notably different from that
era. We learned on Sept. 11, 2001, that our nation is
vulnerable to enemies who hide in the caves and shadows and
strike in unexpected ways. That is why we must transform our
armed forces. Our forces need to be flexible, light and
agile, so they can respond quickly and deal with surprise.
The same is true of the men and women who support them in the
Department of Defense. They also need flexibility, so that
they can move money, shift people, design and deploy new
weapons more rapidly and respond to the continuing changes in
our security environment.
Today we do not have that kind of agility. In an age--the
information age--when terrorists move information at the
speed of an e-mail, money at the speed of a wire transfer and
people at the speed of a commercial jetliner, the Defense
Department is still bogged down in the bureaucratic processes
of the industrial age.
Consider: we have more than 300,000 uniformed personnel
doing jobs that should be done by civilians. That means that
nearly three times the number of troops that were on the
ground in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom are doing
nonmilitary jobs that should be done by civilian personnel.
Why is that? It's because when managers in the department
want to get a job done, they go to the military. They know
they can manage military people, put them in a job, give them
guidance, transfer them from one task to another and change
the way they do things. They can't do that with the civil
service, because it is managed outside the Defense Department
by others, with a system of rules and requirements fashioned
for a different era.
The defense authorization bill has grown from only one page
in 1962 to a whopping 534 pages in 2001. The department is
required to prepare and submit some 26,000 pages of
justification, and more than 800 required reports to
Congress each year--many of marginal value, most probably
not read. Since 1975, the time it takes to produce a new
weapons system has doubled, even as new technologies are
arriving in years and months, not decades.
We are working to fix problems that we have the freedom to
fix. We have reduced management and headquarters staffs by 11
percent, streamlined the acquisition process by eliminating
hundreds of pages of unnecessary rules and red tape, and
begun implementing a new business management structure. But
we also need legislative relief. That is why we are asking
for:
Measures for transforming our system of personnel
management, so that we can gain more flexibility and agility
in the way we manage the more than 700,000 civilians in the
department. And let me be clear: The provisions we have
proposed explicitly bar nepotism.
Expanded authority for competitive outsourcing so that we
can get military personnel out of nonmilitary tasks and back
into the field.
Measures to protect our military training ranges so that
our men and women in uniform will be able to train as they
fight, while honoring our steadfast commitment to protecting
the environment.
It is true, as Rep. Skelton notes, that the Goldwater-
Nichols Act took four years for Congress to pass. But we do
not have four years to wait before we transform--the new
threats are here now. If anything, our experience in the
global war on terror has made the case for transformation
even more urgent. Because our enemies are watching us--
studying how we were successfully attacked, how we are
responding and how we might be vulnerable again. In distant
caves and bunkers, they are busy developing new ways to harm
our people--methods of attack that could kill not 3,000
people, but 30,000 or 300,000--or more. And they are not
struggling with bureaucratic red tape fashioned in the last
century as they do so.
The fact is that the transformation of our military
capabilities depends on the transformation of the way the
Defense Department operates. This does not mean an end to
congressional oversight. What it means is that we need to
work together to ensure the department has the flexibility to
keep up with the new threats emerging as this century
unfolds.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bill. My colleague from Virginia only said one thing that is
correct, and that is our Federal employees are our greatest resource.
Unfortunately, in this bill they are treated very poorly.
In this bill, the Secretary of Defense can waive collective
bargaining. That was designed to allow employee input into working
conditions and grievances. He talks about Federal employees, but every
Federal employee organization opposes this language.
The Secretary of Defense would be allowed to exempt the Department of
Defense from the Federal wage schedule that was designed to prevent
discrimination and nepotism.
The Secretary of Defense is allowed to exempt the Department of
Defense from due process and appeals rights, appeals to the Equal
Opportunity Commission, fighting discrimination.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Defense to bypass OPM and
create an entirely new personnel system.
It authorizes the Secretary to have authority under this proposal to
take action at his sole, exclusive, and unreviewable discretion.
The Secretary of Defense, in an opinion piece in The Washington Post
yesterday, said our military needs more agility and flexibility because
they are fighting terrorists in caves and bunkers. Then he cleverly
transfers this reasoning to the civilian population. I ask Members why
do clerks and secretaries and administrators need to be deprived of
their appeals rights? They should have a fixed appeals system. They
should have the rights that Federal employees have had over the years.
He
[[Page H4549]]
makes the case for a flexible military, he does not make the case for
depriving Federal employees of their rights, and he attempts to trade
off agility for morale. I suggest we need to improve morale and protect
our Federal employees.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make the comment that we do have a
committee system in this House because not everybody can be on every
committee. They make recommendations to the full House, and usually we
value their opinions and accept their recommendations. That is part of
what is going on today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the rule. First, on the issue we have been dealing with around civil
service, none of the lessons learned and the myriad projects that we
are talking about would necessarily be part of the law as it is drafted
in the civil service part of the provisions in this bill. So we did
have that debate and some of that discussion, but in fact none of that
is relevant to the bill at all.
Second, I object to the fact that the Committee on Rules deprived
this body of the opportunity to have a substantive debate on the
environmental provisions, a debate about the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul
Wolfowitz, wrote in a March memo, ``We have demonstrated that we are
both able to comply with environmental requirements and to conduct
necessary military training and testing.'' The administration's own EPA
agrees, and that is the fact.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, for 3 years I have worked to close the military
pay gap. This year at the Committee on Rules I offered an amendment to
close that gap permanently, but that amendment was denied. My amendment
is identical to language passed in the Senate. Over 4 years each of the
quarter million soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who fought in
Iraq were making a decision whether or not to stay or go in the
military. Now is the time to send them and their families a message
that the Members of this House care about them and the quality of their
lives. Instead, we send a hastily different message with empty
promises. Why is the majority silent on closing the pay gap
permanently?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
{time} 1245
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the way the
Republicans have managed, orchestrated the rule is that it simply does
not permit an opportunity for us to clarify even simple
misunderstandings.
Many of my colleagues may have listened on television to the
distinguished chairman of the committee put a map up here that implied
that 57 percent of Camp Pendleton was off-limits to military
activities. We came to the floor and pointed out that that was simply
not true. It never was. Using the flexibility under existing law, 1
percent was set aside.
The real problem with Camp Pendleton is the fact that you have got an
interstate freeway, you have got encroachment from sprawl, but we could
not clarify it.
I have had colleagues who misunderstood what the chairman said. I am
sure it was a mistake to imply that 57 percent was off-limits to
military training. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and I
are reduced to putting out a Dear Colleague which maybe somebody will
see in the blizzard of paper. It is an embarrassment to this Chamber
that we cannot have a legitimate debate and clarify things like this
and not mislead the public or Members of this assembly.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is aware of the map that I put up of Camp
Pendleton that showed the overlays on the various environmental
restrictions. I have gone through that a number of times. It has got
the areas for the gnatcatcher, it has got the estuarine sanctuary, it
has got the closeout for the beach. The gentleman is aware that there
is about 17 miles of beach there where the Marines practice their
amphibious landings. Is it the gentleman's claim that that beach is now
open for use for the United States Marines?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes. Absolutely. This limited area, 840 acres out of
125,000 acres, is available to amphibious landings, according to the
information we have received. And it only applies out of 6 months. The
real problem is you have got a freeway, you have got a nuclear power
plant, you have got a State park. There never was a legal restriction
ever.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me ask the gentleman further, because we are going to
have this thing sorted out before this bill is over. Is it the
gentleman's contention that the Marine Corps' position is they
understand that they can use that beach and they simply have not used
it, that that beach is available for amphibious landings?
Did the gentleman ask the Marines? That is my question, I guess.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have dealt with the Department of Defense, the Fish
and Wildlife Service and have gone to the court records. I do not know
how it is being distorted.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just tell the gentleman that if you have these
agreements that they put in place, those agreements are made by several
parties: one, Fish and Wildlife; one, State resources, in California
that is Fish and Game; and, lastly, the Service. Since we want to make
sure we are all on the same playing field here before this debate is
over, I would ask the gentleman, we have got a couple of hours here, to
check with the U.S. Marine Corps. I will be happy to be with him when
we check on it and we can come to the floor and give together an
opinion on how much land is ruled off-limits.
My information from the Marine Corps is that they cannot use that
beach. That is not the small part of the beach that is up in the north
that they use for the nuclear power plant. Nobody has claimed you want
to make amphibious landings at a nuclear power plant.
I would ask the gentleman, since he did not have a direct
communication with the Marine Corps, if he could get that, and I will
work with him, and we will try to come in with the same sheet of music.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I welcome the gentleman's offer to do so and to
correlate that with what the Secretary of the Interior has actually
ruled in this case. I welcome it.
Mr. HUNTER. Let me just finish by saying that my information from DOD
as of last week is that, currently, of that 17 miles, only roughly one-
fifth of a mile, that is roughly one one-hundred-and-fiftieth or one
one-hundredth of this shoreline where the Marines practice their
amphibious landings is available for use. So we have got totally
disparate views. The gentleman says the beach is open. The Marines tell
me that the beach is closed. We will be happy to work with him and get
a communication from the Marine Corps.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very unfair rule.
The bill before us today contains provisions that would give the
Department of Defense unprecedented authority to develop an entirely
new civil service system for its 700,000 civilian employees with little
or no congressional oversight, jeopardizing many of the employee
protections and rights that Federal employees have fought so hard for
over the years.
How do I know this? Because before coming to Congress I was a Federal
employee, a civil service employee for 26\1/2\ years.
I know that there is a lot of frustration and a lot of misinformation
that
[[Page H4550]]
has been put forth in this. My good friend and chairman has said they
had 10 hours of testimony. But when you factor in that there are
700,000 civilian employees that are going to be affected, that is .0008
minutes for each one of those employees that has been given in terms of
hearings. I think our civil servants deserve better than that, and we
ought to have more hearings on this issue and not just take their civil
protections away as we are with this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule.
The bill before us today contains provisions that would give the
Department of Defense unprecedented authority to develop an entirely
new civil service system for its 700,000 civilian employees with little
or no congressional oversight, jeopardizing many employee protections
that Federal workers have fought so hard for over the years.
This issue has great personal significance to me, because for more
than 26 years prior to becoming a Member of Congress, I myself was a
civil servant, first as a Border Patrol agent and later as a Sector
Chief. When I joined the Border Patrol, I was one of only two Hispanic
members of my training class. I can tell you that there were some that
would have preferred that we were not part of the Border Patrol, but
the civil service system protected me.
As a Sector Chief, over the objections of my superiors, I implemented
what turned out to be one of the most successful programs to stop
illegal immigrants from entering this country. If it were not for the
civil service protections, I would have been fired immediately.
We sought to offer an amendment to help ensure that DoD civilian
employees would continue to enjoy the basic protections that I was
afforded as a civil servant, including the right to due process and
appeal in cases of alleged discrimination, collective bargaining, and
veterans preferences.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not see fit to make Mr.
Cooper's amendment in order, so we will not have a debate on this
extraordinarily important issue.
Mr. Speaker, even GAO has said, ``Congress should consider
establishing additional safeguards to ensure the fair, merit-based,
transparent, and accountable implementation'' of DoD's civil service
system. But this rule does not allow us to do that. The patriotic
employees who serve our Nation at the Department of Defense deserve
better.
I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous question and
``no'' on this terrible rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record my op-ed article
entitled ``Overhaul Without Oversight'' from the Washington Post dated
May 21.
[From the Washington Post, May 21, 2003]
Overhaul Without Oversight
(By Ike Skelton)
I believe history will show that the swiftness of America's
military victory in Iraq was due in large part to the in-
depth training of our officers in strategy and plans and to
the military's application of that training in the
operational plans developed in the months before the war.
Many people, including the Secretary of Defense, had detailed
lists of what could go wrong. We avoided those outcomes,
partly thanks to luck but mostly because of deliberate
military planning that sought out and compensated for
potential risks and unintended consequences.
Last month, as Congress was departing for a two-week
recess, the Defense Department submitted a 200-page draft
``transformation'' bill that requests extensive new
authorities. It is not an understatement to say that this
bill, taken as a whole, is the most sweeping defense reform
legislation proposed since the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986,
which changed both the structure and the policies governing
our military. The only thing that is obvious and consistent
throughout the 50 provisions included in this bill is the
aggregation of power sought for the Department of Defense,
removing the legal restrictions and congressional oversight
that should safeguard against any abuses, however
unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will
affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will
enshrine bad policy in law.
Major reassignments of constitutional authority such as
this demand the same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war
plan. In fact, the Goldwater-Nichols legislation took
Congress four years to pass. The armed services committees of
both houses of Congress held dozens of hearings and spent
months drafting a comprehensive and bipartisan bill. We did
this because the scope of the legislation was broad, the
potentially unforeseen implications were numerous and the
impact on the lives of all those who serve this nation was
enormous.
The House of Representatives is to consider and vote on a
defense authorization bill today that has much to commend it.
It will authorize $400 billion to ensure that our forces
remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. But
it will also include large pieces of the transformation
package--even though the committee has held fewer than five
hearings, and most of those with less than a week's notice.
Without the time to investigate and ask the tough questions,
we do not know what the implications of these changes are.
And so we, unlike Gen. Tommy Franks in Iraq, cannot build a
plan to avoid the worst outcomes.
The proposed legislation makes sweeping changes to both
military and civilian personnel systems. On the civilian
side, the Defense Department wants unfettered freedom to hire
and fire its nearly 700,000 employees. Congress had a long,
contentious debate over similar personnel proposals when
creating the Department of Homeland Security. That
legislation is barely being implemented now, and there has
been no opportunity to evaluate its results. The Defense
Department wants changes that are even more dramatic,
including, just as one example, the repeal of laws preventing
nepotism. What justification based on our national security
or sound management principles can justify that? What message
does this send to the hundreds of thousands who have
dedicated their careers to the service of this nation? And
why do such changes need to be rushed through now, when a
successful military campaign has shown that the existing
system works?
The department also is requesting extensive exemptions from
a host of environmental laws that have helped safeguard the
long-term health of our communities and of the global
environment. As a solidly pro-military member of Congress, I
believe the readiness and exceptional training of our troops
are of paramount importance and should be taken into account
in our environmental laws. But the Defense Department has not
yet made use of the legal remedies that already exist to
accommodate military readiness. Operations in Iraq showed the
exquisite capability of the U.S. military trained under the
current system. Changing the law at this point has not been
shown to be needed for military readiness, but it will
certainly undermine the legal structure that ensures the
nation's environmental health.
The Constitution establishes Congress as a counterweight to
executive authority for good reasons--to guard against the
excessive aggregation of any administration's power and to
ask critical questions that allow better policy and better
law to be made. When we in Congress are doing our jobs well,
we ask what every American should want to know: Why is this
necessary and what are the downsides of taking this action?
Without the ability to question and consider fully the
implications of what we do, we abandon the planning needed to
protect our nation's security and to protect those who serve
their nation. We would not accept that of the officers
planning a military campaign. We should not accept it from
our political leaders either.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we are spending $100
billion and tragically the loss of young men and women's lives in a war
in Iraq that was supposed to be about getting the weapons of mass
destruction out of Saddam Hussein's hands so he could not give them to
the terrorists. So far, we have not found those weapons of mass
destruction.
But the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) pointed out to us
that there are 5,000 tons of weapons of mass destruction in chemical
weapons and gases and sarin chemical that we know exactly where they
are. But the Republicans will not allow an amendment in order to
protect Americans from the assault from these weapons when they fall
into the hands of terrorists. We know exactly where 5,000 tons are. We
have not found one ounce in Iraq.
There is also nuclear material in the same area of the former Soviet
Union and in Central Asia and elsewhere in the world. But they will not
allow us to clean it up. They will not allow us to secure it. They are
compromising the security of this Nation because this is more likely to
fall into the hands of terrorists than anything that Saddam Hussein
had.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman's time has
expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You have to ask yourself, what are
they doing to the security of this Nation when they will not allow us
to go in and to secure these weapons of mass destruction?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are on Orange Alert. We are on Orange Alert
as a Nation, and as a Nation and as a Congress we will not be allowed
to debate the reduction of these weapons.
[[Page H4551]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's time has been expired for
about 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman's
time has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
Mrs. MYRICK. The gentleman's time has expired, and he should be
removed from the floor.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mrs. MYRICK. Nobody is begging anybody. Use your time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members please suspend.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from California
acknowledge the Chair?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is no longer
recognized.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair, and I yield back
my time.
Mr. OBEY. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members suspend. The Chair would observe
that this is the United States House of Representatives, and respect
for the decorum of this Chamber is expected by all. The gentleman from
California is a distinguished gentleman, but all rules of the House and
the rulings of the Speaker should be followed.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. . . .
Mrs. MYRICK. Regular order.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the
gentleman from California. I want to compliment the gentleman from
California for having the guts to finally say the rules are rigged
against those Members who do not blindly follow the Republican
leadership. Every one of us represents about 700,000 people. We do not
run for office saying, some of us can speak and some of us can't. Some
of us can offer amendments and some of us can't. The Committee on Rules
serves to do nothing but keep Members from offering their amendments.
I have got an amendment on base closure. I think every single citizen
of this body ought to be recorded as being wanting to close bases or
wanting to keep bases open. I have been denied the opportunity to have
that vote for 3 years running now.
I have got to ask, who wants to close bases? Do the military retirees
who live next to them who want to use the hospital want to close them?
No. Do the military retirees who want to use the commissaries want to
close them? No. Do the communities that in many instances have paid to
bring those bases there like Pascagoula, Mississippi, paid $20 million
to help bring home port Pascagoula there, do they want to close them?
No.
So maybe who does want to close bases? Mr. Dreier, how about your
friend Katrina Leung? I think it is a fair question to ask whether or
not someone who is being accused of being a Communist Chinese spy, who
has contributed to your campaign, whether or not she wants to close
bases.
Why can I not have a vote as a Member of this body on deciding
whether or not we are going to close bases? Are we are going to listen
to our Nation's military retirees? Are we going to listen to our
citizens? Or are we listening to Katrina Leung?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I 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 Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen Civil
Service Bill of Rights amendment. Last night, the Republican majority
refused to allow the House to consider this amendment. The Republican
leadership had decided what kind of Democratic amendment would be
acceptable to be included in the rule and since no Democrat was willing
to toe the Republican Party line, Democrats have been shut out once
again on a straight party line vote.
The bill we are considering today makes enormous and far-reaching
changes in the personnel laws affecting civilian defense employees.
Furthermore, it does so with virtually no input or oversight from
Congress. It leaves this massive overhaul in the hands of the Secretary
of Defense.
The Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen amendment would spell out an employee
bill of rights to ensure that these valuable employees do not lose
their basic employee rights. Yet under this unfair rule it will not be
allowed to come to the floor for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to believe that just a few weeks after
the war in Iraq, after all of us heaped deserving praise on all
employees of the Defense Department, both military and civilian, that
we would pull the rug out from underneath these patriotic, hard-working
Americans.
Let me make it very clear. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from
taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, a ``yes''
vote amounts to slamming the door in the face of the military's
civilian employees.
As you cast your vote, think about these people and whether you will
turn your back on them or whether you will do the right thing and vote
to allow this amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the rule on
the National Defense Authorization Act. This rule fails to make in
order several important Democratic amendments, including the Rahall-
Dingell amendment on the environmental provisions in the bill.
The Department of Defense claims that it needs exemptions from five
of our major environmental laws--laws that protect the air, water,
endangered species, whales, dolphins, and last but not least, humans.
The Pentagon says these laws are interfering with military readiness.
But the evidence it has presented is at best anecdotal. In a June 2002
study, the Government Accounting Office could find no evidence that
environmental protection is a problem for our Armed Forces.
In light of the impressive performance of our men and women in Iraq,
any assertion that our military is not ready to fight and win is
patently ridiculous. These environmental laws have been in place for
several decades, and our Armed Forces are the best trained in the
world.
The defense bill that we are debating today rolls back protections in
two key environmental laws: the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act. The DOD bill significantly reduces the Secretary
of the Interior's responsibility to designate critical habitat and
would greatly weaken protections for endangered species anywhere in the
U.S., not just on military facilities. Without critical habitat,
imperiled species will not recover. This bill would also specifically
reduce protections for endangered species on military lands. For marine
mammals, the bill weakens the definition of ``harassment'' for all
users of the oceans and coastal waters, not just for the military. It
would also give the DOD unlimited, unmonitored exemptions from marine
mammal protection.
The majority has refused to allow us to vote on the Rahall-Dingell
amendment to fix these provisions. Why? Because they are afraid they
will lose. The American people reject the idea that the federal
government should be above the law. A recent Zogby poll showed 84
percent of likely voters think the Pentagon should follow the same
environmental and public health laws as everyone else. Liberals,
moderates, and conservatives alike agree that all agencies of the
federal government should be held accountable for their actions.
Communities across the nation are grappling with the toxic
contamination of former bases that used to be exempt from environmental
laws. Many of us have decommissioned military facilities in our
districts. In my
[[Page H4552]]
home city of San Francisco, we have been pushing for years for the
clean up of the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The military's track
record on protecting the environment is dismal. We hold the Department
of Defense accountable for its actions in the future.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so that
we can make the Rahall-Dingell amendment in order, and ``no'' on the
rule.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule. I do so
because it denies Members the opportunity to offer amendments to
critical provisions in the Defense Authorization bill.
National defense should be a subject that brings the Congress and the
nation together, and not an occasion to create division. Especially
given the clear and present danger of further terrorist attacks against
the United States, it is imperative that we remain united as we
confront these threats.
I support most of the provisions in this bill. It is unfortunate that
the Majority chose to insert a number of highly controversial
provisions into the Defense Authorization. In particular, I oppose the
provisions of the bill that seek to upend longstanding civil service
protections for more than 700,000 civilian workers who are instrumental
to supporting our men and women in uniform. Without a competent
civilian workforce at the Defense Department to back up our troops, it
would be difficult, if not impossible, for our armed forces to prevail
on the battlefield.
We are legislating in the dark here. Over the past century, we have
established protections to prevent the civil service form becoming a
political patronage system. Before we throw these protections in the
garbage can, we'd better know what we're doing. the Bush Administration
delivered its 205-page legislative proposal to restructure the
Pentagon's civilian and military personnel system on April 10, just
days before the House adjourned for a two-week recess. These sweeping
proposed changes are not well understood and they have the potential
for long-term negative consequences.
I want to read an excerpt from a General Accounting Office testimony
on these proposed changes to the Pentagon's civilian personnel system.
The GAO cautions that ``moving too quickly or prematurely [to a new
personnel system] at DOD or elsewhere, can significantly raise the risk
of doing it wrong. This could also serve to severely set back the
legitimate need to move to a more performance- and results-based system
for the federal government as a whole. Thus, while it is imperative
that we take steps to better link employee pay and other personnel
decisions to performance across the federal government, how it is done,
when it is done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the
difference in whether or not we are successful.'' GAO goes on to say
that ``based on GAO's past work, most existing federal performance
appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD's systems, are not
currently designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay
system.''
The civil service rules have generally served our country well. Can
we improve the Defense Department's civilian personnel rules? Sure. Is
this the way to do it? Absolutely not. Such sweeping changes--changes
affecting more than 700,000 Defense Department workers--deserve more
thoughtful consideration by this Congress. If these changes are
approved, we will find ourselves in the unique position of having one
set of personnel rules for civilian defense employees, another set of
personnel rules for employees at the Department of Homeland Security,
and a third set of rules for every other federal worker.
It's bad enough that the Republican Majority insisted on including
these controversial civil service changes in this bill. What's worse is
that the Majority will not even allow us to debate them or offer
amendments. The House should be permitted to debate the Employee Bill
of Rights amendment proposed by Representatives Cooper, Davis and Van
Hollen. This amendment would protect the right to receive a veterans
preference and the right to be free from discrimination based on
political opinion or party affiliation. It would ensure that Department
of Defense employees have the same collective bargaining rights and due
process rights that other federal employees enjoy. These rights are
fundamental. they should not be waived or curtailed at the whim of the
Defense Secretary, and this House should not be stampeded into
providing him the authority to do so.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule so we can have a
fair debate and a vote on the Employee Bill of Rights amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, today we continue the Defense
Authorization bill debate.
This bill authorizes a total of $400.5 billion in FY 2004 for defense
activities important for our nation's security, however, there are
troubling provisions in this bill relating to civil services law,
contracting, environmental exemptions and nuclear weapons policy that
should not have been included in H.R. 1588.
I'm particularly concerned about the civil service provisions that
undermine collective bargaining and safeguards against employee
harassment. H.R. 1588 will deny basic worker protections to one third
of all Federal Employees. This bill places the Secretary of Defense in
the position of being the ultimate decision maker in labor disputes
giving him blanket authority to create a completely new civilian
employee system. Many of the changes included in this bill will open
the way for abuses that the Pendleton Act of 1893 was enacted to
eliminate. We may need to modernize, however, we also need to preserve
the principles of a Civil Service that has served our nation well for
more than 100 years.
I am disappointed that an amendment I offered in the Rules Committee
was not made in order. It was a simple amendment that would have
ensured that Chief Acquisition Officers are career professionals and
not political appointees. I would like to put letters of support from
several good government/civil servant groups, including the Federal
Managers Association, AFGE, the Senior Executives Association, NTEU,
AFSCME and others, into the Record.
As AFSCME noted in a letter of support, ``H.R. 1588 entrusts the
contracting process to political appointees who stay an average of only
18 months and will turn federal contracts into political currency.''
This wrongheaded provision is a recipe for cronyism and political
favoritism!
I am also greatly disappointed that my pro-competition in procurement
amendment, offered with Mr. Turner of Texas, was not made in order. The
Maloney-Turner amendment to the Defense Authorization Act would have
reapplied certain common-sense, good government procurement rules to
the Other Transactions Authority section (Section 1451) of H.R. 1588.
This amendment tried to close a large procurement loophole that is
both unnecessary and fraught with potential for abuse.
For some interested in closed-door deals and invitation-only bids, it
may be more advantageous to use OT authority rather than a procurement
contract, however, it may not be more advantageous for taxpayers.
We are reversing important, settled public policy with this bill.
Vote ``no'' on the rule.
Federal Managers Association,
Alexandria, VA, May 19, 2003.
Hon. Carolyn Maloney,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Maloney: On behalf of the 200,000
executives, managers, and supervisors in the Federal
government whose interests are represented by the Federal
Managers Association (FMA), I am writing to express our
strong support of your amendment to H.R. 1588, the fiscal
2004 National Defense Authorization Act, requiring that the
Federal Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO) position be filled by
a career civil servant.
Currently, Section 1421 of H.R. 1588 stipulates that newly
appointed CAO's are to be non-career employees, or political
appointees. We at FMA believe that Federal agencies and
taxpayers would benefit more from the institutional
knowledge, expertise, and experience that a career civil
servant would bring to this position.
Today, the average tenure of a political appointee is
eighteen months, which will result in a revolving door of
CAO's in and out of agencies. This situation will only serve
to further complicate the structure of the Federal
acquisition workforce, while compromising the effectiveness
of this critical position due to a lack of stability. Over
time, we have already seen detrimental effects on Federal
agencies as a result of short-term appointees in leadership
positions.
Moreover, Federal acquisition policy is built upon the goal
of providing American taxpayers with high-quality products
and services through the most efficient use of their tax
dollars. In order to achieve this goal, the CAO must be
removed from any and all political pressures.
Finally, we at FMA are supportive of the National
Commission on the Public Service's (a.k.a., the Volcker
Commission named for its chairman, Paul A. Volcker) recent
recommendation that, ``Congress and the President should work
together to significantly reduce the number of executive
branch political positions.'' The requirement that the newly-
created CAO positions be filled by non-career employees would
only continue the dangerous trend of increasing the number of
political appointments--a step at odds with the Commission's
recommendation, which has been supported by many Members of
Congress.
Sec. 1421 of H.R. 1588 would best serve the American public
if amended, as you have recommended, to require that the CAO
be a career civil servant.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue. We
look forward to working with you to ensure passage of this
amendment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be
of further assistance to you on this matter.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Michael B. Styles,
National President.
[[Page H4553]]
____
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Representative Carolyn Maloney,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Maloney: The American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) strongly
supports the amendment you seek to offer to the Defense
Authorization bill that would require ``Chief Acquisition
Officers'' to be career civil servants.
As presently drafted, H.R. 1588 requires these officers,
many of whom would fill newly created positions in the
federal agencies, to be political appointees. There is no
sound justification for such a proposal. In light of the
Administration's announced intention to contract out half the
federal workforce, it should be seen for what it is: a
strategy to facilitate reaching this goal whether or not it
is cost effective or in the public interest.
H.R. 1588 entrusts the contracting process to political
appointees who stay an average of only 18 months and will
turn federal contracts into political currency. It will
diminish public accountability of the public's money; further
destroy the morale of committed and experienced career
employees; destabilize the delivery of federal services; and
lead to the award of billions in contracts to the
Administration's political allies and friends with little
regard to effective management.
At a time when we should be shoring up the public's faith
in our government, H.R. 1588 will return to the corruption
and spoils system that the creation of a professional
workforce under the civil service system was intended to end.
AFSCME strongly supports your amendment and commends you
for seeking to ensure that federal operations are performed
in an objective and professional manner that puts the public
interest ahead of special interests.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Loveless,
Director of Legislation.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Hon. Carolyn Maloney,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Maloney: On behalf of the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents
more than 600,000 federal employees who serve the American
people across the nation and around the world, including many
federal employees who administer contracts for goods and
services, I commend you for your ongoing efforts to amend the
Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA) to ensure that the
position of Chief Acquisition Officer is held by career civil
servants, and not political appointees.
Your amendment would ensure that an agency's preeminent
procurement official would be someone with an institutional
interest in promoting the interests of the agency and the
taxpayers who support that agency, both over the short-term
as well as the long-term. A career civil servant is more
likely to have developed the expertise necessary to perform
the important responsibilities of the chief acquisition
officer. It is unlikely that a political appointee would have
the same level of expertise and commitment, especially given
the significant turnover generally among political
appointees. Ironically, at the same time there is a
bipartisan consensus to reduce the number of political
appointees, SARA would add yet another layer of political
appointees.
While I know that the authors of SARA have no such
intention, you are absolutely correct in your assertion that
making the Chief Acquisition Officers political appointees
raises significant concerns about cronyism and patronage, a
serious concern given ongoing efforts to strip all federal
employees of their civil service protections against politics
and favoritism. I know that your experience in New York City
in the long but ultimately successful fight against waste,
fraud and abuse in municipal contracting induced you to offer
your amendment to make the Chief Acquisition Officer a career
civil servant at the House Government Reform Committee's mark
up of SARA earlier this month. Learning from the hard lessons
of history, New York City was able to make substantial
progress on behalf of taxpayers when procurement officials
were made civil servants, instead of political cronies.
The counter-arguments to your amendment that were served up
at the mark up were entirely unpersuasive. Whether a Chief
Acquisition Officer will command respect from agency
management and acquisition personnel will depend entirely on
her experience, her expertise, and her independence, and not
on whether she is a political appointee. Surely, it is self-
evident that a Chief Acquisition Officer is more likely to
command respect and be able to perform her important
responsibilities if she is a career civil servant.
I sincerely hope that the rule for consideration of the
defense authorization bill (H.R. 1588) will allow your
amendment to be made in order on the floor of the House of
Representatives because its enactment is imperative if the
Congress is to ensure that the billions and billions of
taxpayer dollars spent annually on services are safeguarded.
Please contact John Threlkeld in AFGE's Legislative
Department at (202) 639-6413 if you have any questions about
the views expressed in this letter.
Sincerely,
Bobby L. Harnage, Sr.,
National President.
____
Senior Executives Association,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Maloney: The Senior Executives
Association (SEA) represents the interests of career federal
executives in the Senior Executives Association (SES), and
those in Senior Level (SL), Scientific and Professional (ST),
and equivalent positions. We are writing in support of your
amendment to H.R. 1588, which would require that a career
employee fill the proposed Chief Acquisition Officer
position. In contrast, the current bill states that a non-
career employee would fill this position.
SEA feels strongly that the role of the Chief Aquisition
Officer must be free from any potential allegations of undue
political influence. The critical business of government
procurement should never lend itself to even a perceived
taint of political manipulation. This can best be
accomplished by requiring that a qualified career employee
fill the position.
In SEA's oral testimony at the April 29, 2003 hearing
before the House Civil Service and Agency Organization
Subcommittee on ``Transforming the Defense Department:
Exploring the Merits of the Proposed National Security
Personnel System,'' we emphasized our support for a
procurement process free from politicization. For your
reference, we have included a copy of the oral testimony from
the April 29th hearing with this letter.
Please let us know if there is any way in which we might be
of assistance in securing the passage of this critical
amendment.
Sincerely,
Caroly A. Bonosaro,
President.
G. Jerry Shaw,
General Counsel.
Statement of G. Jerry Shaw, General Counsel, Senior Executives
Association Before the Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee on
Civil Service & Agency Organization, U.S. House of Representatives on
the Proposed Defense Transformation Act of 2003, April 29, 2003
Thank you Chairman Davis and members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to testify today on this very important
legislative proposal.
You have already heard from others about many of the
problems and concerns of employees and their representatives
about this proposed legislation today. SEA too has its
issues. But we will confine our comments to those matters
that we believe threaten the integrity of the federal
workforce, and specifically of the Senior Executive Service
and its cadre of career executives that insure the impartial
and non-political, non-partisan enforcement and
administration of our nation's laws.
I was watching a ``60 Minutes'' segment on CBS television
last night. It was directly applicable to the proposed
legislation and our concerns. It involved allegations by the
``60 Minutes'' correspondent that there had been improper
political interference in the awarding of DoD contracts for
the rebuilding effort in Iraq. Specifically it accused Vice
President Cheney of ``obviously'' interfering in the pre-
hostilities award of classified contracts to Halliburton
Corporation, which he headed prior to becoming Vice President
of the US. It also made allegations about former General
Officers in the military who were now working for Halliburton
and some of the other companies and corporations that
received DoD contracts for providing services to the US
troops in Iraq, including food service, waste disposal,
water, fire fighting, and other necessitates. Finally, it
sought to cast aspersions on the current Administration and
its political leadership for allegedly interfering in these
and other rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere.
Now we all know that such allegations and innuendo are the
lifeblood of ``60 Minutes'' and other television news shows,
and are not to be taken seriously on many occasions; this may
well be one of those occasions. But the interesting part was
the response by DoD.
Instead of the Secretary of Defense or other high level
political appointees responding, DoD had the Chief Counsel of
the Dept. of the Army Corps of Engineers, Robert Anderson
respond to the allegations. Mr. Anderson is a career member
of the Senior Executive Service. He provided an eloquent
defense of the procurement process, but his most important
and telling statement was that the contract procurement
activities were performed by career employees, who would NOT
allow DoD or other federal contracts to be awarded on the
basis of partisan politics. He stated that if ``60 Minutes''
or any of the other parties making allegations were to spend
one week with these career employees, they would understand
how carefully and objectively these contracts were
evaluated and awarded, and how the career employees
insured the impartiality of the process.
Later in the ``60 Minutes'' presentation the correspondent
states that the Office of the Vice President had issued a
statement that he had never been involved in the awarding
[[Page H4554]]
or seeking of contracts from the government while he was
Secretary of Defense, President of Halliburton or Vice
President of the US.
The importance of this is that DoD realized that the
integrity of its programs depended on the career executives
and career employees who carry out the day-to-day activities
of the government. It also knew that if a Career SES employee
presented the facts, they would carry more credibility with
the public ``60 Minutes'' was at a loss when confronted with
the career employees as the protector of the integrity of the
procurement process, and I believe that most of the nation's
citizens dismissed out of hand the allegations because of the
assurances of the career SES employee, Mr. Anderson.
We relate this incident because we firmly believe that some
of the authorities sought by DoD in this legislation could
serve to undermine the citizens confidence in the integrity
of government operations. This confidence is based in large
part on the integrity of the Civil Service system, and the
Career Senior Executive leadership of our system. Provisions
of this legislation would do away with many of the rights and
protections these employees need to maintain their non-
partisan integrity, and the people of this country know this.
SEA is that this is not intended, but there is always a
concern about un-intended consequences. We believe that
breadth and depth of the unfettered authority sought by this
legislation justifies our, and your concern.
Most of SEA's concerns are stated and supported in our
statement, which we have submitted for the record. However,
we do want to highlight some of the most important ones.
1. The legislation would do away with the requirement for
Career Reserved SES positions, by allowing such positions if
allowed to exist, to be filled by anyone, qualified or
unqualified, partisan politician or not. This authority is
not necessary. OPM has done the job of overseeing and
insuring that positions requiring impartiality and non-
partisan enforcement of the nation's laws are carried out by
career employees who have gained their positions based on
merit. We believe this should continue.
2. The legislation would do away with the requirement that
career SES appointments be made from persons who meet the
qualifications for the job. This too has been done by OPM
through the Qualifications Review Board process, which should
continue.
3. It would allow for SES Career Reserved positions to be
filled by temporary employees with no review of their
qualifications, and no limit on their numbers. We
respectfully object to this authority. It also removes the
restriction that political appointees may fill no more than
10% of SES positions overall in government, or 25% in any
agency. This could destroy the career SES, and rob the
government and the people of this country of the impartial
administration of our nation's laws and regulations.
4. The legislation would allow the elimination of all
appeal rights for career executives and employees to the MSPB
if their pay was drastically cut, or they were removed from
their positions for alleged misconduct. This would deny these
employees any due process rights in the ``taking'' of their
pay, or their positions and reputations.
5. It allows the flexibility to eliminate the SES
appointment rules, the 120 get acquainted rule, the rule of
60 days notice for geographic reassignments, and many other
rights. It also allows for an SES employees pay to be set
annually anywhere between $125,000 (or lower) up to the VP
level of $198,600 with no oversight, no necessity for
`certification' of a fair evaluation process, or any right on
behalf of the employee to challenge the determination
anywhere, including if the pay is cut.
6. It allows the creation of appointments of ``highly
qualified experts, who could be paid up to 50% higher than
the highest SES salary, or currently $297,900. There would be
no limit on the number of these appointments, and they could
serve for six years in any position, with no independent
check on their qualifications. If a particular DoD
administration wished, they could unilaterally fire every one
of their career SES employees, and fill these positions with
``highly qualified experts'' from whatever field, without
review of their actions or appointees.
[Currently DoD has such authority for 40 positions at
DAPRA, 40 for each of the armed services research labs, and
10 more between NIMA and NSA. However, these are limited to
scientific and engineering positions, and the appointees are
limited to pay 25% higher than the SES pay, or currently
$248,250. No such limitations are contained in the proposed
legislation].
These are but some of our concerns. We urge the
Subcommittee to expeditiously amend this proposal to restore
the necessary safeguards for career SES employees, and other
civil service employees before its enactment.
SEA does not object to additional flexibility for DoD. But
we believe the new flexibility should be limited to that
provided the Dept. of Homeland Security, and that they be
required to go through the same process as Homeland Security
before issuing regulations and beginning or implementing new
systems in the Dept. of Defense.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions you might have.
The National Treasury
Employees Union,
Washington, DC, May 19, 2003.
Hon. Carolyn Maloney,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Maloney, I am writing on behalf of the
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) to express support
for your amendment to the ``Defense Authorization Act of FY
2004.'' Your amendment seeks to fix a flaw in the bill by
seeking to ensure that Chief Acquisition Officers are career
civil servants, not political appointees.
NTEU represents 150,000 career federal employees in 28
federal agencies and departments. These employees work on the
front lines day in and day out, and they are in the best
position to determine whether federal government services
should be privatized or not. Agencies continue to privatize
more and more federal jobs even though the government does
not have the staff or systems in place to oversee the work of
contractors. Giving short-term political appointees broad
authority to privatize the work of the federal government
only serves to foster political cronyism, waste taxpayer
dollars, and jeopardize the delivery of government services
to the American public.
I urge support for your amendment so that government
purchasing decisions will be made by experienced and
hardworking federal employees who know the needs of their
agencies best.
Sincerely,
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule.
This bill entirely re-writes two of the cornerstones of environmental
policy--the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act. Yet we will debate this for only 10 minutes.
This rule attempts to conceal an egregious overreach by the Majority
by labeling it as a typographical error.
Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, the Majority
now seeks to establish political cover, prohibit meaningful debate and
avoid going on the record with a recorded vote against the environment.
This administration's attempt to enact sweeping environmental
exemptions under the guise of ``military readiness'' is a disgrace.
I am also outraged that the rule has not allowed Mr. Spratt's
amendment on nuclear nonproliferation.
The threat level has been increased to orange, the administration is
on the lookout for terrorists and rogue nations with weapons of mass
destruction, yet the Majority refuses to allow debate on the most
meaningful way to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons in
the first place--our long-standing, proven nonproliferation programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I urge my colleagues to vote for the
very principles this body was founded upon and vote against this
egregious rule.
Mr. FROST. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 247--2nd Rule on H.R. 1588 National
Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution and only immediately after the disposition of
amendment numbered 1, the amendment specified in section 6
shall be in order as though printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Cooper of
Tennessee or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as
follows:
Amendment to H.R. 1588, as Reported Offered by Mr. Cooper of Tennessee
or Mr. Davis of Illinois or Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland
In section 9902 of title 5, United States Code (as added by
section 1111 of the bill (page 349, line 13)), insert after
subsection (b) the following new subsection (and make all
necessary technical and conforming changes):
``(c) Employee Bill of Rights.--
``(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that--
``(A) the Department of Defense should have flexibilities
in personnel decisions, including pay and promotion, in order
to provide the strongest possible national defense; and
``(B) the Department of Defense should protect fundamental
civil service protections of civilian employees at the
Department.
``(2) Civil service protections.--
``(A) The right of an employee to receive a veterans
preference in hiring and a reduction in force, as in effect
on the date of the enactment of this subsection, shall not be
abridged.
``(B) An employee shall have the right to be free from
favoritism or discrimination in
[[Page H4555]]
connection with hiring, tenure, promotion, or other
conditions of employment due to the employee's political
opinion or affiliation.
``(C) The Secretary shall not refuse to bargain in good
faith with a labor organization, except as provided in
section 9902(f) (relating to bargaining at the national
rather than local level), and shall submit negotiation
impasses to--
``(i) an impartial panel; or
``(ii) an alternative dispute resolution procedure agreed
upon by the parties;
``(D) An employee shall have the right to full and fair
compensation for overtime, other time worked that is not part
of a regular workweek schedule, and pay for hazardous work
assignments.
``(E) An employee shall have the right to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such
activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal.
Such right includes the right to engage in collective
bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through
representatives chosen by employees.
``(F) An employee against whom removal or suspension for
more than 14 days is proposed shall have a right to--
``(i) reasonable advance notice stating specific reasons
for the proposed action, unless there is reasonable cause to
believe that such employee has committed a crime or immediate
action is necessary in the interests of national security;
``(ii) reasonable time to answer orally or in writing; and
``(iii) representation by an attorney or other
representative.
``(G) An employee shall have a right to appeal actions
involving alleged discrimination to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
``(H) An employee shall have a right to back pay and
attorney fees if the employee is the prevailing party in an
appeal of a removal or suspension.''
Strike 9902(f)(2)(D) of title 5, United States Code (as so
added) (and make all necessary technical and conforming
changes).
{time} 1300
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
yield back his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time has expired.
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. FROST. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XX, the Chair will reduce
to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the
question of adoption of the resolution and thereafter on the motions to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1683 and H.R. 1257.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 198, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 207]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
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
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
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
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--198
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
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
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
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
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
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
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Farr
NOT VOTING--11
Bonilla
Combest
Gephardt
Lewis (GA)
Meek (FL)
Portman
Quinn
Rangel
Solis
Udall (CO)
Watson
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes left to vote.
{time} 1319
Messrs. ALEXANDER, CAPUANO and CARDOZA changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 207 on the previous
question I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``no.''
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 222,
noes 199,
[[Page H4556]]
answered ``present'' 2, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
AYES--222
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
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
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
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
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
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
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--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
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
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
Levin
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
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
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
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Farr
Lofgren
NOT VOTING--11
Bonilla
Combest
Cunningham
Gephardt
Lewis (GA)
Meek (FL)
Oxley
Quinn
Rangel
Solis
Udall (CO)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1328
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.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 208 on H. Res. 247,
providing for consideration of H.R. 1588, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________