[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.''

                          ____________________