[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17915-17918]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2586, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 246 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 246

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 2586) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes. No 
     further amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     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. All points of order against such 
     amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing 
for further consideration of H.R. 2586, the fiscal year 2002 Department 
of Defense Authorization Act. The rule makes in order only those 
amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the 
resolution, which may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
of the Whole. The rule

[[Page 17916]]

waives all points of order against such amendments. Finally, the rule 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows us to finish up our work on the defense 
bill. All of us on both sides of the aisle recognize that we must 
provide for our military in this time of crisis. The gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
deserve great credit for coming together this week to grease the skids 
on this bill.
  The rule simply ratifies their agreement by providing for five 
amendments. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is managing the 
rule for the minority, worked hard on one of these amendments. In the 
wake of the terrorist attacks 2 weeks ago, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) worked to ensure 
that the Pentagon commends its civilian employees who are killed and 
injured by terrorist attacks by awarding them a medal for the defense 
of freedom. This is a new medal to recognize civilian Department of 
Defense employees who are injured in the line of duty.
  The rule makes in order another amendment that I strongly oppose, an 
amendment to allow abortions on our military bases overseas. There is 
no place for abortion at our sensitive foreign bases.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, in addition to a noncontroversial manager's 
amendment, the rule provides for two amendments that would beef up our 
military's ability to fight terrorism. All of America realizes how 
important this is. We can leave nothing to chance. The primary purpose 
of our Federal Government is to defend our citizens, and the military 
is our primary source of that defense.
  The need for these amendments is all too clear. We must act quickly 
to give our men and women the tools that they need to patrol our 
borders and prevent terrorist attacks to protect us.
  So let us pass this rule and pass the underlying defense 
authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will have provided $343 
billion to our Armed Forces, the largest increase in support for our 
military since the 1980s. At this crucial time in our history, this 
bill is most important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I am glad that today the 
House of Representatives will complete this bill, H.R. 2586, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. It is a good 
example of the bipartisan support America's Armed Forces enjoy. It 
passed the Committee on Armed Services on a bipartisan vote of 58 to 1. 
That is because Democrats and Republicans are strongly committed to a 
first-rate military that will protect this Nation and its people and 
that will maintain our position as the chief protector of democracy and 
the rule of law throughout the world.
  Since the horror of September 11, Mr. Speaker, America's commitment 
to the finest military in the world has only become stronger. That is 
clear from the hard work that went into reaching bipartisan consensus 
in this rule.
  In the interest of national unity, several of the military's 
strongest defenders on the Democratic side agreed to forego important 
priorities. For example, I am disappointed that the manager's amendment 
strips out the provision of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) 
to make contracting procedures more equitable for Department of Defense 
civilian employees, a provision that was passed by the Committee on 
Armed Services. Last night, Democrats on the Committee on Rules tried 
to restore this important provision, but failed in a party line vote. I 
hope that we can revisit this issue at a later date.
  On the other hand, I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It 
provides $400 million for intelligence and counterterrorism initiatives 
by reducing the President's request for national missile defense. It 
reflects how America's national defense priorities have changed since 
September 11.
  The rule also makes in order an amendment by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) to restore equal access to health services at 
overseas military hospitals for service men and women and their 
dependents stationed overseas.
  Finally, I personally appreciate the work of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Dreier) to recognize the sacrifice of Defense Department civilians 
killed or injured at the Pentagon on September 11. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) is a sense of the Congress 
resolution commending the Defense Department's decision to create a new 
award, a medal for the defense of freedom, to be awarded to Defense 
Department civilian employees killed or wounded as a result of 
terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, we urge the Secretary of Defense to move quickly to 
produce and present this new medal. These medals are typically awarded 
about the time of burial, and the Defense Department is now in the 
process of identifying the civilians killed in the September 11 attack 
on the Pentagon.
  Until 1998, Mr. Speaker, civilian employees of the Defense Department 
were eligible for the Purple Heart, an honor begun by the Kennedy 
administration and continued during the Reagan Administration. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) would ensure 
that once again they can receive the recognition they deserve for their 
service to America.
  As for the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it makes 
crucial quality of life improvements by raising military pay, improving 
military housing, and ensuring medical care for military retirees for 
the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families.
  I am also pleased that the Committee on Armed Services has continued 
its commitment to the wide range of weapons programs that ensure our 
military's superiority throughout the world. The bill includes $865 
million for research and development of the F-22 Raptor, the next 
generation air dominance fighter for the Air Force, as well as $2.7 
billion for 13 low-rate initial production aircraft, and $379 million 
for advance procurement of 24 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2003.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 also includes $1.5 billion for continued 
development of the Joint Strike fighter and $1 billion for the 
procurement of 12 MV-22 helicopters. These aircraft are important 
components in our national arsenal, and moving forward on their 
research and development sends a clear signal that the United States 
has no intention of relinquishing our air superiority.
  Mr. Speaker, the first duty of the Congress is 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 of our men and women in uniform, as well as for their 
families. For that reason, I urge the adoption of this rule and of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 
Acevedo-Vila).
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the House today finally 
agrees on a rule to approve H.R. 2586, that will authorize the adequate 
funds for the Defense Department at this critical time, but I want to 
clarify some issues with regard to Puerto Ricans and Puerto Rico's 
commitment at this moment to the Nation.
  Puerto Ricans will continue to support this great Nation and 
President George W. Bush in efforts to fight against the horrific 
elements of terrorism. Let no one question our commitment. Governor 
Calderon and I have reached out to support those directly impacted by 
the cowardly acts of September 11, 2001. Some 800 Puerto Ricans died 
that day in the Pentagon and in New York. We stand in steadfast support 
of efforts to realize justice and to heal the many wounds inflicted on 
America. We recognize that this bill works toward that commitment.
  Nevertheless, I am concerned, however, about language contained in 
the

[[Page 17917]]

chairman's mark that would, if enacted, alter the commitment of the 
Navy to find sufficient alternative training grounds to Vieques by May 
1, 2003. I am also concerned about how this change in policy will be 
received in Puerto Rico should it become law. We reaffirm our support 
of President Bush's position that there is no need for another 
referendum and that the Navy depart Vieques on or before May 1, 2003.
  Furthermore, since Navy Secretary Gordon England yesterday stated in 
a letter dated September 24, 2001, to Senate Committee on Armed 
Services Committee Chairman Levin that the Navy will meet its goal of 
May 1, 2003, there is no need to change the existing commitment. Such a 
change would create confusion and distrust in Vieques. We do not need 
that at this time of national unity.
  I am confident that the President, this House, and the Senate will 
comply with the commitment made to the people of Vieques that the Navy 
will leave Vieques by 2003.
  I want my colleagues to appreciate how committed Puerto Ricans are to 
our national defense. All of the recruitment goals of the armed 
services have been surpassed in Puerto Rico over the last 4 years. Even 
as this issue has been discussed on the island, young Puerto Ricans 
enlist to serve our Nation in numbers that increase year after year and 
exceed recruiting goals of our armed services, including the Navy.
  Puerto Rico's support of this Nation is unconditional. However, I 
believe that the administration can still meet the commitment to find 
alternatives to Vieques by May 1, 2003.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the gentleman 
from Puerto Rico that I hope he will accept our condolences for all of 
the people of Puerto Rico who lost their lives in that senseless act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Both the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and I had asked that amendments be 
made in order that deal with base closure. They were not made in order; 
but in the spirit of comity, we understand why that is the situation.
  However, the other body has clearly made its preferences clear, and 
this will be an item at conference. Secretary Rumsfeld also made a very 
strong statement within the last 24 hours that he believes the events 
of 2 weeks ago in Washington and New York bring home even more the 
importance of finding dollars to save as we transform our military into 
dealing with the threats of the future. So while we will not have any 
language in this defense bill today that deals with base closure, I 
believe that at conference, we need to improve the language of the 
Senate so that those communities that go through this process hopefully 
can have more peace of mind than they did in previous rounds of base 
closure. We need to do base closure, and at some point we will save an 
additional $3 billion a year that can go into items that we need to 
deal with the threats of the future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this 
opportunity to oppose this rule.
  I find at a time when we are getting ready to ask another generation 
of Americans to lay their lives on the line for our Nation, that we are 
now willing to fulfill a promise made to previous generations of 
Americans who have served our country. One of the many promises that 
were made to the men and women in uniform was the promise of free 
lifetime health care. The implied promise for almost all of those 
people who served and enlisted back then was that the base hospital 
would be made available to them for the rest of their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, after some effort to get an amendment to the 
floor, 406 of my colleagues voted to pass something called Medicare 
subvention, which would allow 65-year-old military retirees to use the 
base hospital and for Medicare to reimburse that base hospital so that 
there was no cost to the DOD for providing health care to our Nation's 
military retirees. Our military retirees, like every other American, 
pay Medicare taxes. This would allow them to take those Medicare taxes 
to the doctor of their choice.
  Unfortunately, the other body, after we passed that by such a large 
vote, chose not to include that in the final version of the defense 
authorization bill. They took our language that said ``you must do it'' 
and said ``you may do it.'' Unfortunately, events have shown that 
neither HCFA, which is Medicare, nor the DOD could reach an agreement 
on the compensation.
  So now, because the Committee on Rules said we would have to waive 
the budget rule, we cannot take care of our Nation's military retirees. 
I guess the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and I would be the 
only two guys in this room to know that there is a song by the Isley 
Brothers called ``Harvest for the World.'' The rhetorical question is 
why do those who pay the price come home with the least? Mr. Speaker, 
if these Americans have paid the price, then why are they coming home 
with the least?
  We are told that for hundreds of millions of dollars, we cannot 
reimburse the base hospitals with their own Medicare money. Mr. 
Speaker, 31 times this year, the Committee on Rules has seen fit to 
waive the budget rules; but almost always, it was for someone who had a 
big PAC, folks who made big contributions. Well, military retirees do 
not have big PACs; and they do not make big contributions, not the 
least donation-wise. What they have done is contributed their lives to 
our Nation, and we are not even willing to see to it that we can keep 
the promise to them.
  So I am going to oppose this rule, and I would ask my fellow 
colleagues to oppose it.
  I would also like to point out that one more budget tightening that 
is going on has to do with concurrent receipt. Federal employees who 
are disabled on the workplace are allowed to draw their disability and 
their retirement pay. Once again, the only Americans who are singled 
out to get one or the other are our Nation's military retirees. As the 
President just pointed out, we are going to have casualties in this war 
against terrorism; and if those casualties happen to have been someone 
who served our Nation for 20 years or more, and if they become disabled 
as a result of their military service, they will get their disability; 
but it will be deducted from their retirement pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues, the Committee on Rules, I want the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, I want somebody to come to this floor and tell me that that is 
fair. Just last week we bailed out the airlines, and I voted for it, 
and some of the people we bailed out make $20 million and $30 million a 
year to run those companies, and they have not run them very well. We 
have seen to it that the wealthiest 5 percent of all Americans got more 
than their fair share of 1 trillion, 200 billion dollars worth of tax 
breaks; but we cannot take care of folks who have been disabled serving 
their country, and we cannot honor the promise of lifetime health care 
to our Nation's military retirees.
  I want the Speaker of the House, I want the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas), I want someone to come forward and just tell me if they 
think that is fair, because if we are willing to do it behind the cloak 
of secrecy, if we are willing to get the folks on the Committee on 
Rules to do our dirty work for us, then please do not have the nerve 2 
months from now to go to Veterans' Day celebrations, and when that 
military retiree comes to you and says, you know what, they will not 
let me in the base hospital, and when that disabled veteran comes to 
you, and says, you know what, I can get my military pay or disability 
pay, but I have earned both of them, and I cannot get both, you can 
look that guy in the eye and say, well, I was not aware of that, and 
maybe he will forget about it a year from November, or you can tell him 
the truth: yes, I knew you had a problem, but we were trying to move 
that bill along, so we just ignored you one more time.

[[Page 17918]]

  Just last week we found $18 billion to bail out the airlines. The 
week before that we allocated $40 billion additional defense funds, but 
not one of those pennies is allocated to solve either one of these 
problems. Does somebody want to tell me that is right? This defense 
bill is more famous for what it does not do. It does not balance the 
budget. As of the end of August, even before the tragedy on September 
11, our Nation was $31 billion in the red, again. It does not build 
ships. At the rate we are going, we are losing 15 ships a year, that is 
the impact, and headed towards a 200 ship fleet. I say to my 
colleagues, not the 400-ship fleet of just a few years ago and not the 
600-ship fleet of the Reagan years. So someone tell me where the heck 
all the money goes and why we cannot set better priorities.
  So for a lot of reasons, on behalf of my 405 colleagues who supported 
Medicare subvention last year, and who only asked for a fair up and 
down vote on that issue so that we can fulfill the promise to our 
Nation's military retirees, I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers. I urge 
adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. 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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________