[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 172 (Thursday, December 1, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7069-H7074]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2943, NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 937 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 937
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2017 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman
[[Page H7070]]
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 937 provides for
consideration of the conference report for the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. This marks the 55th consecutive
year that the House and Senate are coming together to pass a bill to
authorize spending and set policy for our Nation's military.
Just as important, as is the case with most of our work on the Armed
Services Committee that I have the privilege to serve on, this was a
bipartisan process that allowed for numerous members to have input into
the final bill. That is a testament to the great work and leadership of
Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith, our subcommittee
chairmen and the entire committee staff. This is truly a professional
team that puts in long hours to make this bill possible, and they
deserve a lot of credit for their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I have said on this floor many times before that our
military faces a serious readiness crisis. Budget cuts have really
thinned out our military and hurt our ability to train and prepare for
conflict.
One of the most startling examples of this readiness crisis is the
fact that some of our marines have been forced to get parts for their
F-18s off of planes in a museum. That is simply absurd and it is deeply
troubling.
Just as bad, less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable
readiness levels for ground combat and our pilots are getting less
training than many of our adversaries.
Thankfully, this NDAA stops the drawdown of the military and
authorizes critical funding for the operation and maintenance of our
military. The bill authorizes important funding for training, helps
rebuild outdated infrastructure, and ensures our military men and women
have the munitions they need for ongoing operations.
The bill also provides for a 2.1 percent pay increase for our
military. This is the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years, and
it is especially important for our military families.
Additionally, the bill supports our Nation's military operations
around the globe. As we fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and
continue to have a presence in Afghanistan, it is vital that our
military has the tools they need to carry out their mission and defeat
radical Islamic terrorism.
Just as important, this NDAA provides for a continued military
presence in Europe to support our allies and deter Russian aggression,
as well as resources to support U.S. operations in the ever-important
Pacific.
Finally, the NDAA includes some important reforms to make our
military and the Pentagon more effective and more efficient. This
includes updates to the Goldwater-Nichols Act to improve the overall
organizational structure at the Pentagon and throughout our military.
The bill builds upon recent reforms to the Pentagon's acquisition
programs to cut down on red tape and spur innovation and research.
It also updates the Uniform Code of Military Justice to promote
accountability within our military.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but it alone will not be enough to
fully turn the tide back in favor of the fully trained, fully capable,
and fully equipped military that we need.
Congress and the incoming President must act early next year on a
funding bill to fully fund our military, and we need to go above even
what is included in this bill. As Chairman Thornberry has indicated, we
need to push for a defense supplemental that includes important
military programs that were, unfortunately, left out of this final
bill.
I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member
Smith, the Appropriations Committee, and the incoming administration to
get this funding bill taken care of as soon as possible next year
because, without supplemental funding, we will leave the job half done.
While this is just one step in ensuring our military is ready for the
fight, it is an important one nonetheless; so I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting this truly bipartisan legislation. For the 55th
consecutive year, let's send a message to our servicemembers that
supporting the United States military isn't a Republican goal or a
Democrat goal--it is an American goal. I urge my colleagues to support
House Resolution 937 and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), and the honorable
ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), for their
service and for concluding work on this conference report, which
authorizes resources for our uniformed men and women, civilian defense
workforce, our veterans and their families.
The defense bill is one of the most complex bills that comes each
year before Congress for consideration and action, and I know the
hours'--and the weeks'--and the months'--worth of work that goes into
these negotiations by staff and Members. It is also, in general, a bill
that receives broad bipartisan support, which is a reflection of the
leadership, character, and abilities of the chairman, of the ranking
member, and of their staffs.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to support in this conference
report and some provisions that continue to raise concern. Some items
that were of grave concern have been dropped from the final conference
report, like the fiscal cliff, language that would have authorized
discrimination by Federal contractors, and some anti-environment
riders.
I am very upset, however, that, for the second year in a row, the
House caved to unreasonable Senate demands to drop the House-passed
provision to honor our Atomic Veterans with a simple service medal.
These uniformed men and women literally gave their lives in service to
our country. In many cases, totally unprotected, they were exposed to
extreme levels of radiation during the post-World War II era and the
subsequent cold war period. Because they signed secrecy oaths, they
could not even inform their doctors that their many illnesses might be
related to radiation exposure.
They never complained, and they did their duty. Their heroism and
their service have been publicly recognized by Presidents George H. W.
Bush and Bill Clinton. All we are seeking is for them to receive a
simple service medal. More than three out of every four of these
veterans have already passed away unrecognized for their service; yet
the Senate--and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain
and a handful of Pentagon bureaucrats in particular--seems to think it
is a major scandal to provide them with a service medal. My meetings
with some at the Pentagon have been particularly troubling because of
what I have perceived to be their total lack of sensitivity and their
total lack of appreciation for the service that these veterans have
provided to our country.
These men and women deserve better from their government. I hope,
next year, when the House, once again, includes this bipartisan measure
in the defense bill, that it won't be so weak-kneed as to cave for a
third time before such unreasonable intransigence.
This conference report, like its most recent predecessors, continues
to authorize billions of dollars for our wars against the Islamic State
in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere without any debate on an Authorization
for Use of Military Force in those countries and elsewhere.
I hope that one of Speaker Ryan's priorities during the first week of
January will be to meet with President-elect Trump and work out a
timeline for when Mr. Trump will send an
[[Page H7071]]
AUMF to Congress on these wars and when the House will finally fulfill
its constitutional duty to debate and vote on this matter. For over
2\1/2\ years, this House has failed, time and time again, to take up
this serious debate even after President Obama sent an AUMF to Capitol
Hill for action.
Enough is enough. With a Republican in the White House, I hope the
Republican-controlled Congress will finally do its duty. The cowardice
of the 113th and 114th Congresses must not be allowed to extend into
and infect the 115th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say one more thing about the NDAA conference
report.
This conference report includes a very important title that
incorporates the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. As
many of my colleagues know, this is a bipartisan measure, championed
and introduced in the House by my friend and colleague, Congressman
Chris Smith; me; and by Ben Cardin in the United States Senate.
The Global Magnitsky Act builds on the seminal Sergei Magnitsky Rule
of Law Accountability Act, which is legislation that I authored that
focused on Russia, which was approved by Congress and signed into law
in 2012. That law targets individual Russian officials who are
accountable for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, as well
as other Russian officials engaged in corruption, human rights abuses,
or who seek to undermine the rule of law. It denies them visas to the
United States and freezes their assets in the United States.
The Global Magnitsky Act will extend the use of those same targeted
sanctions to all countries, not just to Russia. It will ensure that
visiting the United States and having access to our financial system,
including to U.S. dollars, are privileges that should not be granted to
those officials who violate basic human rights and the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, as we enter the uncharted territory of a Trump
administration, it is critical that Congress maintain its bipartisan
leadership and support for human rights. It is critical that Congress
continue to hold accountable the Russian Government and government
officials around the world who engage in corruption, human rights
abuses, and who flout the rule of law.
During the long campaign, two words I never heard Mr. Trump utter
were ``human rights.'' Quite frankly, I was disturbed by his public
admiration of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, whose government has
jailed and even killed human rights defenders and political opponents.
Mr. Speaker, in past years, I have often voted against the final
passage of the NDAA conference report. In general, I can't vote for a
bill that provides tens of billions of dollars for wars that Congress
refuses to debate and authorize. I can't vote for a bill that ties the
hands of a President--any President--to shut down the prison at the
U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. I can't support a bloated budget
that fails to make hard choices, that provides the Pentagon with even
more money than it asks for, and that continues to increase in size--
without end--for the foreseeable future.
However, because of the inclusion of the Global Magnitsky Human
Rights Accountability Act, this year, I will vote in support of the FY
2017 NDAA conference report. The Global Magnitsky Act will give
Congress a tool with which to hold accountable human rights abusers
even if our new President ends up turning a blind eye. This language in
this authorization bill is important because it sends a signal--no
matter what our next President believes on the issue of human rights--
that, in this Congress, in a bipartisan way, we believe that, if the
United States of America stands for anything, it needs to stand out
loud and foursquare for human rights.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report
notwithstanding the many reservations we may have.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and
a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. Frankly, I
thank him for the wonderful work he provided as a member of the Armed
Services Committee to bring this legislation to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to quickly associate myself with my friend
from Massachusetts' remarks about the authorization. I think he is
absolutely right on that issue--we have worked together on that--and it
is something that ought to happen. It is an institutional question of
whether or not we retain our war-making authority, and he has done
admirable work in that area.
The bill, itself, which I support--and, of course, the rule and the
underlying legislation--is a very important piece of legislation.
I commend our friends on the Armed Services Committee for working in
a bipartisan fashion, first, to make sure they stop the erosion of the
end strength of the military. It is an absolutely critical thing to do.
It could not have happened had they not worked together and made some
tough decisions.
Second, I want to point out all of the reforms in this legislation--
procurement reforms, in particular. They have gone well beyond simply
appropriating money for the military as they have done some important
work to put important tools in our hands that, I think in going
forward, will save billions of dollars.
I also commend them for fully funding a pay raise for the men and
women in uniform. That is an important thing. The amount of money--a
2.1 percent increase--is relatively modest but appropriate. The more
important thing is the signal it sends to the men and women who put
themselves between us and harm's way, and I thank the gentleman for his
role in that.
Finally, I want to pick up on one of the points that my friend from
Alabama made that I couldn't agree with more. As important and as good
as this legislation is, if we do not marry it with the money that it
takes to actually implement it, we are making the mistake of a
lifetime. In my opinion, we could do that, literally, this year if we
were to do an omnibus; but if we fail to do that and if we do a CR, my
friend is exactly right in that we should act as rapidly as possible in
January to make sure that we actually put the money together with the
excellent authorization work that is done here. Otherwise, we simply
undercut all of the good work of the Armed Services Committee.
This is something that we need to focus on. The authorization is
important, but if we don't appropriate the money, a lot of the hard
work that was done on the Armed Services Committee will be for naught,
and it will be for naught until we actually make that decision. We
shouldn't wait until the end of April or the end of May. We ought to
get it done as quickly as we can. I would like to get it done before we
go home, but if we can't do that, we certainly ought to get it done as
quickly as we can when we get back.
With all of that aside, again, I congratulate both sides of the
aisle. This is a model of bipartisanship. My friend from Massachusetts
mentioned some other measures in here with regard to Russia that, I
think, are absolutely also appropriate, and I applaud their inclusion.
I urge every Member to support the rule and, certainly, to vote for
the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I support the defense authorization bill. Our men and
women in uniform are the greatest fighting force in the world, and they
deserve our unwavering support. I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
Member Smith for their hard work on this year's effort, but I oppose
the rule because this bill could be made better not by expanding it,
but by taking out parts that don't belong there in the first place.
Year after year, Congress has placed more and more diplomatic
prerogatives under the military's purview. There are 80 provisions from
the House and Senate bills in the conference report that
[[Page H7072]]
cross into the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. As that
committee's ranking member, I am grateful to my friend, Mr. Smith of
Washington, as we have worked together to improve these parts of the
bill; but different agencies have different responsibilities and
capabilities. That is why different committees oversee these issues.
We would never ask a group of Foreign Service Officers to carry out a
targeted strike on an enemy. That is not their job. So why would we
assign diplomatic functions to those who are already handling the tall
order of protecting and defending us?
Take the Asia Maritime Security Initiative--a program seeking greater
collaboration among our Asian partners to solve maritime disputes
peacefully. This is the sort of effort that our diplomats are trained
to deal with. It takes time and precision and patience to develop
interest among governments and to ramp up capacity; but the Pentagon
moved ahead without the State Department, and the DOD's approach was
like performing surgery with a hacksaw.
The Philippines and Vietnam were slow to come on board. That is
where, I believe, careful diplomacy would have paid off. Instead, the
DOD threw money at the problem. The Philippines didn't want the money,
and they weren't ready to absorb it; so the effort fell apart. Now, in
a difficult time in American-Philippines relations, we have a gaping
hole in our maritime security strategy. This should be a lesson
learned, but, instead, this bill will put even more diplomatic
responsibility in military hands.
For instance, the bill diverts Defense Department dollars to the
Global Engagement Center, the GEC. It is a State Department program
that is focused on countering violent extremist propaganda overseas.
The goal of this provision is worthwhile, but the way it is written
ignores overwhelming advice from experts in the field and from our
public diplomacy officials who are already hard at work in Foggy
Bottom. Instead of building on what we already know from years of
countering propaganda, it says that the DOD should decide how much
money to give a State Department program. Mr. Speaker, that is just bad
policy, and that example just scratches the surface.
{time} 1245
So I support the underlying bill because it is good for our military,
but I don't support this rule. I did not sign the conference report
because I have deep concerns that the line between our military and
diplomatic efforts is blurring. We will be back here in a year, and I
hope at that time we will pass a defense authorization that deals just
with defense.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And
if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up legislation authored by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo), who has been a leader on this issue, that would
require Presidential nominees to disclose 3 years of their tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, tax returns provide the public with vital information
about our Presidential candidates. Have they paid taxes at all? Do they
keep money offshore? Or have they taken advantage of tax loopholes?
This is important information that voters have a right to know. The
American people should expect candidates running for President to be
open and transparent about their tax returns, and this legislation
would ensure that transparency. It is hard for me to believe that
giving the people the right to know about a Presidential candidate's
financial dealings is controversial. I hope that this isn't.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all House Members to
defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan, bicameral
legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in
order for immediate floor debate and a vote.
Now, the legislation is really very simple. It requires Presidential
nominees of major political parties to file 3 previous years of their
Federal tax returns with the Federal Election Commission. Now, tax
returns contain vital information. We all know that. But it is also
vital for the public, for voters, to consider. They should be able to
know whether a candidate has paid taxes, if they have paid any taxes,
how much they have paid, whether they have made charitable
contributions and to whom, and whether they took advantage of tax
loopholes or offshore tax shelters.
This election year, we experienced a bipartisan problem in this area.
For the first time since 1976, Mr. Trump, who is now the President-
elect, would not release any tax returns to the public whatsoever. And
on the Democratic side, Senator Sanders only disclosed a summary of 1
year of his tax returns. I think that these are areas that demonstrate
themselves to fall far short of what the American people deserve in
terms of transparency. So this legislation ensures that the custom of
disclosing--and it has been a custom since 1976--that they disclose
multiple years of tax returns and that it be required by Federal law
for future Presidential candidates to do so.
Former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stated earlier this year
that: ``Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of
the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities,
priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest.''
One of the Republican cosponsors of my bill, Congressman Mark
Sanford, wrote in The New York Times in August: ``The Presidency is the
most powerful political position on Earth, and the idea of enabling the
voter the chance to see how a candidate has handled his or her finances
is a central part of making sure the right person gets the job.''
So I rise today because I believe Congress should write this
important disclosure tradition into law. I urge my colleagues to reject
the previous question so we can hold an immediate vote on the
Presidential Tax Transparency Act.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is not unusual for me to come down here to handle pieces of
legislation for the Rules Committee that pertain to our national
defense and find myself in a debate about issues that have nothing to
do with national defense. Whatever else you can say about the issue
about the President or the President-elect providing tax returns, it
has nothing to do with the defense of the United States of America. It
has nothing to do with authorizing what the Army, the Marine Corps, the
Air Force, and the Navy need to defend this country.
So whatever may be the merits of the proposal we just heard from the
gentlewoman from California, it is totally irrelevant to the piece of
legislation and the resolution on the rules before this body. So I
think that it is an interesting argument. Maybe there is another time
to have it, but this is not that time.
We need to stay focused on what needs to be authorized to defend the
United States of America, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the
notion that we just heard.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me disagree with my distinguished colleague that
somehow this has nothing to do with national defense. I strongly
disagree with him on that. I think where a Presidential candidate or a
soon-to-be President has financial dealings is related directly to our
national defense. Does he have investments in Russia? Does he have
investments in countries that have been hostile to human rights or to
U.S. interests in various parts of the world? That is very relevant.
One of the reasons why we are utilizing this mechanism of defeating
the previous question--by the way, if we defeat the previous question,
we still
[[Page H7073]]
get to bring up the defense authorization conference report. But one of
the reasons that we do it is because--the way this House operates is
that, if you are in the minority, you don't get an opportunity to get
any of your amendments made in order or your bills made in order,
especially bills of any consequence. So that is why we are utilizing
this. This is very relevant to our national defense.
As I said, I normally vote against these authorization bills because
I think they are overbloated. I think there are issues concerning the
fact that we spend billions of dollars on wars that we never debate or
we don't properly authorize here in the Congress.
But I am voting for this one because of the Global Magnitsky
legislation because of the human rights provisions. Because I don't
know where the head of our next President is going to be when it comes
to standing up to abuses by people like Vladimir Putin, against
opposition leaders and journalists and anybody he disagrees with.
This bill is named after a guy named Sergei Magnitsky who, by the
way, was an accountant in Russia who uncovered the largest corruption
scandal in Russia's history. What was his reward for doing that? Putin
had him put in jail. He was tortured, and he was beaten to death. You
know, that is what happens in places that are run by strongmen like
Vladimir Putin.
So, yeah, I would like to know whether or not our next President has
investments in Russia. I think that would be very relevant to know.
Quite frankly, the reason why this Magnitsky legislation is so
important is it gives us a tool to pressure the next administration on
the issue of human rights, and it is a signal to people like Putin and
other dictators and strongmen around the world that Congress is not
going to be silent in the face of human rights abuses. So I think this
is all very relevant.
I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so
we can do what I would think most people in this country think is
noncontroversial, which is to have people running for President release
their tax returns so we know. This shouldn't be a big deal. We should
do it now, and we have an opportunity to do it now and still vote on
this NDAA bill. I hope that we will do that.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20 national
organizations voicing concern about the $3.2 billion added to the
overseas contingency operations account in funds not requested by the
Pentagon.
Dear Senator/Representative: The recently released
conference report for the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) would authorize an additional $3.2
billion unrequested by the Pentagon, effectively exceeding
the spending limits set in place previously by Congress as
part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015. As organizations representing Americans across
the political spectrum, we are writing to voice our
disagreement with this tactic.
The very real challenges facing our military are not the
result of a lack of funds. They are the result of years of
failing to make necessary, tough choices our nation's
security requires. If Congress votes to simply throw
additional billions of dollars at this problem by using a
budgetary gimmick involving the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) account, you will do nothing to solve these
problems. Rather, you will simply be guaranteeing another
year of massive spending at the Pentagon. Refusing to make
hard choices and trade-offs does not strengthen our security,
it undermines it.
Earlier this year, many of our organizations expressed our
opposition to the House Armed Services Committee's draft NDAA
which included an $18 billion gimmick to fund the OCO account
above previously agreed upon levels. What was a bad idea at
$18 billion is still a bad idea at $3.2 billion. We strongly
urge you to scrap any plans to fund the OCO account above the
levels set in existing law and finally pursue a path of
fiscal responsibility at the Pentagon.
Sincerely,
Campaign for Liberty, Center for International Policy,
Council for a Livable World, Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste, FreedomWorks, Friends Committee on National
Legislation, Just Foreign Policy, National Priorities
Project, National Taxpayers Union, Peace Action, Project on
Government Oversight, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Taxpayers
Protection Alliance, Taxpayers United of America, The
Libertarian Institute, The London Center, United for Peace
and Justice, Win Without War, Women's Action for New
Directions.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one of my many concerns about this bill--
and if it wasn't for the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability
Act, I would be voting against this bill because of things like that.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let the American people know
what the financial dealings of their Presidential candidates and soon-
to-be Presidents are, and then we get on to dealing with passing the
National Defense Authorization Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The Presidential election is over. Maybe some people would like to
relitigate the results, but certainly the National Defense
Authorization Act is not the place to do that. So we need to get back
to the focus of what we are here about today, and that is authorizing
the defense of the United States of America.
I appreciate the gentleman's support for the rule. I appreciate his
support, which he says is unusual for the underlying bill. I also agree
with him, as I heard the gentleman from Oklahoma agree with him, about
the need for us in the future to address an authorization for the use
of military force in the Middle East.
I don't know what the authorization is under law for what we are
undertaking today in Yemen, what we are undertaking today in Libya, or
what we are undertaking today in other countries like Somalia. I hope
the new administration will take a complete new look at that and come
to us and tell us what they think a real strategy for success and
victory is. Now, that is something we could all get together and
authorize. This is not the piece of legislation to address it, and I
appreciate the fact that my friend is willing to drop his concerns
about that to support it.
We are here to do one very important thing--and it is the most
important thing that the Congress does--and that is to provide for the
defense of the American people, pure and simple. This rule, the
underlying legislation, does that.
There is more work to be done at the beginning of next year, and I
hope and am confident that there will be a real effort to come back and
do that. At this point in time, it is important that we move forward
with this National Defense Authorization Act for the 55th straight
year.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
937 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 937 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, 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.
5386) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
require candidates of major parties for the office of
President to disclose recent tax return information. 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 shall not
exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways
and Means and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Administration. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. 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. 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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5386.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
[[Page H7074]]
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________