Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 71 (Wednesday, May 19, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3241-H3251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4200, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 648 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 648

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.

[[Page H3242]]

Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
(b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution.
(c) 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 4 of this 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 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).
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. 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 accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, 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. 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. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
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. 5. 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.

{time} 1130

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). 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 the purposes of debate
only.
Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule
for H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule allows that the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for consideration any
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules out of the
order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the floor a
request to that effect.
H.R. 4200 comes at a particularly crucial time for our Nation's Armed
Forces. The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have
brought a renewed and proper focus to national defense. This
legislation addresses the needs of a Nation at war on multiple fronts.
It contains $422.2 billion for the Department of Defense, DOD, and the
national security programs of the Department of Energy, DOE. It also
provides an additional $25 billion in emergency budget authority to
partially cover the projected costs of continuing operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The primary focus of this legislation is protecting our troops on the
battlefield. Our men and women in uniform depend on having the
necessary systems and equipment to be successful in accomplishing their
mission. Many of us have been concerned about the lack of armor
available for our Humvees and other trucks. This bill addresses that
concern by providing $829.6 million for production of up-armored
Humvees. This improved ballistic Humvee will protect our soldiers from
antipersonnel, armor-piercing munitions and improvised explosive
devices. These are most commonly referred to as IEDs when we hear news
reports.
It also provides $358.2 million for vehicle add-on armor kits for the
Army's truck fleet. Most importantly, it gives the military new
authorities to speed critical weapons and equipment to the troops in
the battlefield.
In the near future, the outcome of our war against terror depends on
the courage of our personnel who are on the front lines. We owe so much
to our men and women in uniform, and their success in Iraq and
Afghanistan is a testimony to their bravery, training, and equipment
and their commitment to defend our freedoms. It is the means by which
we meet our commitment to provide them a decent quality of life with an
across-the-board 3.5 percent pay increase for military personnel.
We need pay to sustain the commitment and professionalism of
America's all-volunteer armed services and the families that support
them. It increases the limit on hardship duty pay from $300 to $750 per
month. It makes permanent the increased rate for imminent danger pay
from $150 to $225 a month and more than doubles the rate for the family
separation allowance from $100 to $250 per month.
Our soldiers also need to know that while they are deployed, we are
praying for them and their safe return. I was told by a soldier in my
district that the most important thing to a soldier who is serving
overseas was knowing that their family is being taken care of and
supported and they are safe at home. If these men and women are willing
to lay down their lives for us, then the least we can do for them is to
pray for them and to take care of their families while they are gone.
For this purpose, I have created a Web site. It is Honoring
Heroes.com. It is a one-stop-shopping resource where folks can go to
learn about supporting our troops and their families at home. On the
site visitors will find links and resources to help support the
families of our men and women who are overseas. And as we approach
Memorial Day, one can also find on the Web site a list of those who
have given the ultimate sacrifice during the war in Iraq. We must
always remember them.
I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for crafting
this legislation that will really, truly strengthen America's military.
It proposes the largest increase in military end strength in decades by
increasing the active duty Army by 30,000 personnel and the Marine
Corps by 9,000.
Even before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the global war on terrorism, and
the commitment to homeland security, the Armed Forces had insufficient
manpower for existing wartime and peacetime requirements.
Now more than anytime in our Nation's history, we are relying on
these men and women who so faithfully serve our country in the National
Guard. H.R. 4200 contains language that will help us to continue to
provide strong support for our National Guard.
In my State of North Carolina, universities and community
organizations will be coming together to help develop a comprehensive
program to effectively support these soldiers. The bill recognizes the
importance of this program and provides language to help integrate the
National Program for Citizen Soldier support with the Defense
Department's ongoing effort to support our men and women in uniform.
The bill also recognizes the importance of our Nation's continued
development of advanced weaponry and technology. Included in this bill
is the support of further exploration of the use of lithium batteries
on the battlefield.

[[Page H3243]]

Finding a safe, cost-effective, and portable energy source for our
men and women in the Armed Forces should be a top priority of the
Department of Defense. I am pleased to see this year's bill addresses
the need for our military to develop new and powerful alternative
energy sources.
However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order
that I strongly oppose, the Davis of California amendment. It would
allow abortions on our military bases overseas. Military treatment
centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not
be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the
child in the womb. For the past 7 years, the House has voted to keep
abortion on demand out of military medical facilities, and I urge my
colleagues to stay on this course and vote against this amendment.
That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass the rule and pass the
underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will
be making our homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and
daughters who are serving us in the military. We will be preparing for
war, thereby ensuring victory. And at this crucial time in our history,
this bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is
always one of the most important bills this Congress considers. Having
spent my last 25 years in Congress working hard to ensure a strong
national defense, it is a bill that I have always supported, and this
year the defense authorization bill is more important than ever.
This past December, I spent several days in Iraq where I had the
opportunity to meet with rank-and-file soldiers on the front lines and
thank them personally for their distinguished service and personal
sacrifice. And I was reminded of this enormous sacrifice upon my
return. The cargo plane that took us out of Baghdad carried the coffins
of two American soldiers who had been killed just 3 days before
Christmas.
It seems like almost every night, Americans turn on the news at home
and see nothing but reports of the violence in Iraq and hear comments
from politicians and pundits debating decisions made here in
Washington. But when I turn on NBC News or CNN or any of the other
networks, I cannot help but recall the selflessness and courage that I
saw in our soldiers, and the mix of pride and sorrow I felt on that
flight home.
America's sons and daughters in Iraq represent our country well, but
their job continues to be very difficult and very dangerous, and it
will not be over anytime soon. It is clear that American troops will be
based in Iraq for at least the next year and possibly longer.
And that is why the bill before us today is so important. Before
anything else, the defense authorization bill is a bill to support our
troops. The funding in the bill today will keep our service men and
women in Iraq and around the world safe, provide them with the tools
they need to fight the war on terror, and give them and their families
a better quality of life.
First and foremost, we provide $25 billion in supplemental funding
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that our troops have
everything they need to conduct the war on terror and return home to
their families safely. We provide over $1 billion for armored Humvees
and body armor. We help ensure the strength of our military by adding
39,000 more Army and Marine Corps troops.
We make sure that our troops experience a good quality of life by
giving them a 3.5 percent pay raise, and we help ensure that all of our
fighting men and women receive health care by expanding TRICARE
coverage to Reservists and their dependents.
The bill also helps those who have served our country so honorably
over the years by making sure that those who are left behind when a
soldier falls receive the full benefits that they deserve through the
Survivor Benefit Plan.
And while there are a great many provisions here we can take pride
in, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is by no means perfect. There
remain a number of serious issues that we must resolve.
This morning, in the Committee on Rules, my colleagues and I tried to
offer an amendment to the rule which would have more than doubled the
amount authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the
supplemental. Similarly, we tried to provide $414 million to provide
fair pay and benefits for our troops.
There are a great many Members who support these provisions, Mr.
Speaker. They have broad support throughout the House, but they were,
like dozens of other important amendments offered in the Committee on
Rules, denied a vote on the floor by the Republican leadership. That is
a shame, Mr. Speaker, because we all want what is best for our troops.
Because this House was denied the opportunity to consider a great
many important amendments, I will be voting ``no'' on today's rule. I
will also be urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we
may consider one of the amendments that was denied, the amendment of
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to provide fair pay and
benefits for the troops.
That said, despite what happened at the Committee on Rules this
morning, I stand in strong support of the underlying bill and our
troops. There has never been any doubt that this House, this Nation,
and its people stand 100 percent behind our men and women in uniform,
fighting to secure peace the world over.
I hope we can soon continue the discussion on how best to provide for
our service men and women and keep our Nation safe. And although I will
be voting against the rule today, I will be voting for the underlying
bill. It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting ``yes'' on the authorization bill today.
I only wish that the majority leadership, in the spirit of
bipartisanship that normally surrounds defense measures, had permitted
some very important amendments to be offered. And we will be hearing
from some of my colleagues in the rest of the debate on this rule about
how strongly they feel about their rights being denied here on the
floor today.

{time} 1145

When we are trying to promote our military and trying to do the right
thing around the world, we should promote democracy here on the floor
of the House and not stifle it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for the defense
authorization bill. In total, this rule provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate
on a number of key issues affecting our military and our national
defense. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4200, passed the Committee on
Armed Services by a vote of 60 to 0, and it meets the challenges of a
Nation whose soldiers are at work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the
globe in the fight against terror.
Following almost 5 hours of hearings yesterday in the Committee on
Rules, we have provided the opportunity for further debate by making in
order 28 amendments, including 10 Democrat amendments, 15 Republican
amendments, and three bipartisan.
This is a fair and traditional rule for a DoD authorization bill that
will permit the House to support our Nation's men and women in uniform
and ensure that our defense capabilities remain second to none while
having excellent debate later today on a wide array of amendments.
Mr. Speaker, this important bill falls well in line with what the
Founders envisioned when they crafted article I, section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to
``raise and support Armies,'' as well as to ``provide and maintain a
Navy.''
Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, our Nation bore witness to one of
the most horrific crimes in history. Today, our Nation's servicemen and
-women are fighting for freedom in the civilized

[[Page H3244]]

world on multiple fronts across the globe. Our commitment to these
ideals depends on our military and our military personnel, and this
bill is a statement that we will continue to defend freedom and ensure
that our homeland remains safe.
First, this legislation provides the funding needed to continue the
U.S. military's transition into the 21st century. H.R. 4200 authorizes
nearly $2 billion for the U.S. Army to procure weapons-tracked combat
vehicles; $10 billion for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and
conversion; and over $13.5 billion for the U.S. Air force to procure
additional aircraft. The authorization for these and other programs
will help ensure that the U.S. military remains the most efficient,
most lethal, and most effective fighting force in the world.
But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly hope to maintain the level of
excellence obtained by the U.S. military without the achievements of
the men and women who proudly wear the uniform. I am continually
impressed by the resolve, patriotism, and commitment exhibited by these
heroes day in and day out. As such, this Congress must work to
reinforce this strength, and H.R. 4200 makes good progress towards that
end.
I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 3.5 percent
pay increase in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 4200 also
recommends the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses military personnel
must contribute toward housing costs. Both of these provisions will not
only help ease the burden placed on military personnel and their
families but should also help to ensure that the U.S. military is able
to retain these highly trained personnel.
Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that not everyone will be
satisfied with this measure. What we must remember, however, is that
the primary responsibility of this government is to provide for the
common defense of this country. As one of the Founders put it, wise and
free people direct their attentions first to their own safety.
As such, I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and the
underlying measure, H.R. 4200, to not only uphold the obligations of
the Congress and the Federal Government, but also to show our men and
women in uniform that their service to this Nation and their fellow
Americans does not now nor will it ever go unappreciated.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the
Committee on Armed Services, who was denied the opportunity to offer
key amendments.
(Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule; I rise in
strong opposition to the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorely distressed over this rule. The base bill
that our Committee on Armed Services worked on and put out is a pretty
good bill. We have done some good things, particularly for the troops.
But I raise the question as to why in the world the Committee on Rules,
at my request to have 6 hours of debate, 3 hours on each side on a $422
billion bill, has limited it to 2 hours, 1 hour on each side. Is the
Committee on Rules majority afraid of debate?
Specifically, there are several issues we need to debate. This is the
crucible of democracy; young men, young women in uniform, all across
this world, all across the globe, standing firm for democracy and
decency and what we stand for. And we are limited in our debate time?
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that they limit us. We should discuss the
cost of the war in Iraq; the cost of the war in Afghanistan; the role
of contractors. This is a serious role that has arisen recently and
that needs to be discussed on the floor of this House.
The issue of the Iraqi prisoner detainee abuse, which has flooded the
world news media, needs to be talked about from both sides of the
aisle; and the transition to a new government in Iraq, on June 30,
which we really have no idea what it will look like, needs a discussion
and a thorough airing here in this Chamber. These are important issues,
and we are limited to 1 hour on each side to discuss them.
I am sorry that has happened. Two hours is not nearly enough. It does
the young men and young women in uniform a disservice, it does
democracy in this Chamber a disservice.
Mr. Speaker, I also pointed out four amendments that I wished to be
made in order, and only one was approved by the Committee on Rules. I
studied the amendments; and, as ranking member of the Committee on
Armed Services, I thought I spoke with some knowledge.
These are serious, thoughtful amendments which, I believe, deserve
full and extended debate on the House floor. These issue areas and the
amendments to which I refer are:
Sanchez amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
bring it into conformity with modern criminal sexual assault statutes;
Cooper/Ryan amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Spratt amendment on increasing pay for our troops and their quality
of life by making targeted cuts in missile defense programs; and
Tauscher amendment on Department of Energy nuclear weapons policy.
Only one of these, the Tauscher amendment, was made in order. This is
simply unacceptable. These are serious amendments that try to deal
responsibly with complex issues. They reflect broadly held views by
members on this side. A meaningful debate on these issues would reflect
well on the House and would serve the country well. The failure to make
them in order is disappointing, unfair and reflects badly on the House.
It is an outrage!
If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the chance
to at least partially redress this wrong by considering the Spratt
amendment, which will directly benefit the troops.
I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to
vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 2005 National Defense
Authorization Act and the rule. This bill contains tremendous support
for our military. Among those items that I think are particularly
noteworthy is increased housing benefits for our troops; a pay raise,
including an increased pay raise for hardship duty; additional health
care benefits for Reservists; additional armor for Humvees; body armor;
better survivor benefits; an increase of 30,000 troops, which I think
at the present time we very badly need; and the most efficient weapons
system available.
A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I visited Landstuhl Hospital in
Germany, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and talked to an awful lot of our
troops over there; and I was singularly impressed with the quality, the
commitment, and the expertise of the troops that I met. This was one
week before Christmas, and yet I did not hear one complaint from any
one of the soldiers that I talked to. They seemed to have a
tremendously strong sense of mission.
A young captain from my home State of Nebraska who had been away from
his wife and infant child for 1 year made two comments that stuck with
me that I think are worth repeating.
First of all, he said that it is better that we fight terrorists here
in the Middle East than we fight them at home. I think that all of us
realize we are not completely immune from terrorism on these shores.
However, we would also have to recognize the fact that terrorism has
certainly been crippled. It has had to focus its attacks primarily in
the Middle East. It certainly has made the United States a safer place
over the last year and a half.
Then the second comment that he made I think is particularly
important. He said it is really important that the American people not
lose patience, and I would say that includes Congress as well, because
the captain was proud of the accomplishments that our military had
accomplished in that area.
What he was pointing out, simply, was the improvement in the
infrastructure; the increase in commerce in that part of the world; the
improvement in health care; the fact that infants, young people, about
90 percent of them had been vaccinated in Iraq; the improvement in
government, at least the potential for a representative government to
be formed.
So we certainly believe that the quality of people we have over there
is exceptional, they deserve our support, and this bill does that.

[[Page H3245]]

Mr. FROST. 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, I have served here for 22 years and served
all those years on the House Committee on Armed Services, and today I
am the recognize second ranking Democrat on that committee; and if
there is any comity left in this institution, surely I should have the
right to offer one well-considered, carefully crafted, very serious
amendment. That is what I proposed. That is what I offered.
I knew that the Committee on Rules had been narrowing down the debate
for years and years, so I went prepared to the Committee on Rules and
asked for simply one amendment.
Now, I do not stand here in personal pique because my amendment has
not been made in order. Far from it. It is not that this rule shuts me
out or shuts out the people I represent in South Carolina. It shuts out
our troops. It shuts out our sergeants and warrant officers. It denies
every trooper who goes into combat the opportunity to have $250,000 of
group life insurance at Uncle Sam's expense. That is what it does.
The amendment that I proposed would take $414 million out of
ballistic missile defense and move it, first of all, $300 million for
targeted pay increases for noncommissioned officers, NCOs, who bear the
burden of fighting, who are the backbone of our military in Iraq and
Afghanistan. These personnel, grades E-5 through E-9, are the troops we
need most to keep. If they vote with their feet and leave the Army, we
will have a broken Army.
What I proposed is what the Quadrennial Review proposed 3 years ago,
what we have voted up twice in the last 2 fiscal years, but do not in
this budget, is a targeted increase for these troops.
In addition, I proposed we take 25 to $50 million and say to every
soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine going into harm's way, into combat,
once you draw imminent danger pay, the Government of the United States
of America will pick up the premium, we will provide you with $250,000
in group life insurance, SGLI, a great idea.
It is the least we can do for these troops. After all, we did, and I
think rightly, $1.4 million in average benefits for the victims of 9/
11. Can we not guarantee our troops in combat at least $250,000 in
light of that?
So what they have denied me with this rule is the opportunity to have
a hearty, healthy debate on our priorities. Can we take a little bit
out of a program that is slated to increase by $1.2 billion, take $400
million out of it and move it around, put it into a pay raise for our
NCOs and our warrant officers, put it into a life insurance premium for
our troops? And then take a little bit of it and deal with some
problems in ballistic missile defense, which this budget, for all it
does for BMD, does not do, for example to Patriot-3s. It took out a
Tornado, it took out an F/A-18. We need to put more money into IFF,
Identification Friend Or Foe.

{time} 1200

Roadside bombs, IEDs, we need to put more money in that. Look at the
Marine Corps' unfunded requirement list. You will find it at the top of
their list.
These are the things that I, if I had the opportunity, would propose
that we do with cuts that would not impede or in any way affect the
progress of ballistic missile defense.
Give me that opportunity. Vote down the previous question. Vote down
the rule. And let us have a full fair and serious debate on national
defense.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Our country is at
war, Mr. Speaker, and this rule and the underlying bill reflect the
needs of a country at war.
We have addressed in this bill in particular the needs of the
soldier. In fact, the bill is entitled The Year of the Soldier, and to
support our soldiers we have addressed issues that have to do with
technology. We have addressed issues that have to do with armor, both
body and vehicle. We have addressed additional needs that our Special
Operations Command has, and we have addressed the need to defend
ourselves in terms of chemical and biological protection.
But one of the most important provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is
a provision that addresses a need in terms of our military's
transformation. Our committee found during a hearing on April 21, 2004,
that the DOD acquisition process would not respond in an expeditious
manner to the urgent force protection equipment needs of our troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something that the bill seeks to change.
At the hearing, the HASC found that it required 6 months from the
time a combatant commander made his request to the time that the
production for such equipment commenced, 6 months from the time the
combatant commander said he needed a device and the time we began to
produce it; not when it got to the field, but when we began to produce
it.
This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to publish a
streamlined acquisition process for use when combatant fatalities have
occurred. The combatant commander has an urgent need for equipment and
the delay would cause the continuation of combat fatalities. This rapid
acquisition authority will allow a rapid response to emergency combat
situations.
This rapid acquisition authority would allow a rapid response to
emergency combat situations, would allow a rapid response to changes in
our opponents' battlefield tactics and, most important, this provision
would help minimize combat fatalities.
This is a process to be used as a quick-start bridge to the normal
acquisition process. The provision is limited, however, limited to $100
million per fiscal year.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, when a country is at war, rule number one is
that the sacrifice must be shared. Congress must support our citizen
soldiers who answer the call of duty, but who face ongoing financial
obligations in their civilian lives. Our Reserves and our National
Guard are doing a superb job, but thousands of them are suffering
significant hardships due to the discrepancy between their civilian and
military pay.
Abandoning them financially is unacceptable. Yet, for the second time
in 2 years, the Committee on Rules has rejected my amendment which
would have immediately eliminated the pay gap for Federal employees and
provided significant incentive for State and municipal governments to
do the same. Instead of delaying financial assistance for 1 year, as
the bill we are considering proposes, my amendment would have wiped out
the pay gap for Reservists and National Guardsmen immediately.
Mr. Speaker, for the soldiers who suffer from the pay gap, the
proposal in the legislation we are considering is too little and too
late. In a time of war, it is unconscionable to impose all of the
sacrifice on one segment of society. Yet, the administration and the
Republicans in this House continue to back massive tax cuts for the
wealthiest, placing financial burdens on other groups, including the
Reservists and members of the National Guard who are already
sacrificing so much for all of us.
It is an outrage that this body is not allowed to vote, not allowed
to vote on providing members of our National Guard and our Reserves
some financial relief. My amendment, which would provide immediate help
to the tens of thousands of Reservists and members of the National
Guard, was ruled out of order. Why? Because the Republican leadership
is convinced that were we to debate my amendment freely on this floor,
it would pass overwhelmingly.
It is an outrage to the Reservists and members of the National Guard
that we are denied that opportunity. I urge all of my colleagues to
oppose this unfair, unequitable and undemocratic rule.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.

[[Page H3246]]

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I believe under the rules, procedures and
etiquette of the House, that the press is to have access to the gallery
here in the House. I am concerned that the doors may be locked. I see
only one person in the press gallery today.
I think people all over the country have a right to know that the
press has access to the Chamber to cover the travesty of democracy and
the arrogance of power that is going on here today.
I would ask the Parliamentarian and the Sergeant at Arms to be sure
that the press gallery doors are unlocked so that the press might have
access to these terrible proceedings wrought on the House floor by the
majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry. Accessibility to the House is being observed.
Mr. SNYDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Do the rules of the
House provide for the press to have access to the gallery of the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is in open session. Anybody has
access that meets the standards of security.
Mr. SNYDER. Thank you. And that was a correct parliamentary inquiry.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note for
clarification, there have been press people coming and going ever since
we have been doing this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter), the distinguished chairman of this committee, who has done a
phenomenal job in putting this bill together.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me time.
I want to talk about this bill that was put together in the Committee
on Armed Services, which was voted out with a 60 to zero vote, put
together and shaped by Democrats and Republicans. I want to thank my
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my partner on the
committee, for all the great work that he has put into it, as well as
the subcommittee chairmen, ranking members and all the folks who fill
those seats in the Committee on Armed Services who really care about
our troops.
In keeping with that, this is the Year of the Troops. We have
endeavored to focus on those troops, and in doing that, we have got
this 3.5 percent pay raise across the board. We have not increased
money for hazardous duty pay. We have increased money for separation
pay for folks that are away from their families. And beyond that we try
to give our troops the tools that they need to get the job done.
The gentlewoman has mentioned armor, up-armoring of Humvees and
trucks, and munitions and surveillance, in all the things that those
folks need, those 135,000-plus folks in Iraq and thousands in the
Afghanistan theater who are out there fighting right now, braving enemy
fire, increasingly oppressive heat, difficult living conditions. And
they are doing that for us. They are doing that all as volunteers, and
it is our job to give them what they need to get the job done. That is
what we do in this bill.
And appended to all of the great things that we have done, and I
really applaud the gentleman who just spoke on this rapid acquisition
initiative for a battlefield commander. When he is taking casualties,
he can say, I want a system and I want it now. And you either have a
system within contract of 15 days or you explain to the people in the
field or to the Congress why that is not possible. That is very
important.
Troops are important. And right now we have put into this bill an
additional 10,000 Army troops each year for 3 years for a total of
30,000 troops. We have also put in an additional 3,000 Marines each
year for a total of 9,000 additional Marines. And for everybody that
hears from their Guard and Reserve and active forces, from the members
of their family who say, you know, it looks like it is another
Christmas that I will not be home, having more troops helps to
alleviate that pressure because the more people you have, the less time
an individual has to spend in theater, on duty, in rotation. So that
takes a little bit of pressure off these troops.
Additionally, I think we looked at this thing as a committee and
said, having additional forces available that are not obligated in the
field, that are available for deployment, are insurance for our
country. And we decided as a matter of policy that we wanted to have
more insurance. So we have those additional forces.
Now, additional to the base bill this year, this $422 billion bill,
we have got another thing, and that is this $25 billion authorization
for a supplemental that we have bolted onto our bill. And we put that
money in because we want to make sure we have plenty of money for
operations in the closing months of this year, plenty of money for
surveillance.
We have lots of surveillance platforms in here. We want to be able to
see the bad guys when they are putting out those IEDs or putting up
ambushes or other things. And we want to leverage our technology to do
that so we have that additional surveillance money.
We have additional munitions money to put in so the troops have
everything from the large rounds right down to M-16 ammunition, and we
put in a lot of money for that.
Additionally, we have given the money to the Chief of Staff of the
Army, to General Schumacher, to reshape his forces. And I would commend
any Member of the House, and all of our members of the Committee on
Armed Services have seen this, to have a sit-down with General
Schumacher and listen to his blueprint for reshaping our force. He
feels, under his blueprint, he can increase the Army from 33 active
brigades to an additional three this year, three more next year and
four more the next year. And we are helping him do that by putting in
this supplemental for equipment for this reset.
I notice the ranking member had stood up to speak, and I just want to
recognize him if he had anything to say. Then I know also the gentleman
from South Carolina also had a position.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just learned I can address the Chamber an additional 2 minutes a
few minutes from now.
Let me, say on a positive side, I think it is a good thing we are
doing, adding to the end strength of the troops. I am not sure if
America fully knows, the understanding that we have some 4,000 coming
out of Korea toward the Iraqi situation.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, every fair-minded Member of this House
should be outraged at the rule we are being forced to debate under
today. Two hours, a giant piece of legislation will be rammed through
this House in 2 hours, less than 15 seconds per Member of this body;
less than 15 seconds for each 700,000 group of constituents that we
have the honor of representing; less than 15 seconds each to talk about
over one-half of all the domestic discretionary spending of the United
States of America; less than 15 seconds per Member to talk about the
defense budget of the United States at a time of war; less than 15
seconds per Member to talk about a defense budget that is larger than
every other defense budget in the world put together; less than 15
seconds per Member to talk about the needs of our troops in the field
while they are fighting a war.

{time} 1215

There will be no real debate allowed under this rule for properly
funding our troops. It is true, thank goodness, that finally under
pressure that the Republicans have put in $25 billion to fund our
troops in kind of an emergency supplemental, but the truth is our
troops need more money than that. They are running out of money now.
Let me repeat, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are running out of
money now.
The Pentagon is already having to raid every cookie jar in the
building to try to fund their needs. We should do better by our troops.
We should fully fund their needs. We should tell the truth to the
American people about the real cost of this war, which is a lot

[[Page H3247]]

closer to $200 billion than any other number.
I had an amendment that we wanted to debate and discuss that would
have put in $67 billion for our troops so that funding would not just
start in October, as intended by the Republican majority and, as they
put it, end in December and January. They are fully funding about 3 or
4 months of this war to disguise the true cost of it. We should fund
the needs of our troops for an entire year, and we should be proud of
it.
With all the life-threatening risks that our men and women face in
uniform overseas, financial uncertainties should not be an additional
risk; yet that is what is being imposed on them by this body with this
simplistic rule which is 2 hours of debate, less than 15 seconds per
Member to talk about the true needs of our troops.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina, unfortunately, was absent from
the Committee on Rules when I testified. There were only two Members
there. They are hurrying through this so quickly in a rubber-stamp
fashion that we are not able to properly discuss one of the most
important bills of the year and perhaps of the decade.
Mr. Speaker, our committee has been rated by CSIS, the Center For
Strategic and International Studies, as one of the worst Committee on
the Armed Services in decades. Why? This is one of the reasons,
inability to do our job correctly.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to respond to the gentleman that I am not sure when
he testified, but other than having a lunch appointment and voting on
the floor, I was in that hearing the whole time; and I would also like
to say, there is a total of 9\1/2\ hours of debate on this bill. It is
not just 2 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker from the minority I think
misrepresented the situation. This process started in January. We have
been through the subcommittee process. The gentleman went through the
subcommittee process, had ample time to make his arguments, went
through the full committee process.
We forged a document through that process where everybody had ample
time, including a debate that started at 10 o'clock in the morning last
week and ended at midnight, to make our points; and following that
debate, this bill was reported by a unanimous vote. So those who are
crying foul today because of this rule are the same people who have
worked since January to make their points, 12 hours last week to make
their points, and a 9-hour debate today. It seems pretty fair to me.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the time remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey makes reference
to 9 hours of debate when, in truth, in fact, we have 2 hours of
general debate on this issue.
I recommended to the Committee on Rules four major amendments. I
stated the amendments from our committee, and I do not make
recommendations lightly; and when I do, I hope the Committee on Rules
would take them seriously. Most important is one that deals with
quality of life for the soldiers and the troops and their families.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had a proposed
amendment that would increase pay, increase quality of life. It
targeted cuts towards the missile defense program which is being
boosted up by well over $1 billion. What more can be said.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) had a proposed
amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice, bringing this
law into conformity with the Federal criminal sexual assault statutes.
That was passed 18 years ago by this Congress. Now there are some 18
years of appellate history that can be used, and yet that was denied.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Ryan) had an amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, when in truth and fact, the
Committee on Rules set aside a reserve sum of some $50 billion meeting
the Cooper/Ryan proposal by more than half.
The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), thank goodness they
allowed an amendment that she has on the Department of Energy nuclear
weapons policy.
These are important amendments, important not just to the future of
our country, not just important to our policy, important to those who
wear the uniform, important to their families, where we are going. It
is important, I think, that we vote down this rule and come back with a
better one.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House Republican
leadership has allowed more time to debate the renaming of post offices
from the floor this year than time to debate the Defense authorization
bill during a time of war. It is sad. It is sad that the muzzling of
democracy continues here in the United States, even as American
citizens die and try to bring democracy to Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is unfair. I would say that the bill itself
has many positive things to it, and I do salute much of the bipartisan
effort that went into shaping the Defense authorization bill itself.
Let me discuss two specific parts of the bill, one positive and one of
great concern to me.
On a positive note, the bill finally improves benefits for pensions
for widows of servicemen and -women. This had been long overdue to
change this unfair treatment of military widows. The sergeant's wife,
for example, that served 20 years in the Army, only receiving a $7,000
a year pension. I salute the Republicans who supported it in committee,
and I want to thank the veterans organizations and the 200 Democrats
who joined in my petition to pressure a vote on this long overdue
consideration.
Second, it is unfortunate that this bill does not take action to
continue this next year the largest, most important housing improvement
program in our Nation's military history; and it is really sad when we
consider tomorrow the House Republican leadership will push a tax cut
bill that will provide self-serving tax cuts for Members of Congress;
but today, we are saying to 24,000 military families, we cannot afford
to improve the housing that they live in, even if their loved one is
someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Self-serving tax cuts for
Members of Congress being more important than improving military
housing for those servicemen and -women sacrificing and serving our
Nation in Iraq? It is wrong.
This rule is wrong. Vote ``no'' and let us reconsider this bill under
new regulations and rules.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just correct my friend because
he may have missed it, but we did lift the housing cap for
privatization of housing. That was done pursuant to the Miller
amendment in the committee. So we did two things, both the survivor
benefits and the housing cap.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman a question, the
staff of the committee has told me, and I have asked repeatedly, that
it addresses the housing cap for fiscal year 2006, but does not solve
the problem for 2005; and as a consequence, 24,000 military families
will have their housing improvements put on hold.
Mr. HUNTER. I just say to the gentleman, it is permanent removal of
the housing cap.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. John).
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this rule.
Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the

[[Page H3248]]

defense authorization bill whose needs were proven and whose costs was
fully offset, and it was sadly rejected.
The Air Force's Joint Surveillance Target Radar System, or the
JSTARS, is a program vital to our Nation's security in a time of war
and is crucial to the jobs of hard-working men in Louisiana. My
amendment would have ensured the continuation of this program in order
to build the number of planes that the military requested.
The next generation of JSTARS, the E-10A program, has been delayed
twice and will not provide the needs of our military in sufficient
time.
Without my amendment made in order, resources will be cut for our
troops, plain and simple. Shortchanging the military on their order for
planes sells short this vital program and endangers valuable military
support jobs in Louisiana.
The delay of the E-10A will disrupt our military industrial base and
will affect our Nation's responsiveness to production needs.
The need is real, Mr. Speaker. The workforce is in place and our
troops deserve the best we can provide. The JSTARS program merits
funding and continuation. We will be continuing to discuss this, and it
is a shame that we have not had this opportunity on the floor of the
House to fully discuss this. The workers in my district deserve
consideration to complete their mission, just as we have asked our
troops to complete their mission.
I strongly oppose this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina for her kindness in yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Defense
Authorization Act, this comes at a benchmark moment for the United
States of America, if not the world, in terms of our history.
Our Nation and our allies are engaged in a global war against
terrorism, we all know that, a war that began long before September 11,
2001, and is obviously going to continue well into the future. It is a
war fanatics declared on America and its friends. It is a war that we
cannot avoid. It is a war that must be fought, and it is a war that
will be won.
President Bush understood early on that this sustained conflict would
be difficult, and he told us so; and the truth of his words becomes
more evident as time goes by, and it is our job to step up and provide
for the challenge.
Our Nation's brave men and women in uniform and out face danger every
day, not only in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan but actually
around the whole world. We have sustained casualties. The inevitability
of losses in dangerous work has not deterred us, nor has it diminished,
of course, our heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifices made by some of
the best our Nation has to offer, some from my home State, Florida,
some from my district, as they fought in service of our country, for
ideals that we all believe in, ideals that will endure, will prosper,
and will better the lives of fellow human beings everywhere.
These people bring credit and honor to us all. They must be
remembered and cherished, and I have no doubt they will; and this
legislation goes in that direction.
The legislation we consider today provides the resources needed to
continue the fight that we are in. H.R. 4200 allows America's military
to function at a superior level. It includes programs that look
forward, anticipating needs so that they can be met quickly and with
precision when and wherever future threats arise.
In addition, the Defense Authorization Act maintains the oversight
ability of the Congress. The limited, but nonetheless damaging,
instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib will be dealt with
transparently and fairly to show the world that free societies respect
civilized standards and enforce them.
As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
I appreciate that H.R. 4200 includes a strong intelligence component
that ensures American war fighters on the ground or in whatever mode
are provided with the best possible information; and I am most grateful
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for understanding this and
providing for it.
Timely, accurate information is a vital weapon in the war on
terrorism, both for force protection, as the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) well knows, and for mission success. Yes, we can expect
more violence in Iraq as the June 30 transfer of sovereignty
approaches.

{time} 1230

And, yes, unfortunately we can expect terrorists to target other
events, including elections in free countries this year. But with the
passage this year and maintaining levels of support for our military
and intelligence capabilities, we can supply our soldiers and
intelligence people with the resources and information they need to
win.
This rule considered a lot of things. The committee got a good bill
together, and I do not think there is any reason not to go forward with
the debate. I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the bill,
and I urge a vigorous debate on the information herein.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the record.
The committee dealt with the housing cap to allow improved military
housing starting in fiscal year 2006, but it only adds $1 for the cap
in 2005. So that means 24,452 military families will have their housing
improvement plans put on hold even as their loved ones are fighting in
Iraq or Afghanistan.
Thirteen military bases will have their housing programs basically
frozen, even though tomorrow we are going to vote to provide a tax cut
for Members of Congress.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
The gentleman concurs, as I think our common ground here is that we
have permanently lifted this cap, with the lift starting in 2006.
However, the housing program can continue under the current cap for the
time being. And it is not a certain thing that we are definitely going
to run out of money.
I would just say to the gentleman that I would be happy to work with
the gentleman and the Committee on the Budget to attempt to accommodate
2005 and make sure there is not a seam between 2005 and 2006.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I understand we will hit the cap as early
as this November.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not a certain
thing. So telling all the families that they absolutely will not have
housing is not a certain thing at this point.
I think the gentleman and I and others can work to make sure there is
not a seam between 2005 and 2006.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of the defense authorization bill,
but strong opposition to this rule.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we are considering
leaves out many important amendments which many on our side had hoped
to offer. I had one which would have postponed additional expenditures
for a ground-based missile system in Alaska which has not met
operational testing requirements, and would have put those funds into
port security. My amendment reflects the views of 49 Admirals and
Generals whose letter to the President is dated March 26.
In my view, as ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, the potential

[[Page H3249]]

damage from a radiological device coming in through our ports is a much
greater risk than the risk of a missile attack from North Korea.
There are, however, some good amendments put in order, one of which I
strongly support. The Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment, which we have
offered every year for the last decade, would treat military
servicewomen as women in America are treated, by allowing them their
constitutional right to the full range of legal reproductive health
care in foreign military hospitals, provided they pay for it. Current
law prohibits this and requires servicewomen who put their lives on the
line on austere fronts in the war on terror to seek approval from their
commanding officer in order to travel elsewhere in order to obtain an
abortion, as medical facilities may be inadequate or unavailable.
I view current law as unconstitutional. I think it is ridiculous at a
time when military women are performing incredible service around the
world that they still are treated differently from women in America. So
I urge strong support of the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the March 26, 2004
letter to President Bush from 49 Admirals and Generals:

49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement

March 26, 2004.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In December 2002, you ordered the
deployment of a ground-based strategic mid-course ballistic
missile defense (GMD) capability, now scheduled to become
operational before the end of September 2004. You explained
that its purpose is to defend our nation against rogue states
that may attack us with a single or a limited number of
ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.
To meet this deployment deadline, the Pentagon has waived
the operational testing requirements that are essential to
determining whether or not this highly complex system of
systems is effective and suitable. The Defense Department's
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation stated on March
11, 2004, that operational testing is not in the plan ``for
the foreseeable future.'' Moreover, the General Accounting
Office pointed out in a recent report that only two of 10
critical technologies of the GMD system components have been
verified as workable by adequate developmental testing.
Another important consideration is balancing the high costs
of missile defense with funding allocated to other national
security programs. Since President Reagan's strategic defense
initiative speech in March 1983, a conservative estimate of
about $130 billion, not adjusted upward for inflation, has
been spent on missile defense, much of it on GMD. Your Fiscal
Year 2005 budget for missile defense is $10.2 billion, with
$3.7 billion allocated to GMD. Some $53 billion is programmed
for missile defense over the next five years, with much more
to follow. Deploying a highly complex weapons system prior to
testing it adequately can increase costs significantly.
U.S. technology, already deployed, can pinpoint the source
of a ballistic missile launch. It is, therefore, highly
unlikely that any state would dare to attack the U.S. or
allow a terrorist to do so from its territory with a missile
armed with a weapon of mass destruction, thereby risking
annihilation from a devastating U.S. retaliatory strike.
As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to
prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of
mass destruction. We agree. We therefore recommend, as the
militarily responsible course of action, that you postpone
operational deployment of the expensive and untested GMD
system and transfer the associated funding to accelerated
programs to secure the multitude of facilities containing
nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and
borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons
of mass destruction into the United States.
Signed:
Admiral William J. Crowe (USN, ret.), General Alfred G.
Hansen (USAF, ret.), General Joseph P. Hoar (USMC, ret.).
Lt. General Henry E. Emerson (USA, ret.), Lt. General
Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral Carl T. Hanson
(USN, ret.), Lt. General James F. Hollinsworth (USA,
ret.), Lt. General Arlen D. Jameson (USAF, ret.), Lt.
General Robert E. Kelley, (USAF, ret.), Lt. General John
A. Kjellstrom (USA, ret.), Lt. General Dennis P. McAuliffe
(USA, ret.), Lt. General Charles P. Otstott (USA, ret.),
Lt. General Thomas M. Rienze (USA, ret.), Vice Admiral
John J. Shanahan (USN, ret.), Lt. General Dewitt C. Smith,
Jr. (USA, ret.), Lt. General Horace G. Taylor (USA, ret.),
Lt. General James M. Thompson (USA, ret.), Lt. General
Alexander M. Weyand (USA, ret.).
Major General Robert H. Appleby (AUS, ret.), Major General
James G. Boatner (USA, ret.), Major General Jack O. Bradshaw
(USA, ret.), Major General Morris J. Brady (USA, ret.), Major
General William F. Burns (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral William D.
Center (USN, ret.), Major General Albert B. Crawford (USA,
ret.), Major General Maurice O. Edmonds (USA, ret.), Rear
Admiral Robert C. Elliott, (USN, ret.), Major General John C.
Faith (USA, ret.), Rear Admiral Robert H. Gormley (USN,
ret.), Major General Richard B. Griffitts (USA, ret.), Rear
Admiral Charles D. Grojean (USN, ret.), Major General Raymond
E. Haddock (USA, ret.), Major General Jack R. Holbein, Jr.
(USAF, ret.), Major General Stanley H. Hyman (USA, ret.),
Major General Wayne P. Jackson (USA, ret.), Major General
Frederick H. Lawson (AUS, ret.), Major General Vincent P.
Luchsinger, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Major General James J. LeCleir
(AUS, ret.), Major General William F. Willoughby (USAF,
ret.).
Brig. General George C. Cannon, Jr. (USAF, ret.), Brig.
General John J. Costa (USA, ret.), Brig. General Alvan E.
Cowan (USA, ret.), Brig. General Lee Denson (USAF, ret.),
Brig. General Evelyn P. Foote (USA, ret.), Brig. General
Leslie R. Forney, Jr. (USA, ret.), Brig. General John H.
Grubbs (USA, ret.), Brig. General James E. Hastings (USA,
ret.), Brig. General John H. Johns (USA, ret.), Brig. General
Maurice D. Roush (USA, ret.).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because several worthy
amendments to this bill were not ruled in order for consideration,
including my own amendment that I offered, which was an amendment that
was very simple. It said, if this country is going to resume the
testing of nuclear weapons, it would first have to be authorized to do
so by Congress.
I think Congress, the people's Representatives, ought to be involved
in such a significant decision. This is not a partisan issue. It is an
issue about having the people's Representatives involved.
The United States did conduct over 900 nuclear weapons tests at the
Nevada test site from 1951 until 1992, and during most of this time,
people who lived downwind of the test site were not warned about the
adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure.
What is not widely known is that the fallout from weapons testing
traveled across the entire country. Studies by the National Cancer
Institute concluded that people in every single county in the lower 48
States were exposed to fallout.
A moratorium on nuclear weapons testing was instituted in 1992, but
recent funding decisions in the appropriations process by Congress are
leading us down the path to renewed nuclear testing and, therefore, as
far as I am concerned, it is important that the people's
Representatives, the United States Congress, ought to be asked to come
up for a vote on whether or not we should resume nuclear testing.
This amendment was not ruled in order and, therefore, I encourage all
my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be obvious to everybody
that we have a huge agenda of meritorious issues that will not be
brought to the well of the House. We will not have today a free market
of ideas as we deal with and debate one of the most important bills we
will bring up.
So when I emphasize to every Member that if you want to have a free
and full and serious debate, then you should vote against this rule and
you should vote first against the motion to move the previous question.
That will open up the process so that we can offer amendments.
And before concluding, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, given the
amendment I am proposing that would deal with the needs of our NCOs and
an incipient problem, and that is retention and recruitment, will the
gentlewoman allow me to make a unanimous consent request to put in
order amendment No. 89, which would increase the targeted pay increase
for senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers and use, as an
offset, a partial reduction in the big increase in the ballistic
missile program.

[[Page H3250]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the approval of my
amendment, amendment No. 89.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina asks
unanimous consent that his amendment, which is not proposed to be made
in order by the Committee on Rules, be permitted to be in order. Does
the gentlewoman from North Carolina object to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
Mrs. MYRICK. Yes, I do object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question
and on the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment offered by
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), which the Committee on
Rules defeated on a straight party-line vote early this morning and for
which unanimous consent was just denied.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row the Republican
leadership has chosen to throw away the long-standing tradition of
bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. Nearly
100 amendments, most of them by Democratic Members, were shut out of
the rule, including the Spratt amendment. It is a very sad day for the
American people and particularly for those serving in the military.
Partisan politics have absolutely no place when it comes to
protecting the brave American men and women who are serving in our
military in harm's way. The Spratt amendment would provide $300 million
additional dollars to give well-deserved pay raises to the sergeants
and warrant officers who train and lead enlisted personnel. His
amendment also guarantees military personnel serving in combat zones
will have life insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
and extraneous materials be inserted in the Record 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.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question
and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, which
silenced all three of my amendments.
My first amendment called for the creation of an international
commission, with Iraqi, U.S., and U.N. participation, to monitor prison
conditions in Iraq. The Geneva Convention is neither quaint nor
obsolete, and this amendment would have ensured compliance and help to
restore badly damaged U.S. credibility.
My second amendment would have created a database of those who have
been detained.
My third amendment prohibited the use of U.S. funds in the overthrow
of democratically elected governments. Given the allegations of this
government's involvement in the overthrow of President Aristide in
Haiti, this amendment would have restored confidence in the protection
of democracy.
Once again debate was stifled on many critical issues. The Republican
majority continues to abuse its power.
Oppose this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res.--Rule on H.R. 4200 National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2005

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendment printed in section 7 shall be in
order as though printed as the first amendment in the report
of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Spratt
of South Carolina or a designee. That amendment shall be
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as
follows:

Amendment to H.R. 4200, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina

In section 421, add after the dollar amount (page 94, line
16) the following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.
At the end of subtitle A of title VI (page 209, after line
3), insert the following new section:

SEC. 6__. TARGETED PAY RAISE FOR SENIOR ENLISTED PERSONNEL
AND JUNIOR WARRANT OFFICERS.

(a) Increase in Basic Pay.--The Secretary of Defense shall
use $300,000,000 of the amount appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations in section 421 to increase
the rates of monthly basic pay for enlisted members of the
Armed Forces in the pay grades E-5 through E-9 and warrant
officers in the pay grades W-1, W-2, and W-3.
(b) Relation to Other Pay Raise Authority.--Pay increases
provided members of the Armed Forces pursuant to subsection
(a) are in addition to the increase in the rates of monthly
basic pay for members required by section 601.
At the end of subtitle B of title VI (page 230, after line
4), insert the following new section:

SEC. 6____. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF IMMINENT DANGER PAY TO
COVER DEDUCTIONS FROM BASIC PAY FOR
SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE.

Section 310 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Additional Increase to Cover Deductions for
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Coverage.--(1) During
the period specified in paragraph (3), in addition to the
rate of pay authorized by subsection (a) or (e) for a month,
a member who is eligible for special pay under this section
for a month and who is insured during that month under
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance shall also receive an
amount equal to the amount of the deduction from basic pay
prescribed for the level of Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance coverage obtained by the member under section 1967
of title 38.
``(2) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary
concerned shall give members who will be assigned to duty
under circumstances or in an area for which special pay is
provided under this section notice, in advance of the
deployment, of the following:
``(A) The availability of additional pay under this
subsection for members insured under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance.
``(B) The ability of members who elected not to be insured
under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or elected less
than the authorized maximum coverage, to obtain additional
coverage as provided in section 1967(c) of title 38.
``(3) Additional pay under paragraph (1) shall be available
only during the period beginning October 1, 2004, and ending
December 31, 2005. The total amount expended under such
paragraph may not exceed $50,000,000.''.
At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 28, after line
14), insert the following new section:

SEC. 2__. ADDITIONAL MATTERS RELATING TO AMOUNTS FOR
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.

(a) Increase for Navy RDT&E.--The amount in section 201(2)
for research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy, is
hereby increased by $14,700,000, of which--
(1) $6,400,000 shall be available for the Nonlethal Weapons
program element (PE 0603851M); and
(2) $8,300,000 shall be available for the Marine Corps
Communications System program element (PE 0206313M), of
which--
(A) $3,800,000 shall be available within that element for
the Communication Emitter Sensing and Attacking System
project; and
(B) $4,500,000 shall be available within that element for
the Marine Aviation Command and Control System Sustainment
project.
(b) Increase for Army RDT&E.--The amount in section 201(1)
for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, is
hereby increased by $49,700,000, to be available for the
Patriot PAC-3 Theater Missile Defense program element (PE
0604865A).
(c) Reduction in Defense-wide RDT&E.--The amount in section
201(4) for research, development, test, and evaluation,
Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by $414,400,000, of which--
(1) $77,000,000 shall be derived from the Ballistic Missile
Defense System Interceptor program element (PE 0603886C);
(2) $289,400,000 shall be derived, within the Ballistic
Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment program element (PE
0603882C), from the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Block 2006
program, to be derived by eliminating funding for--
(A) construction of silos;
(B) a second In-flight Interceptor Communications Systems
Data Terminal at Fort Greely, Alaska; and
(C) construction of a second launch complex at Fort Greely,
Alaska;
(3) $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Ballistic Missile
Defense Technology program element (PE 0603175C); and
(4) $23,000,000 shall be derived from the Ballistic Missile
Defense Products program element (PE 0603889C).
(d) Prohibition on Space-Based Interceptor.--None of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2005 or any prior fiscal year for
the ballistic missile defense may be used to develop the
space-based interceptor that is part of the Block 2012
element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System Interceptor
program element (PE 0603886C).
(e) Limitation on Number of Silos.--None of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2005 or any prior fiscal year for the Ballistic
Missile Defense Midcourse Defense Segment program element may
be obligated for construction of a missile defense
interceptor silo at Fort Greely, Alaska, if construction of
that silo would result in the total number of such silos at
Fort Greely being a number in excess of 16.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3251]]

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________