[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 25, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3900-H3912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1815, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 293

       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. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2006 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 2006, 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 one hour 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.
       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) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 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 as 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 40 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

[[Page H3901]]

     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.
       Sec. 6. During consideration of the bill under this 
     resolution--
       (a) after a motion that the Committee rise has been 
     rejected on a legislative day, the Chairman of the Committee 
     of the Whole may entertain another such motion on that day 
     only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
     Services or the Majority Leader or a designee; and
       (b) after a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been 
     rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 293.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee 
met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1815, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  Madam Speaker, the rule is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and waives all points of order against the rule. 
It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
and shall be considered as read and waives all points of order against 
the amendment. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules and provides that amendments shall be 
considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, and shall not be subject to amendment. 
Additionally, it allows the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
to offer an en bloc amendment consisting of amendments printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules and provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1815 and 
the underlying bill. This bill will enhance our security, increase the 
capabilities of our military, and improve the lives of the brave men 
and women who defend our country. Since September 11, 2001, our 
military has proven its mettle and validated its doctrine, plans, and 
programs during the ongoing war on terror.
  Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Committee on Armed 
Services has presented us with an outstanding bill that addresses many 
of the challenges our troops face on a daily basis. However, it is 
important to remember that this yearly authorization is at root an 
ongoing transformative process that occurs on an annual basis. This 
year we have taken important steps in the improvement and 
transformation of our existing forces during an era that is dangerous, 
demanding, and filled with challenges that our country neither 
anticipated nor prepared for during the 1990s.
  To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 1815, one must 
understand the four long-term challenges we seek to address in this 
legislation. The first long-term challenge stems from the procurement 
holiday that our government voluntarily took during the 1990s. In those 
years, neither the President nor the Congress funded the procurement 
needs of our Armed Forces. As one example, during the 1990s the 
ammunition accounts of our military were woefully underfunded. As a 
result, even after radically increasing the productivity of our 
ammunition plants in the last few years, we are still struggling to 
keep pace with our current and projected needs.
  The same is true of equipment, which was neither acquired nor 
replaced in sufficient quantities during the years between the collapse 
of the old Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror. As a 
result, our military is still dealing with the shortages of equipment 
and munitions that were created in the 1990s and that have yet to be 
fully resolved. This bill helps address these shortages.
  Madam Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a 
continual basis is related to the transformation of our military 
forces. With the passage of the Goldwater-Nickles reforms of 1986, our 
military began putting an increased emphasis on jointness. Over the 
years, increased jointness has generated different requirements for our 
forces. Those requirements demand procedural, bureaucratic, and 
technological changes within our Armed Forces. The principle of 
transformation has affected everything that our military does, from how 
we fight to how we deliver services to those who serve in our Armed 
Forces. Properly used, joint planning, procurement, and operations are 
an effective combat multiplier that creates the critical edge that our 
forces need to defeat our adversaries. However, transformation comes 
with a substantial cost. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing 
basis. H.R. 1815 does just that.
  Madam Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is the need to 
expand the size of our military. Over the past few years, it has become 
clear that we went much too far in downsizing our military forces after 
the end of the Cold War. To begin to address our manpower shortage, the 
Committee on Armed Services increased end strength by 10,000 soldiers 
for the Army and 1,000 Marines for the Marine Corps. This is on top of 
increases made in the last 2 years. It is also in addition to reforms 
allowing us to use a greater percentage of our military personnel in a 
combat capacity.
  Unfortunately, even these steps are not enough for our long-term 
needs, but they are at least a start and responsive to the heavy 
demands we are placing on our military forces. Over the next several 
years, we will be forced to look more carefully at manpower needs and 
come up with a more realistic assessment of what is actually required. 
Still, H.R. 1815 is a good next step and one which we should support 
and build upon in the coming years.
  The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the 
global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. It is a 
generational war which will take decades to win. We need to remember 
this when approaching the needs of the military in the authorization 
and the appropriations process. Hence, I believe we took a wise and 
important step in this direction when we added $49 billion to the 
defense bill to offset a portion of the costs of this conflict next 
year. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term 
nature of the challenge we face.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 1815 is not a perfect bill; but it is a very, 
very good piece of legislation. We must remember that the National 
Defense Authorization Act moves us in the direction we need to go. For 
that, all of us should be grateful. Ultimately, this bill is not about 
programs, weapons, or research and development. It is about our 
soldiers and their ability to defend the United States.
  Today, some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are 
superfluous to the war on terrorism and the long-term military 
challenges that we face. We owe it to the sons and daughters of America 
who are on a global battlefield in the war on terror

[[Page H3902]]

to address the real issues and challenges our military will confront 
today and tomorrow. This legislation is a step in a continuing process 
of enhancing our military capabilities in a dangerous world.
  I would ask Members to support these prudent steps taken in this 
thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to 
that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here today debating 
the rule for next year's Defense authorization bill. But while we 
should be discussing ways to better support our hardworking men and 
women in uniform, we find ourselves revisiting a debate I had assumed 
we settled years ago. Buried within H.R. 1815 is section 574, a 
provision that would severely limit the participation of women in our 
military. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement of 
enormous proportions.
  Some will say that section 574 merely codifies existing military 
policy; but if this provision is passed, we will be sending an entirely 
different message, not just to the brave women currently serving our 
Nation throughout the world but to those who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice, those who have been wounded or even killed. We will be 
telling them and indeed their families, We have seen you at work 
defending freedom and liberty here at home and abroad and you aren't 
good enough. I cannot think of a more disgusting message to be sending 
our troops, especially in a time of war.
  This year, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel has not held 
hearings, commissioned studies, or released reports on this important 
issue. In fact, we have not seen a shred of evidence that a problem 
even exists with the integration of women in the Armed Forces. Yet the 
religious right wing in this country, against the advice of our 
military leaders, has once again decided to bend the process of 
government to their political will and force this issue upon America 
without research, without fact, without debate, and without the benefit 
of the democratic process.
  We are in the middle of a war, in Iraq and on terror. Now is not the 
time to be telling more than 20,000 women that we do not value their 
service, especially when you consider that we are having serious 
problems meeting our recruitment goals. What woman is going to join a 
military that treats them as if they are second-class citizens not 
worthy of respect and dignity? Last night in the Rules Committee we 
watched as the coalition of members who stand rightly beside our women 
in uniform were slapped down on a party-line vote by the majority in 
their attempts to approve the Skelton-Snyder amendment which would 
remove this ill-conceived provision from the bill. The Secretary of the 
Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote the Armed Services 
Committee voicing their strong opposition to this provision.
  Likewise, we can have no real discussion on the future of America's 
defense without talking about the base realignment and closure process. 
I share the concern of many experts and many of my colleagues across 
the political spectrum when I say that we are a Nation at war. Now is 
not the time to be closing America's military bases.
  Many experts are also concerned that we are overconsolidating our 
resources in too few locations, especially when the greatest threat to 
our security comes not from a massive invasion but from a sneak attack 
by a terrorist organization on a target of opportunity. Did we not 
learn after Pearl Harbor not to put everything in one place? Does it 
not make more sense to have our resources strategically placed across 
the country? Moreover, as record numbers of Guard and Reserve troops 
are dying in combat defending this country, the Defense Secretary's 
proposed BRAC list would ground a third of the Nation's Air National 
Guard and Reserve units and shutter hundreds of other armories and 
readiness centers across the country.
  Many local leaders and homeland security specialists, including the 
National Guard Association of the United States, has said that the 
consolidation would hamper State responses to local emergencies and 
domestic terrorist threats.
  Unfortunately, the DOD did not adequately take into account a 
military installation's value to homeland security when developing 
their criteria. For example, the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station has 
been recommended for closure despite the fact that it is the closest 
base to three major United States cities and the two largest cities in 
Canada. The Guard and Reserves who train there assist the Department of 
Homeland Security in interrogating suspicious individuals detained at 
the northern border. Yet the Air Force proposes to reduce the Air 
Mobility Command by 54 percent in the Northeast, incapacitating 
homeland defense in a region which comprises 20 percent of the entire 
United States population. I understand this is also a problem for other 
major cities and population centers around the country.
  That is why I offered an amendment last night that would have 
required the commission to evaluate bases for their homeland security 
value, but unfortunately it was voted down.
  All of us know that recruitment is another major issue that we are 
facing today. We have a recruitment crisis in America and an Armed 
Forces already stretched way too thin. But the DOD wants to close bases 
that regularly exceed their recruitment goals for the Guard and 
military reserves, like Niagara Falls. We do not know what will happen 
to the large Guard and Reserve units who serve at bases recommended for 
closure. We know exactly where their equipment is headed, but even the 
Pentagon admits it does not know what is going to happen to our most 
valuable assets, and those are the people stationed at the bases.
  But perhaps what is most troubling about the BRAC list that was 
submitted to the commission is that according to an Air Force BRAC 
spokesman, the extensive criteria used to evaluate the strategic 
military value of each base was not even adhered to by the Pentagon 
when compiling their closure list.

                              {time}  1045

  Instead, they used a collective judgment. I do not even know what 
``collective judgment'' is supposed to mean, but I know that in 
Niagara, thousands of people are losing their jobs and are at risk at a 
base that is highly ranked in performing its duties, and one that has 
always been evaluated highly that is on the chopping block. This is 
unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this body.
  This BRAC constitutes a complete reorganization of our military 
resources during a time of war with very little thought, doing untold 
damage to the National Guard and military Reserves, and does not 
consider the homeland security role.
  But there are a lot of concerns about the Pentagon that we have that 
we will not talk about today because we did not get enough amendments 
approved.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair 
and balanced rule that will allow us to deal with what is clearly the 
single most important issue that we address as a Federal Government and 
as a Congress.
  I want to begin by complimenting my very good friend, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for his great service to the United States of 
America, his superb management of this rule, and his commitment to our 
Nation's security. I also want to compliment the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services, as well as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), for their fine work and the

[[Page H3903]]

fact that they have worked together so well on a wide range of very 
important issues.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to extend my congratulations to our 
commander in chief, George W. Bush, and our great Secretary of Defense, 
Donald Rumsfeld.
  It is very clear that the United States of America over the past few 
years has gone through challenges the likes of which we have never in 
our Nation's history seen. Frankly, I believe that we are doing 
extraordinarily well.
  The Defense Authorization bill that we are going to be considering 
today will create an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, a wide-
ranging discussion on important issues that we face. Eighty-nine 
amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration 
by 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and I am happy to say that of those 89 
amendments, we have been able to take 29 of them and make them in 
order. Of those 29, 16 amendments were offered by Democrats that will 
be made in order, 13 will be offered by Republicans, and they will deal 
with the tough issues that we have faced.
  Now, the issue that my friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New 
York (Ms. Slaughter), just raised is one which has been contentious, 
and I believe we have been able to come to a consensus on the issue. 
There was a great deal of stir over this question of women in combat 
and what exactly we were going to do.
  The manager's amendment, Madam Speaker, throws out the provisions 
that the committee had, and it put into place a requirement that over a 
60 legislative day period, the United States Congress will be involved 
in any kind of change in the policy of women in combat that will be on 
the horizon. Secretary Rumsfeld has made it very clear publicly that he 
does not support any kind of change, and I believe that the action that 
we will see in the passage of the manager's amendment will help to 
ensure that that will take place.
  I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that we are in a position today 
where we have just gotten the report issued from the Base Realignment 
and Closure Commission, and we know that there are concerns that have 
come to the forefront from a number of our Members on the 
recommendations of the BRAC Commission. As we begin debate on this 
bill, we will allow for a wide-ranging discussion on the issue of base 
realignment and closure.
  The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), have a BRAC amendment that is made in order, 
so that we will be able to discuss that here.
  Madam Speaker, the five most important words in the preamble of the 
U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' There is 
nothing that we do that is more important than providing for the common 
defense. Virtually every issue that we address can be handled by some 
other level of government, but local governments and State governments 
cannot provide for the common defense. That is why it is so important 
that we step up to the plate, have bipartisan support for this rule 
which will allow for free-flowing debate, and do everything that we can 
to ensure that we get a great Defense Authorization bill to the 
President of the United States.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule. To 
start with, the Committee on Rules made in order almost no amendments 
that were of importance to the Democrats, including my amendment on 
women in the military.
  Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the Committee on Rules has a duty to 
this institution and to each of us to create circumstances that will 
permit orderly consideration of legislation that is important to our 
country and also structured to the debate, so that we will have the 
opportunity to work our will on these important issues. Sadly, that is 
not the case.
  Let me start with the most important issue, women in the military. 
Not only did the Committee on Rules not make my amendment in order, 
which would have stricken horrendous language and established a study; 
and by the way, my amendment was bipartisan in nature, along with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member 
on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed 
Services; the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) from the other side of the aisle.
  It was not only not made in order, but a brand-new amendment by our 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), was filed, not 
in a very timely fashion, and which we did not see for the first time 
until last evening. His amendment, which creates a time mechanism 
wherein any MOS or specialty changes for women will be notified to the 
Congress, also establishes a study. Should that amendment pass, that 
wipes out the onerous language that is presently in the bill.
  This amendment, though, that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) is offering, is camouflaged with other amendments, including a 
memorial to the USS Oklahoma and a veterans' preference amendment and 
one amendment dealing with missile defense. Further, it allows only 10 
minutes of debate.
  I think that is wrong. It is not an overstatement to say that the 
action by the Committee on Rules is not living up to its 
responsibility.
  Let me give a bit of a history of the women in military. All of a 
sudden, with only hours' or a day's notice, an amendment was passed in 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Committee on Armed 
Services. That amendment related to women in the military, and the 
military stated in a letter signed by Lieutenant General Campbell, and 
I will place it in the Record, that over 21,900 positions would have to 
be closed to women. To say it was wrong is an understatement.
  That was wiped out by a second amendment in full committee. The 
second amendment was one that froze the specialties and did not allow 
full expansion of specialties or MOS's for the women and, furthermore, 
it was an attempt to codify 1994 language from Secretary Les Aspin, but 
it did not include all of the elements. That is the bill right now.
  The new Hunter language, which I described a few moments ago, 
fortunately wipes that out. If the Hunter language passes, which is not 
necessarily artfully written, but if that passes, the women in the 
military can breathe easier. It is a victory for the women in the 
military and victory for national security.
  Every person that wears the uniform of the United States of America 
has the respect of every one of us in this body. We thank them for 
their service. The women are putting their hearts, their souls, their 
professionalism, their careers on the line every time they put the 
uniform on every day, and I think it is wrong to have come up and 
challenged these women in what they do for our country in this fashion.
  I would also like to mention that the rule failed to mention the 
Taylor amendment regarding TRICARE for Reservists.
                                           Department of the Army,


                                 Office of the Chief of Staff,

                                     Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.
     Hon. Ike Skelton,
     Committee on Armed Services,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Skelton: Sir, if the amendment to H.R. 
     1815, proposing to prohibit the assignment of female Soldiers 
     to Forward Support Companies (FSC) addressed only FSCs in 
     Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat Teams and equivalent 
     elements of Stryker Brigades, a total of 21, 925 spaces 
     currently open for assignment to female Soldiers would be 
     closed.
       We appreciate your interest in and support of our Soldiers 
     as we continue to fight the Global War on Terrorism.
           Sincerely,

                                            James L. Campbell,

                                    Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,
                                       Director of the Army Staff.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise today in support of the rule to provide consideration for the 
National Defense Authorization bill. This legislation focuses on force 
protection and personnel benefits for the soldiers and

[[Page H3904]]

airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. The 
ability to adequately execute the mission for which they are called and 
care for their families are the two issues that are second to none. I 
believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and 
will enable our men and women in uniform to continue to successfully 
win the war on terrorism.
  My trip to Iraq just a few weeks ago, the third I have made, did 
nothing but reinforce my pride and confidence in our Nation's 
warfighters. These brave men and women serve with honor and distinction 
as they liberate a nation. Troops from the Eighth District of North 
Carolina have been at the tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of 
Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This legislation, first and foremost, takes care of our most vital 
asset of our military: our people. It provides every serviceman with an 
across-the-board 3.1 percent pay raise and increases the force 
structure of the Army and the Marine Corps. It boosts the maximum 
amount of hardship-duty pay and increases the amounts paid for active 
duty and Reserve enlistments and reenlistments.
  I am particularly happy that we are expanding the capacity of the 
military health care system to provide health care to service members 
and their families by requiring the reimbursement for services of 
mental health counselors without a referral from a primary care 
manager.
  Additionally, I would like to mention the direct effects this 
legislation will have for the men and women at Fort Bragg. There is 
over $200 million for infrastructure and housing improvement, including 
$11.4 million more than was in the President's request for the Third 
Brigade Combat Team barracks complex. I worked hard to secure this 
funding because it will help improve the living conditions for our 
soldiers and support the Army's transformation to modularity.
  Additionally, I am happy to support the funding for a new junior high 
school at Fort Bragg.
  The National Defense Act also addresses another critical issue, that 
of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the Department 
of Defense purchases textiles that are made in America. My top two 
priorities are national security and economic security. There is 
seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered 
mutually exclusive. I have vowed to always work and support and promote 
the U.S. manufacturing industry, but we must develop transparency 
within DOD to ensure that our troops are wearing uniforms made in 
America. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the other body will 
recognize the need to safeguard U.S. textile jobs and work with us 
through the conference process.
  Madam Speaker, it is a gross injustice and misfortune that it took 
the tragedy of 9/11 to focus the public eye on the need for a more 
robust defense budget, but I feel that the legislation in front of us 
today will help our troops accomplish their mission. We are 
establishing a clear and strong course of support for our troops. I 
encourage my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coasties, that we will strongly 
support you and give you the resources necessary to perform the 
mission.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a vote in favor of the rule, as well as the 
national defense bill.
  The campaign began with shock and awe. At this point, it should be 
awe, admiration and appreciation for what these men and women are 
doing. Having been here for 7 years, the trend and support for our men 
and women in uniform has trended ever upward. That is where it should 
be.
  As we look at this bill today, the way we can best thank our troops, 
show our love and appreciation for them, is to pass this bill and 
continue the upward trend that shows that we not only talk about our 
troops, but we do things that will make their lives better and show our 
appreciation.
  I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Matsui).
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Our men and women in uniform are honorably serving this Nation on the 
ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other locations. But because of 
our commitments, our Armed Forces are relying even more heavily than 
usual on our National Guard and Reserves.
  It is estimated that National Guard forces make up about half of the 
U.S. force on the ground in Iraq. With this in mind, it is truly 
disappointing that an excellent amendment by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was not made in order under this rule.
  The Taylor amendment would give our Reserve and National Guard 
members full access to TRICARE, the health care insurance provided to 
those in our Armed Forces.

                              {time}  1100

  It is simply irresponsible for us to allow the families of 20 percent 
of Reservists and National Guardsmen to go without health care 
benefits.
  Our National Guard and Reserves know that they can be called up for 
more than the usual 1 weekend a month, but they never would have 
expected their 1-year tours of duty to be extended well beyond that 
time frame. I am concerned that the civilian leadership of the military 
has forced us to lean so heavily on the Reserve and National Guard 
personnel.
  These men and women serving in the National Guard and Reserves are 
responding to the unexpected; and now we, their government, need to 
respond in kind and not with a lot of platitudes. For all that these 
men and women are doing, we should be able to find the $1 billion 
necessary to provide them and their families with health care.
  Offering every member of the National Guard and Reserves the ability 
to access health care coverage is a moral issue. Our treatment of our 
Reserve and Guard members is unacceptable. The Taylor amendment began 
to address it. I am truly saddened that at a time of great service and 
dedication on their part, we are quibbling about fully providing for 
our servicemen and -women.
  The line between active and reserve personnel has already been 
blurred. Our Guard and Reservists need to be focused on fulfilling 
their missions. They should not have worries in the back of their mind 
about whether their spouse or their child is getting health care back 
home.
  This provision, passed in full committee, deserves debate on the 
House floor. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule which will 
allow this amendment to be made in order. We should honor our 
servicemembers and give them the health care coverage they not only 
deserve, but are entitled to.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Oklahoma has 
16 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 17\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in South Mississippi this 
morning, four families of National Guardsmen will be notified that 
their loved ones died yesterday in Iraq.
  Last Friday, as I visited Walter Reed, I had the opportunity to visit 
five Mississippians, three of whom are amputees, all of whom are 
National Guardsmen or Reservists.
  As the gentlewoman from California just mentioned, over 40 percent of 
all the people serving in Iraq right now are Guardsmen and Reservists, 
and a disproportionately high percentage of the deaths and wounds have 
been received by them.
  One way we tried to make it up to them for their supreme sacrifice to 
our Nation was to see to that those Guardsmen and Reservists who choose 
to can buy into the TRICARE health care coverage provided by our Nation 
to every

[[Page H3905]]

other member of the Armed Forces, the regular soldier to their right, 
the regular Marine to their left.
  It was brought up in committee, and by a majority vote the Armed 
Services Committee voted to allow National Guardsmen and Reservists to 
buy into TRICARE. But somewhere between the committee and the Rules 
Committee, someone decided that there was mandatory spending involved. 
So the same Congress that has brought 21 bills to this floor that 
waived all budgetary rules, no matter how much it ran up the deficit, 
the same Congress that has added $2.2 trillion to the National debt in 
just 4 years, that decided Paris Hilton can inherit hundreds of 
millions of dollars without paying a penny in taxes, decided because 
there was $5 million mandatory spending, these National Guardsmen could 
no longer buy into that policy.
  So we went to the Rules Committee. We showed the Rules Committee 
where the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association 
of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the 
Adjutant Generals of every single State voted unanimously for this 
amendment. The Reserve Officers Association and the Fleet Reserve 
Association all endorsed this amendment. And yet the Rules Committee, 
in a straight party line vote, decided that National Guardsmen and 
Reservists cannot buy their health care.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, 
ignored the call of the adjutant general of Illinois and the 12,500 
National Guardsmen in his State.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ignored the call of his adjutant 
general and the 20,000 National Guardsmen in Texas.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) ignored the call of his 
adjutant general and the 10,000 National Guardsmen from Missouri.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) ignored the call of his 
adjutant general and 20,400 National Guardsmen.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) ignored the call of 12,000 
National Guardsmen. The list goes on.
  The bottom line is, if these people are good enough to serve our 
Nation in Iraq, if they are going to die in disproportionately high 
numbers, if they are going to lose their limbs in disproportionately 
high numbers, do you not think this Congress could find the time to 
debate an amendment that has already passed the Armed Services 
Committee, and let every Member of this body decide whether or not 
those Americans who are serving our country in the Guard deserve the 
opportunity to buy health insurance for themselves and their families?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

                           Committee on Rules

         David Dreier, CA--Chairman; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL; Doc 
           Hastings, WA; Pete Sessions, TX; Adam Putnam, FL; 
           Shelley Moore Capito, WV; Tom Cole, OK; Rob Bishop, UT; 
           and Phil Gingrey, GA.
         Louise McIntosh Slaughter, NY--Ranking Minority Member; 
           James P. McGovern, MA; Alcee Hastings, FL; and Doris 
           Matsui.
                                  ____

       Hastert, IL--12,594.
       DeLay, TX--20,124.
       Blount, MO--10,751.
       McHugh, NY--16,010
       Dreier/Hunter, CA--20,459.
       Putnam, FL--12,088.
       Doc Hastings, WA--8,495.
       Sessions, TX--20,124.
       Capito, WV--6,270.
       Cole, OK--9,407.
       Rob Bishop, UT--6,497.
       Gingrey, GA--12,594.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the well of this House ought to be a free 
market of ideas. It ought to be a great national forum where we dissect 
legislation and debate the big issues both.
  And particularly today, as we take up the Defense authorization bill, 
with thousands of troops deployed all over the globe in harm's way, 
suffering casualties daily, we are spending $440 billion a year on 
national defense, plus the $80 billion in supplementals, over a half 
trillion dollars, today particularly we should have a full, vigorous, 
and complete debate.
  In the 1980s, it was this way. At the height of the Cold War, when 
this bill came to the floor, 100, 200 amendments were offered; and most 
of them, many of them were made in order. It sometimes took us 2, 3 
weeks to get this bill off the floor. We had a full, free, and open 
debate.
  Today the debate will be circumscribed, carefully controlled to bar 
the issues that our Republican colleagues want to avoid or fear losing 
if the House were allowed to weigh the issues and work its will. This 
is not the way this institution should treat something so important.
  In addition, in years past, when we ran the House, there was 
something called comity. And senior members of the committee in 
particular were allowed to have the deference at least of a few 
amendments that would be offered on the House floor. Their experience 
was valued.
  Today, the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) amendment, shut 
out. My amendment on nonproliferation, well crafted, carefully 
considered, at least I wanted the opportunity to present that choice to 
the people of the House, shut out. I will go down the list with senior 
members on the committee, senior Members in the House, offering 
thoughtful amendments that at least this House should consider, weigh 
and work its will upon, all have been shut out. This is no way to run a 
debate on something of such gravity and importance.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak for peace. I can no longer 
keep silent. Mr. Speaker, the time for silence is long past. As we 
debate the rule on the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, I believe 
that somebody, someplace, sometime, must stand up and speak up for the 
cause of peace.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to bring the conflict in Iraq to an 
end; 12,000 of our young men and women, the sons and daughters of 
America, have been wounded, and more than 1,600 of our soldiers have 
died. Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens are dead, wounded, living in 
fear and chaos, uncertain about tomorrow.
  How many more of our young men and women will we have to lose in a 
car bombing, a kidnapping or armed conflict before we understand that 
this war was unnecessary?
  I have said it before, and I say it again today: war is vicious. It 
is evil. It is bloody. It is messy. It destroys the hopes, the dreams, 
the longing and aspirations of a people. It leaves little children 
without fathers and mothers. The war in Iraq is tampering with the very 
soul of our Nation.
  In these Chambers we have struggled with many human problems. We have 
made decisions that have changed the course of history. Today I ask of 
my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to search their souls and ask themselves, 
is it possible for a great Nation to come to a point where we decide to 
lay down the burden of war? Is it possible for a great Nation, a 
powerful Nation with a proud people to evolve to that level where we 
study war no more; where we decide we are going to destroy the tools 
and instruments of violence and war and devote all of our intelligence 
and all of the resources of this great Nation to lay the foundation for 
peace?
  The way of peace is a better way, a more excellent way. We cannot and 
must not continue to move down the road that leads to a more bloody 
war, more violence, more death. If we fail to take heed, if we fail to 
listen and be guided by the spirit of history, the future will not be 
kind to us.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
partisan rule.
  The Rules Committee has once again failed to promote debate and 
instead rubber-stamped the majority and the administration's policies.
  As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I do not offer 
so-called political amendments. I offer

[[Page H3906]]

substantive amendments to real solutions to real problems.
  Prisoner abuse is a real problem.
  Nuclear proliferation is a real problem.
  But the Rules Committee apparently does not think so.
  I offered three simple amendments that would have improved the bill 
in these areas. They were all rejected.
  My first amendment would have mandated that the Pentagon share 
International Committee of the Red Cross reports on treatment of 
detainees with Congress that we would hold confidential so that we 
could be informed and be part of the solution.
  The Rules Committee clearly does not worry about fixing our dismal 
image in the Muslim world or preventing human rights abuse or upholding 
our end of the bargain in overseeing the military.
  I submitted an amendment that would have created an office of 
nonproliferation in the White House to better coordinate our 
nonproliferation efforts.
  But the Rules Committee is not worried about nuclear proliferation.
  And, finally, over the last 2 weeks the majority has sought to limit 
the opportunities for women in the military over the objections of the 
Secretary of Defense, the service chiefs and Democrats.
  The Rules Committee seems to agree with the majority on the Armed 
Services Committee that when men volunteer for the Army, they become 
soldiers. But when women volunteer for the Army, they become women 
soldiers.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty and should be soundly rejected. 
Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the other side, I would simply 
point out that most of the speakers are actually members of the 
authorizing committee and passed out this bill 61 to 1, had 
opportunities to offer those amendments at the committee level, 
presumably did so, and if they did so, were not successful, and still 
felt the bill was worthy of being sent on to the floor for further 
consideration.
  In addition, the Rules Committee actually considered and has allowed 
29 amendments, a majority of which are Democratic amendments. There is 
always going to be a judgment debate as to what should or should not be 
considered and how much time should be devoted in a process to any 
particular piece of legislation. So I respect the gentlewoman from 
California's opinion, but obviously we have a difference on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for allowing me time to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition of Rule H.R. 1815. Last night 
the Rules Committee rejected an amendment that I offered to help our 
military families who have lost loved ones in the defense of our 
freedom. My amendment would eliminate the survivors benefit pension 
dependency and indemnity compensation offset.
  Under current law, survivors are prohibited from receiving payments 
from both programs at the same time. This is unfair and an unjust 
provision that hurts the families of those who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice to defend our freedom and democracy.
  If a soldier was enrolled in a survivor benefit plan when they died 
of service connected causes, the spouse's SBP benefit is reduced dollar 
for dollar by the amount of the DIC, a $933 a month deduction. The 
remaining SBP is barely enough for a spouse with a family to survive or 
pay the basic needs such as food, clothing, and rent. We should be 
taking care of these families, not abandoning them in this time of 
need.

                              {time}  1115

  I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 808, which would correct the gross 
injustice for the families of all military personnel and retirees who 
died of a service-connected cause.
  We must keep our promise that we made to the brave men and women who 
have given their lives for our freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so 
that we can have the opportunity to debate my amendment and to vote on 
this important issue. If this effort fails, I would ask that you vote 
``no'' on the rule for H.R. 1815, and give our soldiers and their 
families the respect that they deserve.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not know that this 
country taxes disabled veterans. We take from military retirees, who 
are also disabled, 100 percent of their disability benefits. We started 
doing this in the 1800s. It is indefensible, in my opinion, and I think 
most Americans, if they realized we were doing it, would recognize that 
this is an indefensible policy of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, for the last 20-some-odd years a supermajority of the 
Members of this House have signed on to legislation to end the disabled 
veterans tax. Once again, there is legislation that would end the 
disabled veterans tax with many cosponsors. Most of the Members of this 
House will ultimately cosponsor that legislation.
  My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have brought to the floor as part of 
the Armed Services authorization bill a complete elimination of the 
disabled veterans tax. That amendment was ruled out of order by the 
Committee on Rules. I think that rule is wrong. I think Members of this 
House want to vote on that particular subject.
  Two years ago in the House Committee on Armed Services authorization 
bill we took a small step toward eliminating this tax. Mr. Speaker, we 
should take the final step of eliminating this tax by permitting the 
amendment to be made. It would receive an overwhelming vote. We would 
end the disabled veterans tax and we would end an injustice to our 
veterans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
time.
  This restrictive rule is unfortunate and unnecessary. We have heard 
from my colleagues today, talking about huge issues and deep concerns. 
It is unfortunate that one additional casualty in the short-circuiting 
of this process is that we will not discuss the hidden issue 
surrounding base closures, and that is the cleanup of the mess the 
military leaves behind.
  I offered a modest amendment that would have at least required that 
the 17 bases from the 1988 round of base closures be dealt with by the 
Department of Defense with a framework. But even as we move into a 
fifth round of base closures, that problem remains unaddressed.
  To date, the Pentagon has been dragging its feet and Congress has 
been missing in action. Due to this unnecessarily restrictive rule, the 
bill is another lost opportunity to treat communities with closed bases 
fairly, and for Congress to continue to be absent without leave.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong 
objection to this rule. It allows debate on some important amendments, 
but leaves out many more, some of them dealing with key issues that I 
believe the House should have an opportunity to consider.
  As a new member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am grateful to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for working with me on a 
number of provisions on the bill that are important to my State of 
Colorado.

[[Page H3907]]

But I am disappointed that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
and the committee did not see it fit to work with Democrats on issues 
of additional importance to the Nation.
  Last week, the Committee on Armed Services voted for the Taylor 
amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis. 
But this language was removed due to budget constraints, and the 
Committee on Rules refused to make the Taylor amendment in order.
  The Committee on Rules also precluded debate on the Spratt amendment 
to increase spending on nonproliferation programs, on the excellent 
Tauscher amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment, and on an 
amendment I offered with my colleague, a bipartisan amendment to help 
former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from 
cancer related to exposure to radiation.
  The rule also precludes debate on
the Skelton-Snyder-Wilson-Shimkus
amendment that should have been offered, another bipartisan amendment, 
to strike the provisions saying that any positions currently closed to 
women shall remain closed.
  Many more amendments worthy of consideration were not made in order, 
Mr. Speaker.
  My friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned that in 
the committee the bill was voted out almost unanimously, but that does 
not mean that on the floor we cannot improve it. There are many of 
these amendments that should have been made in order.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. It stifles debate 
and I cannot support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. It 
allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out many more, 
some of them dealing with key issues that I believe the House should 
have an opportunity to consider.
  As a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to 
Chairman Hunter for working with me on a number of provisions in the 
bill that are important to me and my state of Colorado. But I'm 
disappointed that Mr. Hunter and the Committee didn't see fit to work 
with the Democrats on additional issues of importance to the nation and 
to the prosecution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I'm sure that the views of the Republican leadership of the Armed 
Services Committee influenced the deliberations of the Rules Committee 
and thus the final rule that was adopted. But it is the Rules 
Committee--not the Armed Services Committee--that determines which 
amendments are made in order.
  Last week the Armed Services Committee voted for Representative 
Taylor's amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent 
basis. But Chairman Hunter took the language out due to budget 
constraints, and the Rules Committee refused to make Mr. Taylor's 
amendment in order. The Rules Committee also precluded debate on 
Representative Spratt's amendment to increase spending on 
nonproliferation programs, on Representative Tauscher's excellent 
amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment with Congress, and 
on an amendment I offered with my colleague Representative Beauprez to 
help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from 
cancer and other conditions related to their exposure to radiation and 
other hazards.
  The rule also precludes debate on an amendment to be offered by 
Representatives Skelton, Snyder, Wilson and Shimkus to strike the 
provision saying that any positions currently closed to women shall 
remain closed. Mr. Hunter will offer an amendment that waters down the 
provision slightly but combines it with other provisions, thus 
preventing a clean up or down vote on this very important issue.
  Many more amendments worthy of House consideration were not made in 
order. This means that the bill we will debate today on the House floor 
will not address some of the key issues affecting our military and our 
policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule stifles debate, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I had to leave the room 
briefly. It was my understanding, when I left the room, that the 
gentleman had mentioned that the bill had passed committee 61 to 1. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. That is correct.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Is the gentleman aware that when the bill 
passed the committee, the amendment that provided TRICARE for every 
single Guard member and Reservist was a part of that bill?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am aware of that.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Okay. I just want the gentleman to know 
that that 61 to 1 vote included that amendment.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I am also aware that the 
item the gentleman mentioned was actually stricken on the parliamentary 
question.
  I would like to submit for the Record the chairman of the committee's 
letter to that effect and also the statement from CBO upholding that 
decision.
                                      Committee on Armed Services,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
       Dear Armed Services Committee Colleague: This morning the 
     Congressional Budget Office informed me via letter (copy 
     attached), that the amendment agreed to during the 
     committee's mark-up of H.R. 1815, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, extending TRICARE 
     coverage to all reservists will result in additional direct 
     (or mandatory) spending. As a result, the inclusion of this 
     provision would cause the bill to exceed the mandatory 
     spending allocation provided under the Concurrent Resolution 
     on the Budget. Exceeding the mandatory allocation will cause 
     H.R. 1815 to violate the Congressional Budget Act and subject 
     the bill to a point of order against its consideration on the 
     House floor.
       I have consulted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee 
     on this matter and he informs me that if the bill is brought 
     forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will 
     exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of 
     order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor.
       Accordingly, after informing Mr. Skelton and the sponsor of 
     the amendment, I am exercising the authority granted to me by 
     the committee to remove this section in order to bring the 
     bill back into compliance with the Budget Act and eliminate 
     this impediment to its floor consideration. In summary, if 
     this action is not taken, a point of order will be raised and 
     sustained against the bill and its consideration will be 
     blocked.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Duncan Hunter,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
     Hon. Duncan Hunter,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, we are 
     sending you this letter containing our preliminary estimate 
     of a provision in H.R. 1815, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as ordered reported 
     by the committee on May 19, 2005. The provision would provide 
     access to TRlCARE health insurance benefits for reserve 
     component personnel. Implementing that provision would have 
     significant effects on both spending subject to appropriation 
     and direct spending.
       The provision would affect direct spending by increasing 
     mandatory expenditures in the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits (FEHB) program. On a preliminary basis, CBO 
     estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct 
     spending for the government's share of FEHB premiums for 
     retirees by $5 million in 2006, $94 million over the 2006-
     2010 period, and $269 million over the 2006-2015 period.
       Under the provision, all reservists in the Selected Reserve 
     would be eligible to enroll in TRlCARE, the health insurance 
     system for the Department of Defense (DoD). Based on 
     information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 120,000 
     reservists work for the federal government. CBO expects that 
     some of these reservists who are currently enrolled in the 
     FEHB program would leave that program and enroll in the new 
     TRlCARE for Reservists program because the premiums would be 
     lower than for FEHB and the coverage would be more generous. 
     Generally, TRICARE premiums are lower because medical costs 
     are highly correlated with age--the average reservist is age 
     34 while the average for enrollees in the FEHB program 
     (including retirees) is closer to age 60.
       Because the estimated health care costs for reservists 
     switching to TRICARE are likely to be lower than the average 
     per capita costs for all other enrollees in the FEHB program, 
     average costs for the FEHB program would rise, even though 
     its total costs would decline. Thus, CBO expects premiums for 
     the remaining enrollees in the FEHB program would rise to 
     cover the higher average cost. The government's share of 
     premiums for annuitants (about 72 percent) is direct 
     spending.
       In addition to the direct spending effects, this provision 
     would affect spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates 
     that implementing this provision would increase spending by 
     DoD for this new benefit by about $230 million in 2006, and 
     $4.6 billion over the 2006-

[[Page H3908]]

     2010 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. 
     In addition, we estimate that spending for reservists in the 
     Coast Guard would increase by $2 million in 2006 and $46 
     million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of 
     the estimated amounts. Finally, under this provision, 
     spending by the federal government for active workers in the 
     FEHB program would decline by an estimated $340 million over 
     the 2006-2010 period.
       If you have any questions, the CBO staff contact is Sam 
     Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840.
           Sincerely,
                                              Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                         Director.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am against this rule and the underlying 
bill. Good substantive amendments that the American people need to hear 
debate on were not ruled in order.
  I have offered an amendment to force the Pentagon to share the names 
of the companies that have received $20 billion to make Pentagon 
computers talk to each other. According to the GAO, DOD business 
systems remain fundamentally flawed, unable to provide timely and 
reliable information and leaving DOD vulnerable to fraud, waste, and 
abuse. And yet we continue to give the Pentagon more and more, despite 
their admission that they cannot track $2.3 trillion and despite the 
fact that they lost $100 million in Iraqi building funds and $9 billion 
in Iraqi oil revenue.
  Both my amendments would force the Pentagon to tell us where all of 
this money is going.
  My second amendment would have required the Pentagon to tell the 
American people who had the contracts to operate the detention centers 
like Abu Ghraib that have so shamed us recently.
  Just imagine what we could do for Americans in need without all that 
Pentagon waste. I do, and that is why I ask these questions.
  Other amendments addressing critical issues were not allowed, and I 
can think of no reason why the majority refuses to allow a full debate 
on these critical issues confronting us today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) for yielding me time and the Committee on Rules for their 
hard work on this bill, on the many amendments that they reviewed, took 
testimony on, and for their shaping of this package which will move the 
defense bill onto the floor here momentarily and allow us to do what it 
takes to make sure that the men and women of the Armed Forces, who are 
fighting in the war against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other 
theaters around the world, will have the tools to get the job done.
  Now, we have two considerations here. One consideration is to make 
sure that Members get their amendments heard and have their voices 
heard. The other consideration is to make sure we get a bill. And 
sometimes one of those considerations overbalances the other.
  The worst thing that could happen is not to move this bill 
expeditiously through the House, move it quickly to conference, and 
provide the leadership not only for the base bill this year, but for 
the $49 billion that we have bolted onto the base package that, at the 
end of this fiscal year, will give our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan 
the force protection, the armor, the pay, the troop levels and all the 
other things that we need to carry out this mission.
  So this is a crucial and critical bill, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate 
the expeditious fashion that the committee has moved in.
  This bill provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops. We have 
increased pay 25 percent over the last 4 years. It provides many, many 
personnel benefits. It provides an expansion of family housing. It 
provides additional bonus flexibility for the services to continue to 
attract and recruit Americans to come into the armed services. And it 
gives our people additional warfighting capability, additional sensors, 
additional armor, additional munitions and weapons, all the tools that 
they need to get the job done.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have put in some very important 
limitations on the costs of weapons systems. We see weapons systems 
costs going through the roof. We see a DDX program that now says it is 
going to cost $3 billion a ship. In a very businesslike way, we have 
analyzed these costs and the increases, and we have put in limitations 
and mechanisms that will allow us to control these costs. If we do not 
start bringing down the costs per ship, per aircraft, per big unit, we 
are not going to have enough of these systems to provide the coverage 
we need around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most important of bills. It is a bill that 
goes to the very heart of our freedom, and that is the equipping and 
projection of our Armed Forces. I thank the Committee on Rules for 
doing a great job in packaging this bill in a way that we can move it 
expeditiously across the floor.
  I thank the gentleman for his great work and his great work as a 
former member of the Committee on Armed Services, who is going to be 
coming back to see us and who sits in with us regularly.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, my faith means everything to me. And because of it, I 
strongly believe that the men and women in uniform should be able to 
practice their own faith as the Constitution guarantees.
  Recent accounts paint a picture of considerable religious intolerance 
at our Air Force Academy. There has been a tide of complaints about 
harassment of anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian and special 
treatment for those who are. And the Air Force recently reassigned 
Captain MeLinda Morton, an Academy chaplain, who spoke out about this 
issue.

                              {time}  1130

  These accounts must be thoroughly and publicly investigated. We must 
avoid a repetition of the initial slow response of allegations of 
sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy.
  Last week, I, along with 45 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the 
Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation. I 
understand that the DOD Inspector General is looking into the 
reassignment of Captain Morton. But Air Force investigators looking 
into the allegations of religious intolerance have not interviewed key 
people who brought this issue to light, and this does not bode well for 
how seriously the Air Force is taking this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) had an 
amendment to direct the Pentagon to protect religious freedom at the 
Air Force Academy. Unfortunately, it was not made in order. I hope this 
does not signal that the House will not take this issue seriously.
  Religious freedom is the bedrock on which this Nation is founded. It 
would be intolerable if those who risk their lives for American ideals 
and values are denied the very religious freedom that they are 
defending.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the 
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow three 
very important amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules 
last night and defeated on party-line votes.
  The first amendment is by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
and would provide members of the selected reserves access to the 
TRICARE military health care program on a permanent basis for the 
duration of their service. The second amendment, by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Marshall), would provide eligibility for payment of both 
retired pay and veterans disability compensation for certain additional 
military retirees with compensable service-connected disabilities. The 
last amendment is by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) and 
would repeal the dependency and indemnity compensation offset from 
survivor benefit plans' surviving spouse annuities.

[[Page H3909]]

  Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from 
taking up the authorization bill, but a ``yes'' vote will preclude the 
House from considering these three amendments critical to the debate of 
our national defense. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of 
the Members to the strengths of H.R. 1815. It takes many steps forward 
in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems, increasing end 
strength, and provides $49.1 billion in supplemental funds for the war 
on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond just briefly to some of the 
concerns expressed on the other side of the aisle. First, about the 
process by which the Committee on Rules operated.
  I remind my good friends that this bill was again reported out of the 
House Committee on Armed Services by a vote that was nearly unanimous, 
only one dissent; that 29 amendments have been made in order; that the 
majority of those amendments are Democratic amendments; and that we 
will, obviously, have an additional opportunity to debate the full 
merits of the bill as we move forward. I think there is more than ample 
time for discussion and debate.
  Second, on the Reservist health care issue. This is a difficult 
issue, to say the least. It is an emotional issue and an important 
issue. I would like to point out that under the leadership of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Committee on Armed Services 
has made important progress in this particular area. It has extended 
the amount of time that members that are going to be deployed are 
eligible for TRICARE. It has extended the amount of time that those who 
are leaving service are able to enjoy the benefits of TRICARE. It has 
allowed additional time granted for time served in deployment and 
combat situations. So I think the Committee on Armed Services has 
expressed a continuous desire to keep looking at these issues.
  I have personally visited with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), who is the subcommittee chairman responsible for this 
particular area; and he has assured me he wants to continue the 
progress that has been made over the last several years.
  Again, I remind my good friends there were many opportunities when 
they were in the majority to address these type of issues. While we 
have been in the majority, we have addressed concurrent receipt in a 
step-by-step process that is moving us in the right direction. We have 
addressed survivor benefits in a step-by-step process moving us in the 
right direction. And now we are addressing the critical issue of health 
care as well. So I think important progress is being made on all these 
fronts, Mr. Speaker.
  Finally, I would like to note that this legislation would not have 
been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member of the committee; and the other 
subcommittee chairmen, and finally the members of the Committee on 
Armed Services themselves. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a 
bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House should be able to 
agree is a good product. H.R. 1815 passed in the committee, again by a 
vote of 61 to 1. It deserves the same strong bipartisan support on the 
floor, as does its underlying rule.
  Mr. Speaker, many today have complained about what they consider to 
be critical shortcomings in this legislation. No legislation is ever 
perfect; and as I said in my opening statement, the defense 
authorization specifically is more of an ongoing process than a final 
product. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R. 
1815, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to 
evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of 
our men and women in uniform.
  I would urge the Members on the other side of the aisle to consider 
carefully what a ``no'' vote would mean and say to our servicemen and -
women in the field. Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, while I rise today in support of H.R. 
1815, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,'' 
I do have concerns about language in the bill that would limit the role 
of women serving in the military and restrict the opportunities 
available to them. I am hopeful that we will pass an amendment later 
today to correct this language.
  I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to provide retirement 
credit to the members of the National Guard serving on State duty who 
responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
  I, along with my friend and colleague, Representative King, and other 
members of the New York delegation, have introduced legislation, H.R. 
2499, which would accomplish the same goal, and I am thankful that the 
Committee has worked with us to correct this inequity.
  I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, 
Representative Synder, and especially Representative McHugh, who were 
so instrumental in this process, and I commend them for their 
commitment to the men and women serving this country all over the 
world.
  I also would like to acknowledge both the military and minority staff 
of the committee for their assistance.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were an unprecedented 
event in American history.
  The provisions included in this bill will show our gratitude to the 
brave men and women who responded on that day by giving them the 
retirement benefits to which they are entitled.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 293--Rule on H.R. 1815, National Defense 
                     Authorization Act for FY 2006

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendments printed in section 8 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules if offered by the Member 
     designated. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     specified in section 8 and shall be debatable for 20 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent.
       Sec. 8. The amendments refered to in section 7 are as 
     follows:
       (1) Amendment by Representative Taylor of Mississippi or a 
     designee.

                  Amendment to H.R. 1815, as Reported

                  Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

       At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 290, after line 
     5), add the following new section:

     SEC. 707. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY OF SELECTED RESERVE MEMBERS 
                   UNDER TRICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) General Eligibility.--Subsection (a) of section 1076d 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a) Eligibility.--A member'' and 
     inserting ``(a) Eligibility.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), a member'';
       (2) by striking ``after the member completes'' and all that 
     follows through ``one or more whole years following such 
     date''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member who is 
     enrolled, or is eligible to enroll, in a health benefits plan 
     under chapter 89 of title 5.''.
       (b) Condition for Termination of Eligibility.--Subsection 
     (b) of such section is amended by striking ``(b) Period of 
     Coverage.--(1) TRICARE Standard'' and all that follows 
     through ``(3) Eligibility'' and inserting ``(b) Termination 
     of Eligibility Upon Termination of Service.--Eligibility''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Such section is further amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (e); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (e) and 
     transferring such subsection within such section so as to 
     appear following subsection (d).
       (2) The heading for such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE standard coverage for 
       members of the selected reserve''.

       (d) Repeal of Obsolete Provision.--Section 1076b of title 
     10, United States Code, is repealed.
       (e) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 1076b; and
       (2) by striking the item relating to section 1076d and 
     inserting the following:


[[Page H3910]]


``1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE Standard coverage for members of the 
              Selected Reserve.''.

       (f) Savings Provision.--Enrollments in TRICARE Standard 
     that are in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act under section 1076d of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect on such day, shall be continued 
     until terminated after such day under such section 1076d as 
     amended by this section.
       Page 508, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
       Page 509, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
                                  ____

       (2) Amendment by Representative Salazar of Colorado or a 
     designee:

                     Amendment to 1815, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Salazar of Colorado

       At the end of subtitle B of title XV (page 474, after line 
     9), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 15XX. REPEAL OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION 
                   OFFSET FROM SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN SURVIVING 
                   SPOUSE ANNUITIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program under 
     chapter 13 of title 38, United States Code, and the Survivor 
     Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, 
     United States Code, are separate and distinct programs, 
     with--
       (A) the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program, 
     administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, providing 
     financial support for the survivors of those dying on active 
     duty or from a service-connected disability and available 
     only to unmarried surviving spouses, minor children, and low-
     income parents; and
       (B) the Survivor Benefit Plan, a contributory program 
     administred by the Secretary of Defense, providing the 
     surviving spouse of a military retiree and those killed in 
     service a monthly annuity upon the death of the 
     servicemember.
       (2) By law, an amount paid to a beneficiary under the 
     Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program for any month 
     is deducted from a payment for that month to the same 
     beneficiary under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
       (3) The offset described in paragraph (2) is inequitable, 
     and it is necessary that such inequity should be corrected, 
     both as a matter of fairness and as an important tool for 
     recruiting and retention of critical personnel in the Armed 
     Forces.
       (4) The inequity of the offset requirement described in 
     paragraph (2) has quickly become a significant issue for 
     surviving spouses and the families of those who have died in 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
       (5) The requirements of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
     Operation Enduring Freedom and the fatalities that continue 
     to occur in those operations have created a compelling need 
     to rectify issues that adversely affect retention of critical 
     personnel in the Armed Forces.
       (6) Congress and the leadership of the Department of 
     Defense did not anticipate that the offset between Dependency 
     and Indemnity Compensation benefits and Survivors Benefit 
     Plan annuities would create financial hardships on surviving 
     families of members of the uniformed services whose cause of 
     death is service-connected.
       (7) In light of the matters stated in paragraphs (1) 
     through (6), there is an urgent and compelling need for 
     Congress to immediately eliminate the offset of payments 
     between the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program and 
     the Survivor Benefits Plan program.
       (b) Repeal of DIC/SBP Offset.--Subsections (c), (e), and 
     (k) of section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, and 
     subsection (c)(2) of section 1451 of such title are repealed.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall take effect on September 11, 2001; and
       (2) shall apply with respect to payment of annuities under 
     subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code, 
     for months beginning on or after that date.
       (d) Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously Refunded to 
     SPB Recipients.--(1) A surviving spouse who is in receipt of 
     an SBP annuity that is in effect before the date specified in 
     subsection (b) and that is adjusted by reason of the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) and who had previously 
     received an SBP retired pay refund shall repay an amount 
     determined under paragraph (2). Any such repayment shall be 
     made in the same manner as a repayment under subsection 
     (k)(2) of section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) The amount of a repayment under paragraph (1) shall be 
     the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount of that 
     refund as the surviving spouse's life expectancy (determined 
     in accordance with standard actuarial practices) bears to the 
     anticipated total duration of the annuity (determined as the 
     sum of such life expectancy and the duration of the annuity 
     already received).
       (3) In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``SBP annuity'' means an annuity under the 
     program established under subchapter II of chapter 73 of 
     title 10, United States Code.
       (B) The term ``SBP retired pay refund'' means a refund 
     under subsection (e) of section 1450 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as in effect before the date specified in 
     subsection (b).
       (e) Budget Treatment.--All amounts paid pursuant to this 
     section for fiscal year 2006 and prior years are designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402(a)(2) of 
     H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for 
     Fiscal Year 2006.
                                  ____

       (2) Amendment by Representative Marshall of Georgia or a 
     designee:

                  Amendment to H.R. 1815, as Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Marshall of Georgia

                   [Ending the Disabled Veterans Tax]

       At the end of subtitle D of title VI (page 243, after line 
     2), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 6XX. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND 
                   VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   ADDITIONAL MILITARY RETIREES WITH COMPENSABLE 
                   SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

       (a) Extension of Concurrent Receipt Authority to Retirees 
     With Service-Connected Disabilities Rated Less Than 50 
     Percent.--Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (a).
       (b) Repeal of Phase-in of Concurrent Receipt of Retired Pay 
     and Veterans' Disability Compensation.--Such section is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking the final sentence of 
     paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d), 
     respectively; and
       (3) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     subparagraph (4).
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 1414 of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also 
       eligible for veterans' disability compensation: concurrent 
       payment of retired pay and disability compensation''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for 
              veterans' disability compensation: concurrent payment of 
              retired pay and disability compensation.''.

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as of January 1, 2006, and shall apply to 
     payments for months beginning on or after that date.

     SEC. 6XX. COORDINATION OF SERVICE ELIGIBILITY FOR COMBAT-
                   RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION AND CONCURRENT 
                   RECEIPT.

       (a) Eligibility for TERA Retirees.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``entitled to retired pay who--'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``who--
       ``(1) is entitled to retired pay, other than a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service creditable under section 1405 of this title 
     and less than 20 years of service computed under section 
     12732 of this title; and
       ``(2) has a combat-related disability''.
       (b) Amendments to Standardize Similar Provisions.--
       (1) Clerical amendment.--The heading for paragraph (3) of 
     section 1413a(b) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``rules'' and inserting ``rule''.
       (2) Specification of qualified retirees for concurrent 
     receipt purposes.--Subsection (a) of section 1414 of such 
     title, as amended by section 2(a), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``a member or'' and all that follows 
     through ``retiree')'' and inserting ``an individual who is a 
     qualified retiree for any month'';
       (B) by inserting ``retired pay and veterans' disability 
     compensation'' after ``both''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Qualified retirees.--For purposes of this section, a 
     qualified retiree, with respect to any month, is a member or 
     former member of the uniformed services who--
       ``(A) is entitled to retired pay, other than in the case of 
     a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less 
     than 20 years of service creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title and less than 20 years of service computed under 
     section 12732 of this title; and
       ``(B) is also entitled for that month to veterans' 
     disability compensation.''.
       (3) Standardization with crsc rule for chapter 61 
     retirees.--Subsection (b) of section 1414 of such title is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Special Rules'' in the subsection heading 
     and all that follows through ``is subject to'' in paragraph 
     (1) and inserting ``Special Rule for Chapter 61 Disability 
     Retirees.--In the case of a qualified retiree who is retired 
     under chapter 61 of this title, the retired pay of the member 
     is subject to''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as of January 1, 2006, and shall apply to 
     payments for months beginning on or after that date.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3911]]

  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Castle
     Clay
     Emerson
     Gingrey
     Hastings (WA)
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Pickering


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania and Mr. HIGGINS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 225, 
noes 198, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               AYES--225

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page H3912]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Emerson
     Gingrey
     Hastings (WA)
     Issa
     Jones (NC)
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Pickering


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1208

  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.

                          ____________________