[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8121-8129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4205, FLOYD D. SPENCE, NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 503 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 503

       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. 4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2001 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, 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 
     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 purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     or specified by a subsequent order of the House, amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro 
     forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services for the purpose of 
     debate.
       (c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand

[[Page 8122]]

     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the report, each 
     amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes 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 not earlier disposed of or 
     germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en 
     bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as 
     read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be 
     debatable for 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. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en 
     bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike 
     may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original 
     proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc 
     may insert a statement in the Congressional Record 
     immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
       Sec. 5. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the 
     floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 6. After disposition of the amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules, the Committee of the Whole 
     shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the 
     bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order 
     of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
structured rule for H.R. 4205, the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of 
Defense Authorization Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order 
against consideration of the bill. It makes in order as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment the Committee on Armed Services 
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill.
  The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The rule provides that no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution or specified by a 
subsequent order of the House, amendments en bloc described in section 
3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman 
or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services for the 
purpose of debate.
  The rule provides that except as specified in section 5 of the 
resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall be considered 
only in the order printed in the report; 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 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule provides that unless otherwise specified in the report, each 
amendment printed shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
amendment, except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services may each offer one pro forma amendment for 
the purpose of debate on any pending amendment.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the report or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the 
resolution.
  The rule provides that 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 not 
earlier disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment, 
which shall be considered as read, except that modifications shall be 
reported, 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 and shall not be subject to 
amendment; shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the 
question in the House or the Committee of the Whole.
  The rule provides that for the purpose of inclusion in such 
amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to 
strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to 
the text originally proposed to be stricken.
  The rule provides that an 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. 
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone 
votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 
minutes on a postponed question, if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
recognize for the consideration of any amendment printed in the report 
out of the order printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman 
of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the 
floor a request to that effect.
  Finally, the rule provides that after disposition of the amendments 
printed in the report, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order 
except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
  H.R. 4205 is a good bill. For several years, this body cut our 
military's budget while the administration deployed troops all over the 
globe. It was not fair to our men and women in uniform and it was not 
fair to hard working Americans who count on the military for their 
protection.
  Well, those days are over. Now we are taking care of our national 
defense. We are getting our military families off food stamps by 
providing a 3.7 percent pay raise and we are helping them retire by 
creating an armed forces thrift savings plan. We are providing 
resources to improve military housing. For years our military personnel 
have been living in substandard housing.

                              {time}  1115

  We are giving our leaders the tools they need to get the job done in 
the field of battle, including five new submarines, up to 15 
destroyers, additional Black Hawk helicopters, and Bradley fighting 
vehicles.
  We need this bill, Mr. Speaker. For far too long we have shortchanged 
our military at the expense of our Nation's security.
  This rule provides for a fair debate on the bill. The Committee on 
Rules received 102 amendments to H.R. 4205. With this rule, we will 
debate more than one-third of them, 35 amendments in all. But this is 
only the first step. Later the Committee on Rules will meet to grant a 
second rule for H.R. 4205.
  All of the amendments which are not made in order under this rule are 
still in play. We simply decided that it was

[[Page 8123]]

wise to get started this morning, and with 35 amendments to debate 
today, it is a healthy start.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying bill, because now more than ever we must provide for our 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2001, was reported from the Committee on Armed Services on 
a strong bipartisan vote of 56 to 1. The vote reflects the 
understanding of Democrats and Republicans for the need to ensure that 
our national defense continues to be second to none.
  This bill reflects the commitment of Democrats and Republicans to 
achieving a level of readiness throughout the military that will 
protect this Nation and our commitment to democracy and the rule of law 
throughout the world.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4205, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, during the report recess, I had the opportunity to see 
firsthand the dedication of the men and women who serve our country in 
uniform, often under the most trying circumstances. Along with some of 
my colleagues from the Texas delegation, I traveled to Bosnia to visit 
with National Guard troops from Texas and to see how our regular forces 
are faring in the tense and hazardous duty stations in Kosovo.
  Many of the Members of this body have made the same kind of trip, and 
I am sure that every Member has come away with similar impressions of 
our men and women in uniform and their dedication to duty.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has as one of its primary duties to provide 
for the national defense and the men and women who protect it. This 
bipartisan bill does a great deal to improve military readiness and to 
improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, as well 
as for their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that this bill contains 
several provisions to improve the quality of life of our military 
personnel. The bill provides for a 3.7 percent military pay raise, 
reduces out-of-pocket housing costs, which will particularly benefit 
the enlisted ranks, and provides a targeted subsistence benefit for 
those personnel who are most in need.
  H.R. 4205 also makes significant improvements in military health 
care, and authorizes the creation of a Thrift Savings Plan for military 
personnel which will help them plan for their retirement needs.
  The bill also provides $857 million for construction and improvement 
of military family housing, and an additional $605 million for 
construction of new barracks and dormitories. There are funds for child 
development centers, DOD dependent schools and impact aid, and 
commissary modernization, all important to quality of life improvements 
for uniformed personnel and their families. I congratulate the 
committee for their work on these issues.
  I am also pleased that the committee has continued its commitment to 
the wide range of weapons programs that ensure our military's 
superiority throughout the world.
  The bill includes $1.4 million for research and development for the 
F-22 Raptor, the next-generation air dominance fighter for the Air 
Force, as well as $2.1 billion for 10 low-rate initial production 
aircraft, and $396 million for advanced procurement of 16 LRIP aircraft 
in fiscal year 2002.
  H.R. 4205 also includes $51.7 million for the procurement of three F-
16C aircraft, and $1.1 billion for the procurement of 16 MV-22 
aircraft, and $142.7 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 
Special Operations Variant.
  These aircraft are all important components in our national arsenal, 
and moving forward on their production sends a clear signal that the 
United States has no intention of relinquishing our air superiority.
  Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Armed Services has reported a 
truly bipartisan effort, I should note that 101 amendments to the bill 
were filed with the Committee on Rules. This rule makes in order 36 of 
those amendments, and provides that an additional rule providing for 
the consideration of further amendments to the bill will be considered 
before the House votes on final passage later this week.
  Mr. Speaker, while it is not unusual for the Committee on Rules to 
report more than one rule providing for the consideration of amendments 
to the Department of Defense authorization, in the past the Committee 
on Rules pursued this course in order to ensure that a full and fair 
debate on the issues of the day would follow.
  The rule now under consideration will certainly allow the House to 
debate the issue of the continued presence of U.S. ground forces in 
Kosovo, an issue on which there is a genuine split of opinion in this 
body.
  While I do not agree with the amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), I cannot object to the House having 
the opportunity to debate the issue.
  While I disagree with the amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), which seeks to cut 1 percent of funding 
in the bill, I certainly believe that this is an issue worthy of debate 
in this body. The other 34 amendments made in order in this rule are 
also certainly deserving of consideration of the House.
  So far so good, Mr. Speaker. What concerns me is the fact that there 
are several major amendments that have not been included in this rule 
and may not be included in the second rule to be acted on later. Mr. 
Speaker, one can only hope that when the Committee on Rules meets later 
today to report the second rule for H.R. 4205, the Republican majority 
on the Committee on Rules will allow these issues to be fairly aired 
and considered by the House.
  Let us take, for example, Mr. Speaker, the issue of health care for 
military retirees. Members will be hearing from the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on this issue shortly. The ranking member of 
the Committee on Armed Services has called this the year of health 
care, and the bill does indeed make substantive improvements in the way 
health care is delivered for active duty military personnel and their 
dependents. These improvements are long overdue, and the committee is 
to be congratulated for taking these positive steps.
  But Mr. Speaker, the bill is seriously deficient on the issue of 
health care for Medicare-eligible retirees. Mr. Speaker, I have serious 
concern that the two thoughtful amendments addressing this issue, that 
is, the issue of health care for Medicare-eligible retirees, might not 
be made in order when the committee meets this afternoon. One proposal 
by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) would expand and make 
permanent the TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration, more commonly known 
as Medicare subvention.
  The other offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) would 
give all military retirees the option of participating in FEHB, or 
remaining in TRICARE after they become Medicare-eligible.
  I have a serious concern that the only reason the House will be 
denied the opportunity to debate either of these amendments presented 
to the Committee on Rules will be for purely partisan political 
reasons.
  Let us also take the issue of the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico. 
The committee bill has chosen to ignore an agreement negotiated between 
the President of the United States and the Governor of Puerto Rico 
about the future of this island as a training facility for the Navy and 
Marine Corps, and has instead adopted language that directly 
contravenes this agreement.
  I remain hopeful that when the Committee on Rules meets later this 
day, the Republican majority will see fit to allow the ranking member 
of the committee the opportunity to offer an amendment which will 
strike the committee language and insert language which will allow the 
President's negotiated position to go forward.
  In the interests of fairness to the people of Puerto Rico, I would 
hope that the Skelton amendment will be part of the second rule. The 
only reason to not allow his amendment to be

[[Page 8124]]

considered would again be for purely partisan reasons. I would hope 
that this truly bipartisan bill will not be marred by such action.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the committee bill, but I do believe 
the House should be given the opportunity to address the issues I have 
just mentioned, as well as a number of other issues that have been 
raised in the 101 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules.
  The bill is one of fundamental importance to our great country, and 
the policies and programs that are contained within it certainly are 
worthy of extensive debate. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but I 
hope that the bipartisan approach to the committee bill will be 
extended to the second rule providing for its consideration. To do less 
is a disservice to this House and to our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and for H.R. 4205, 
the Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for his hard work and dedication in 
putting together a measure that helps our fighting men and women. The 
efforts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) should not be underestimated. It 
is truly apt that this legislation we debate today is named after the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence).
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the President has brought us 
a reasonable defense budget for consideration. Over the last 7 years, 
the President's budget has failed the military service chiefs and our 
fighting men and women in uniform.
  While the President's budget was reasonable this year, it still 
failed our armed services to the tune of $16 billion. However, under 
the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), 
the Committee on Armed Services has once again added funding to support 
our defense requirements.
  While still living within a balanced budget, we have added $4.5 
billion to the President's defense budget request. For example, the B-2 
bomber was an essential part of the success story from the air war in 
Kosovo. The B-2's success in this conflict underscored our needs for an 
adequate and modern bomber fleet.
  We also learned some very valuable lessons about the effectiveness of 
our smart bombs during the war. Unfortunately, the President failed to 
fund the research and development of the 500-pound JDAM and 500-pound 
JDAM bomb rack, even though the Service Chiefs wanted it.
  It was the Committee on Armed Services, under its able bipartisan 
leadership, that added funding for these upgrades and advancements. In 
total, the committee added funding of $96 million for upgrades on the 
B-2. These include the Link 16 upgrades that will modernize the cockpit 
and allow for in-flight re-planning, research, and development of the 
500-pound JDAM and the integration on the B-2.
  With the success of the B-2, these upgrades will allow our military 
to exert further strength to keep freedom and peace abroad, thus making 
the B-2 truly the spirit of America.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for 
implementing legislation I introduced last year on the Joint Strike 
Fighter program. As we all know, one of the pillars of the Joint Strike 
Fighter program is affordability. My legislation called for a cost 
study to be conducted on possible production sites for the Joint Strike 
Fighter. While I contend that Air Force Plant 42 offers the best 
opportunity for savings, I believe that the Defense Department owes 
Congress and the American people a study showing the savings 
opportunities that the different production sites offer.
  Mr. Speaker, these two programs are just a few of the many success 
stories found in this legislation. Again, I want to thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this important 
legislation. Yet again, the Committee on Armed Services has worked in a 
bipartisan manner in order to put the national security of the United 
States ahead of politics.
  It is for this reason that the legislation passed in committee with 
an overwhelming majority and deserves the votes of the Member of this 
House. I urge a vote on this rule and for this important legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am wholeheartedly in 
support of this rule. I suppose the politic thing to do would be to say 
I will vote for this rule and await the second rule.
  But I feel constrained to express my reservation, because there is no 
assurance that one of the most important issues will come before this 
body, that which deals with military retirees. Even though this rule 
does not touch upon that, and there is the possibility of the second 
rule being adopted with the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) therein, I have no such assurance. I feel 
constrained to voice my reservation.

                              {time}  1130

  This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is an excellent bill, 
by and large, with some exceptions. And I also wish to tell the Members 
of the House that in honor of our chairman, it is named the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, and it 
is a very, very proper recognition of this fine gentleman from South 
Carolina, who does such a fair and decent job for us in the committee, 
for us in the House.
  I wish I could say on this very first part of the split rule that I 
could support the rule, but I do not have the assurance. Now, if I have 
that assurance in the next few minutes, that would be fine, but I do 
not have that. I do not see it forthcoming, because I cannot very well 
bifurcate the two rules, and as a result, I would have to vote against 
this first rule because of the lack of assurance that the second rule 
will contain the amendment that is so important to military retirees.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentlewoman 
from Charlotte, North Carolina, (Mrs. Myrick), my very good friend, the 
former mayor, who has done a wonderful job managing this rule. She has 
just come back, and we are all happy to see her doing so 
extraordinarily well, and it is very fitting that we would be here on 
an issue which is near and dear to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), and that is the national security of the United States 
of America, that she is leading the charge in this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, as my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
said, I want to recognize the fact that this is a great accomplishment 
and a great tribute to a wonderful individual to have the Floyd D. 
Spence National Defense Reauthorization Act established in his name, 
and I believe this is a very, very important piece of legislation, 
because as has been pointed out, we are really beginning this effort to 
rebuild our capability.
  This morning in the Republican Conference, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) referred to the fact that over the past decade 
and a half, we have seen this continued diminution in the level of 
expenditures for national security, and we have been trying in recent 
years to rebuild it, and the steps that we are going to begin taking 
today will go a long way towards doing just that.
  This has been one of the four top priorities that this Republican 
Congress has established for us, along with rebuilding our defense 
capabilities, saving Social Security and Medicare and, obviously, 
providing tax relief to working families, that has been a priority,

[[Page 8125]]

and then improving public education. Those have been the four guides 
that we have had, but nothing is more important than our national 
security, because as we look at the issue, these other issues can be 
dealt with by a different level of government, but only Washington can 
deal with our national security.
  My friend, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter) in 
1980 came in and got on to this Committee on Armed Services so that he 
could make sure that we proceeded as vigorously as we could at 
rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. We did that during the 
Reagan years, as we all know so well, but we have had this pattern of 
reduction; the threats have changed.
  The thing that I find very, very troubling has been over the past few 
years we have had continued requests made by the administration.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the gentleman's 
dialogue.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from Missouri has done that already, so I 
am happy to yield to the gentleman, in light of the fact that he 
already interrupted me.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
understands my concern for the military retirees, that it is a major 
problem. They were told when they joined if you stay with us 20 years, 
we will take care of your health care for life. And I think that there 
should be some assurance that we would be able to at least debate the 
issue on a proper amendment, and that is why I said what I did a few 
moments ago. I really do not have a great deal of problem with this 
part of the rule; however, I cannot in my own mind bifurcate the two 
parts of the two rules, and that is why I said what I did.
  I would certainly hope that the Taylor amendment would be made in 
order in the second go-around.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend. I appreciate his 
requests. Let me say that we all know that the reason that we have 
dealt with this two-rule process is due to the tragic situation that 
hit the Stupak family, and the fact that many of our colleagues are 
this afternoon going to go to Michigan, and that led to this situation.
  We are still working on the issue that my friend has raised, and we 
hope to have a resolution to that. I can assure the gentleman that when 
we meet later today in the Committee on Rules, we hope to have what I 
hope will be a satisfactory response.
  Let me just conclude by saying as we look at where we are going in 
our Nation's national security, we have had a pattern over the past few 
years of seeing an administration which, unfortunately, has called for 
deploying troops all over the world, in fact, 139 countries with 
265,000 Americans. We have seen that number, and at the same time there 
have been reduced requests for the level of commitment from Washington 
to our national defense.
  Look at what it really has brought about. Unfortunately, it has 
brought about reduced readiness. We know that there is lower morale 
that exists in the military today; recruitment difficulties, we have 
heard many stories about those. And we have in this high-tech economy 
today a need to focus more investment on high-tech for our national 
security.
  We have some real problems that need to be addressed, and I believe 
that this bill will go a long way towards doing just that. And again, 
as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my friend, has just said 
making sure that we have everything that is necessary for our men and 
women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have begun this debate. It is an 
important one that we will be having, and I hope very much that my 
colleagues will join in support of the rule and in support of the bill 
when we finally get to passage.
  I should say just before I do that that the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), my friend, and I are going to be jointly offering an 
amendment to deal with the issue of high-speed computers, which is an 
important one, that allows us again to maintain our commitment to 
national security, but at the same time our competitiveness around the 
world, which is a priority.
  I urge support of the rule and support of the Dreier amendment that 
will be coming up later and support of this bill itself.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
rule. I appreciate the horror that has happened to the Stupak family. I 
understand the reason that we will be meeting on a short schedule 
today. It makes perfect sense for as many Members to be with the 
Stupaks during this horrible moment as possible.
  It also makes a golden opportunity for the Committee on Rules to meet 
and to make amendments in order. In fact, they should have been doing 
that right now. It is a good national defense bill. It actually 
improves spending for the first time maybe in a decade. It does a lot 
of good things, but what it does not do is solve the problem of health 
care for our military retirees.
  If we think about it, they are the only Americans who were promised 
health care, the only Americans who were promised health care if they 
serve their country honorably for 20 years. They have done that. Every 
recruiter in every custom house for every branch of the service since 
the 1950s has been telling young 18, 19, 20 years old if you serve your 
country honorably for 20 years, then when it comes time for you to 
retire, for you and your spouse, we are going to take care of you at a 
military facility for the rest of your life. But what they are being 
told, because of the defense drawdown and because money is tight, is 
that when they hit 65, I am sorry, Chief; I am sorry, Sergeant; I am 
sorry, Colonel, yes, we asked you to go to Vietnam. We told you to go 
to Korea. We sent you to Kosovo. We sent you to Bosnia.
  We sent you to all these places you did not want to be, where you got 
shot at, where you were away from your family, but we are not going to 
keep our end of the bargain. Congress for the past decade has failed to 
address this issue. I am saying it is time for Congress to address 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the Committee on Rules. This was the 
third amendment brought before the Committee on Rules, the third of 
over 100. They chose not to even vote on it. That is how good, that is 
how much they care about our Nation's retirees. We have absolutely no 
guarantee that this amendment will be brought to the floor. We have 
none.
  We have asked repeatedly. This amendment has four Republican 
cosponsors, including three Members of the Committee on Armed Services, 
one of which is a subcommittee chairman.
  This is not partisan. This is Republicans and Democrats trying to 
solve a sincere problem for the folks who deserve it the most. And we 
cannot even get a vote in the Committee on Rules.
  I am asking every single Member of this body, if they care about 
those folks who have served your country honorably, if they think it is 
time that they keep getting told, well, next year, maybe we will get 
around to it in a couple of decades. Doggone it, we found time for tax 
breaks for millionaires. We found time to honor or condemn just about 
every group under the sun. You do not think we can find time for our 
military retirees?
  Vote against this rule, that sends the Committee on Rules back to 
work. Let us make the Taylor-Hefley-Pickering-Tanner-Abercrombie 
amendment in order, Democrats and Republicans trying to solve the 
problem of health care for military retirees, to fulfill our Nation's 
promise. And doggone it, if we do not make it in order, then I am 
asking as many of you as possible to shut this place down.

[[Page 8126]]

  We are not going to vote on this bill until we have an up or down 
vote on whether or not we are going to fulfill our promise to our 
Nation's military retirees.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think, to a large degree, this is a historic bill. 
This is the first defense bill of this century, and in a bipartisan 
way, I believe it reflects some of the lessons of the century. After 
World War II, we had an enormous military, over 8 million people in 
arms, we rushed to throw our weapons away when General Marshall was 
asked how the demobilization was going. He said, this is not a 
demobilization, it is a rout, we are literally disarming before the 
world.
  If we look at the correspondence between the Communist Chinese and 
Stalin's Russia, we can see their understanding of the fact that 
America over just a couple of years became extremely weak, and we found 
ourselves in June of 1950 being driven off the Korean Peninsula by a 
third-rate military. And before we had regrouped and managed to push 
our forces back and establish the stalemate that had endured, we lost 
50,000 Americans killed in action.
  We have seen in this last century what these bloody wars do, this 
enduring lesson that we achieve peace through strength. As the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), one of the great Members of 
this House, who came in with me in 1980, and I and a number of other 
people sought to do with Ronald Reagan, and I know the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), our chairman, and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, were members of this 
movement, we sought to rebuild America's defenses in 1980. And by doing 
that, we backed down the Soviet Union and ultimately dismantled the 
Soviet Union.
  The interesting thing about that dismantlement is that dismantlement 
actually led to enormous savings of money by American taxpayers. What I 
am talking about is the fact that this bill that we are offering today 
is about $125 billion less in military spending than Ronald Reagan's 
bill of 1985. We have saved probably $1 trillion by the Reagan 
dismantlement of the Soviet empire, the fact that we no longer have the 
requirement to meet those massive Warsaw Pact divisions in military 
Europe.
  We achieved something by being strong. I think it is important that 
we carry that message into the next century. This bill is a start of 
that. But I want to remind my colleagues, it is only a start. We still 
have massive problems.
  Our mission capable rates have dropped about 10 percent, and they are 
hanging there. They fell off the cliff, and they are hanging there 
around 70 percent throughout the services; meaning that about 30 
percent of our aircraft cannot get off the carrier deck or the tarmack 
to go do their job and in return cannot do their mission. We still have 
shortages of ammunition. We have shortages of spare parts.
  We do have people problems; instead of 800 pilots short in the Air 
Force, as we had last year, we are going to have about 1,200 short this 
year. But we are making some improvements, and this House voted for a 
$4 billion increase in national defense, I think reflecting the mood of 
the people in this country and their understanding that we do achieve 
peace through strength.
  Mr. Speaker, we passed that in the emergency supplemental, and 
working with the other body, it came back as an add-on to this defense 
bill that we are debating today. We have started the upgrading and 
modernization of our forces, but I want to remind everybody what Bill 
Perry, President Clinton's former Secretary of Defense, said about the 
blueprint that he, himself, helped to put in place for defense 
spending: It looks like we need about $10 billion to $15 billion more 
per year. Jim Schlesinger, another former Secretary of Defense, said it 
is actually closer to $100 billion more per year that we need.

                              {time}  1145

  So we need to increase defense spending. That is clear. Members of 
Congress recognize that. This bill is a start. It is only a start, but 
I would hope that all Members would support this bill and support this 
rule.
  And with respect to my friend from Mississippi, I think, and I have 
confidence in the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), that they 
will be able to work out the subvention issue before this bill is 
finished. So please support this bill. It is good for America.
  Peace through strength is what we want to achieve, and we are on our 
way at least to achieving it. And I am going to talk about him a little 
later, but I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), 
too, our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of 
the Committee on Armed Services, for the wonderful job that he has 
done.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, for reasons stated by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I rise in 
opposition to this rule, although I believe the underlying bill is a 
good bill.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their hard work in 
putting together such complex and important legislation. I urge 
particular support for the health care provisions. The gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Buyer) have done a great job of putting together a 
bipartisan package that improves the Tri-Care system and increases 
health care access for retirees.
  I want to focus on the provision to extend the pharmaceutical benefit 
to military retirees over the age of 65. Prescription drug coverage is 
a vital issue for all seniors, and I am pleased this committee has made 
a small but important contribution to provide affordable and meaningful 
coverage to a segment of the Medicare eligible population. I hope that 
other committees will follow suit.
  The Tri-Care Senior Pharmacy Program in this bill allows all military 
retirees to participate in the DOD pharmacy program. Under this 
government-run prescription drug benefit, the Defense Supply Center in 
Philadelphia negotiates prices for its beneficiaries that are as low or 
lower than those obtained by other Federal agencies.
  The Defense Supply Center receives some drugs off the Federal supply 
schedule and negotiates pricing agreements with more than 200 
manufacturers, using as a starting point the mandated 24 percent VA 
discount. DOD estimates that these negotiated prices are 24 percent to 
70 percent lower than the average private sector price.
  My bill, H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act, 
would give the rest of the Medicare eligible population the same 
discounts that this provision provides. We have 153 cosponsors, but 
none so far are Republicans. I hope that they will now embrace my bill 
as warmly as they have embraced the Tri-Care Senior Pharmacy Program.
  Now, I do not accept the accusation that H.R. 664 involves price 
controls. But those who do must also conclude that this prescription 
drug benefit for military retirees is, indeed, a price control. Like 
the Democratic Medicare prescription drug plan, the Tri-Care Senior 
Pharmacy Program is administered by a Federal agency making good on the 
government's promise to provide health care for life for military 
retirees and the promise to provide health care in the golden years for 
the over 65 population at large. It uses the

[[Page 8127]]

government's volume purchasing power to negotiate and achieve the same 
price discounts that favored large purchasers obtain.
  Unlike the Republican prescription drug plan, this program does not 
throw military retirees to the whims of the private insurance market 
leaving them guessing about whether they can get prescription drug 
insurance from an industry that says it cannot offer such insurance 
anyway.
  As we cast our affirmative vote for this legislation, and I hope we 
all will, please consider these questions. If Congress can provide a 
government-administered prescription drug benefit with negotiated price 
discounts to one segment of the Medicare eligible population, military 
retirees over 65, why can we not offer the same benefit to the rest of 
our Nation's seniors? If Congress can give 1.4 million Medicare 
eligible military retirees access to the best prices the government can 
negotiate, why is Congress not giving the other 38 million seniors the 
same access to the best prices that the government can negotiate?
  I urge support for the bill and for affordable and meaningful 
prescription drug benefits.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). Each side has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate the work done by all the members of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to say that I support the cause of peace, I 
support the defense of the United States and the men and women who 
serve.
  I also support the taxpayers of the United States of America. That is 
why I rise in opposition to this rule, because it authorizes a $2.2 
billion boondoggle called the national missile defense, NMD. The NMD 
will consume defense budgets, undermine legitimate military 
expenditures, and contribute to the erosion of the readiness of our 
forces. Taxpayers will regret the day we authorize $2.2 billion in 
wasteful spending for the NMD.
  Everything is wrong about spending $2.2 billion for the missile 
defense building in the bill. First, the technology is not feasible, it 
is not testable, and it would not and could not be reliable.
  Second, there is no real threat that such a missile defense system 
could protect anyone against anything.
  Third, it clearly violates the ABM Treaty of 1972. The concept of the 
ABM Treaty recognizes that countries have nuclear missiles, swords, but 
could not deploy shields. If the U.S. tells Russia, we want a shield, 
what can Russia conclude, other than they may need a shield and more 
swords, more nuclear missiles?
  The deployment of the NMD will decouple all arms agreements. It will 
undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It will negate the anti-
ballistic missile treaty and, furthermore, will frustrate SALT II and 
SALT III. It will lead directly to the proliferation by nuclear 
nations. It will lead to transitions towards nuclear arms by nonnuclear 
nations. It will make the world less safe, and lead to the 
impoverishment of people of many nations, as budgets are refashioned 
for nuclear arms expenditures.
  The United States would be willing to risk a showdown with Russia or 
China and the rest of the world over the unlikely possibility that 
North Korea may one day have a missile that could touch the continental 
United States. What that argues for is talks with North Korea, not the 
beginning of a new worldwide arms race.
  The fourth reason why this bill is wrong is that it lacks adequate 
funding for the cooperative threat reduction program, Nunn-Lugar, which 
helps in denuclearization and demilitarization of the states of the 
former Soviet Union. Nunn-Lugar has proven real and successful and 
effective in reducing nuclear threats, yet this program receives only 
$143 million in comparison to a total of $5.2 billion for an imaginary 
ballistic missile technology, the NMD, which has proven to be 
unworkable and easily defeated by countermeasures.
  Fifth, the NMD is a waste of taxpayers' money: $2.2 billion for a 
system which everyone knows does not and cannot work will only serve to 
undermine taxpayers' confidence in the spending for the military.
  Today's Washington Post reports that three high-level Pentagon 
officials, who have served in this administration are saying that a 
national defense missile system is expensive and unnecessarily 
alienating to the Russians. The Russians just passed START II and a 
comprehensive test ban treaty. We are saying the Cold War is over. If 
the Cold War is over, what are we doing putting together a national 
missile defense shield?
  The officials conclude in The Washington Post that the development 
and testing of the system is not mature enough for the United States to 
make a confident deployment decision this year.
  Let us recommit to nuclear arms reduction. Let us recommit to nuclear 
disarmament. Let us do this for ourselves and future generations. There 
is no security in a future saturated with nuclear weapons. The Cold War 
is over. The benefits of the end of the Cold War ought to start coming 
back to the taxpayers, not to arms contractors for a missile shield 
that does not work.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the bill that my friend, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), was talking about with regard to 
subvention was written in San Diego by my veterans. It was actually 
written before I became a Member of Congress in 1990, and we support 
that particular bill.
  The gentleman from Mississippi has got good intentions on this. There 
are many of us that would like this bill to come forward, and we have 
talked to both the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and to the 
Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). But let me tell my 
colleagues something. Before we shut this House down, I would say to my 
friend, it is important that we move forward. Subvention, Tri-Care, 
FEHBP, we have promised our military veterans too long that we are 
going to take care of them. We are losing thousands of World War II 
veterans every month. If we wait and keep on delaying, those veterans 
are not going to get the care that was promised to them.
  We looked at the subvention bill itself. When I originally introduced 
the subvention bill, we had it as 100 percent. Because of the cost 
analysis and different reasons, the White House said no, we want to 
make it a pilot program. They were going to limit it just to two, one 
in the Senate and one here. It was my bill and my hospital was not even 
going to get in the subvention mix. I fought tooth, hook, and nail, and 
we were able to get that expanded.
  But even then we were stopped. And if my colleagues will look at why 
subvention and some of these others have not passed, the White House 
itself did not push. DOD did not push these bills. Matter of fact, they 
told people if they got involved with subvention or FEHBP, they may not 
get back onto the regular program. So the numbers were very, very 
deficient. And they put out outlandish numbers; that the cost would 
reach out too much.
  I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, that I will 
work with him. But he is also aware that whether it is Tri-Care, 
whether it is FEHBP, and I personally think FEHBP, which a civilian 
has, is better than my original subvention. The same thing that a 
civilian Federal worker has that will guarantee subsistence beyond 
Medicare will actually be better. But the commission, Republicans and 
Democrats, were put together and tasked with what do we need to put 
together to really keep the promise of our health care promises to our 
veterans.
  I remember in 1993, when the other side of the aisle increased taxes, 
increased spending and they cut military COLAs. They cut veterans' 
COLAs and

[[Page 8128]]

they increased taxes on Social Security. So what we are saying, there 
is fault on both sides. Do not try to demagogue the veterans issue. 
Work with us in providing this health care plan.
  We are well aware that the White House came over to the Democrat 
leadership and now every single bill the minority leadership is going 
to try to stop, to show a do-nothing Congress. Every one of these 
bills, whether it is riders, whether it is this issue, the Democrats 
are going to try to shut down the House or delay and end up with a 
monumental appropriations package at the end because the White House 
wants $20 billion more. Will they get some of that? Probably, yes, 
because we cannot control the Senate. But what the minority wants is to 
where they can get the whole $20 billion and work in taking the 
majority. I think that is disingenuous.
  I support the gentleman from Mississippi, and I think he is very, 
very caring in what he wants to do for veterans. But look at the big 
picture and help us work through this process. Support this rule. Let 
us push on forward and let us work for the betterment of the American 
people.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, all that the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is 
asking for is a vote. All he is asking for is the House to have the 
opportunity to vote on his proposal. That is not an unreasonable 
proposition. All the platitudes on the other side will not do any good 
if they do not give us a vote on the Taylor amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his comments. I certainly do not 
claim to be the inventor of subvention. Someone else is. It might 
possibly be the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). It is a 
good idea, though.
  What I would like to tell the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) is that he is right. I am disappointed also that the 
administration has not been more helpful. But a reading of the 
Constitution will tell both of us that no money may be drawn from the 
Treasury except by an appropriation by Congress.
  Just because the administration did not help enough no way absolves 
us from doing our job. I am asking for the opportunity for the 435 
Members of this body to do their job, to take care of our military 
retirees. I hope the gentleman will help me in that effort.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  As the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Rules know, 
the rule makes in order my amendment to provide the Department of 
Energy additional tools to manage the reduction of the overall number 
of Federal employees in the workforce at Rocky Flats and the other 
nuclear weapons facilities while also keeping those sites on track for 
expedited closure. In addition, the DOE would be able to provide 
assistance for employees to make successful transitions to retirement 
and new careers.
  I am here to say that I greatly appreciate the Committee on Rules for 
allowing this important matter to be considered. I also appreciate the 
cooperation and assistance of the leadership and staff of the Committee 
on Armed Services and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
Based on my discussions with them, I have agreed to some revisions in 
the amendment; and it is my understanding that the amendment, with 
those revisions, probably will be included as part the en bloc managers 
amendment.
  Here is a brief description of the revised amendment:
  The amendment deals with the DOE weapons sites that are scheduled for 
expedited cleanup and closure--(1) Rocky Flats in Colorado and (2) 
several sites in Ohio: Fernald, Columbus, Miamisburg, and Ashtabula.
  The amendment is based on an Administration request. It would give 
DOE additional tools to meet the challenge of downsizing the federal 
workforce in ways that will both facilitate accelerated closure of the 
site and also assist DOE's employees to make successful transitions to 
retirement or new careers.
  DOE wants this authority as a way to avoid reliance on the standard 
reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures by offering incentives for some 
employees to voluntarily separate and for others to remain.
  The goal is to manage the reduction in the overall number of federal 
employees at the site while still retaining the proper mix of people 
with needed skills despite the high attrition rates that can be 
expected as closure approaches--so, the amendment would allow DOE to 
offer incentives for some people to leave early and for others to 
remain.
  Similar--not identical--language has been incorporated as section 
3155 of the Senate version of the bill. As modified, the amendment 
would allow DOE to authorize--additional accumulation of annual leave; 
payment of lump-sum retention allowances; and continuation of health-
care benefits for employees who are separated (voluntarily or 
involuntarily) from Rocky Flats or one of the other sides covered by 
the amendment.
  The amendment would require inclusion of information about the use of 
these incentives in the required periodic reports on the closure.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I am 
disappointed with the rule as it stands before the body. But the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is very urgent 
for the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Committee 
on Rules to reconsider their decision on many amendments that do not 
appear before the House today.
  The bill before us builds upon last year's achievements and continues 
our efforts to improve the quality of life for our military personnel 
retirees and their families. I am particularly pleased that the bill 
includes several provisions, which I support, to improve the military 
health care system, particularly for our Medicare-eligible retirees and 
their families.
  This year, the Year of Health Care, we have made significant 
improvements in the military health care system in response to concerns 
raised by service members, retirees, and their families. The health 
care provisions of this bill will greatly improve their quality of 
life, particularly for Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents.
  The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program will restore access to the 
National Mail Order Pharmacy, the network retail pharmacies, and the 
out-of-network pharmacies. It is a major step towards improving health 
care for our Medicare-eligible retirees. We have improved access to 
TRICARE. We have reduced and streamlined the administrative costs, and 
we are using the savings to improve health care benefits for our 
military personnel, retirees and their families.
  I am particularly pleased that this bill includes provisions which we 
have supported on our side of the aisle, and I am particularly pleased 
to have been able to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman 
Buyer) to see that everything has been included.
  It includes improvements to pay, it reduces out-of-pocket housing 
costs for service members, and provides funding for the Military Thrift 
Savings Plan. These provisions help us build upon our achievements of 
last year, which was the Year of the Troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, for their leadership in producing a bipartisan bill that will 
improve the lives of our service members.
  I particularly want to commend again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) for working with me and other members on the committee to ensure 
that our men and women in uniform have the quality of life that they 
deserve.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 8129]]

  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just like to say that H.R. 4205 
is a very good bill. I would like to commend the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Chairman Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member, for bringing it forward with excellent 
bipartisan cooperation. It is a difficult challenge with defense 
because of so many needs and not enough dollars to go around, but they 
have done an excellent job this year.
  I would also like to reassure the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member, that the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules are very sensitive to the 
issue of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and will work to 
achieve a satisfactory result.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boehner). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 201, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baldacci
     Campbell
     Coburn
     Collins
     Crowley
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Largent
     Lipinski
     McIntosh
     Stupak
     Udall (NM)
     Wamp

                              {time}  1226

  Messrs. Maloney of Connecticut, Strickland, Hall of Texas, Rahall, 
Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Lampson, and Mr. Pastor changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________