[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10110-10120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 648

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the

[[Page 10111]]

     House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4200) 
     to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and 
     shall not exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report (except as specified in section 4 of this resolution), 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, 
     shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a 
     demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. Each amendment printed in the report 
     shall be debatable for 10 minutes (unless otherwise specified 
     in the report) equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one 
     pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any 
     pending amendment).
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included in 
     such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than one hour after 
     the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee 
     announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1130

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

[[Page 10112]]

  Now more than anytime in our Nation's history, we are relying on 
these men and women who so faithfully serve our country in the National 
Guard. H.R. 4200 contains language that will help us to continue to 
provide strong support for our National Guard.
  In my State of North Carolina, universities and community 
organizations will be coming together to help develop a comprehensive 
program to effectively support these soldiers. The bill recognizes the 
importance of this program and provides language to help integrate the 
National Program for Citizen Soldier support with the Defense 
Department's ongoing effort to support our men and women in uniform.
  The bill also recognizes the importance of our Nation's continued 
development of advanced weaponry and technology. Included in this bill 
is the support of further exploration of the use of lithium batteries 
on the battlefield.
  Finding a safe, cost-effective, and portable energy source for our 
men and women in the Armed Forces should be a top priority of the 
Department of Defense. I am pleased to see this year's bill addresses 
the need for our military to develop new and powerful alternative 
energy sources.
  However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order 
that I strongly oppose, the Davis of California amendment. It would 
allow abortions on our military bases overseas. Military treatment 
centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not 
be forced to facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the 
child in the womb. For the past 7 years, the House has voted to keep 
abortion on demand out of military medical facilities, and I urge my 
colleagues to stay on this course and vote against this amendment.
  That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass the rule and pass the 
underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will 
be making our homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and 
daughters who are serving us in the military. We will be preparing for 
war, thereby ensuring victory. And at this crucial time in our history, 
this bill is most important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is 
always one of the most important bills this Congress considers. Having 
spent my last 25 years in Congress working hard to ensure a strong 
national defense, it is a bill that I have always supported, and this 
year the defense authorization bill is more important than ever.
  This past December, I spent several days in Iraq where I had the 
opportunity to meet with rank-and-file soldiers on the front lines and 
thank them personally for their distinguished service and personal 
sacrifice. And I was reminded of this enormous sacrifice upon my 
return. The cargo plane that took us out of Baghdad carried the coffins 
of two American soldiers who had been killed just 3 days before 
Christmas.
  It seems like almost every night, Americans turn on the news at home 
and see nothing but reports of the violence in Iraq and hear comments 
from politicians and pundits debating decisions made here in 
Washington. But when I turn on NBC News or CNN or any of the other 
networks, I cannot help but recall the selflessness and courage that I 
saw in our soldiers, and the mix of pride and sorrow I felt on that 
flight home.
  America's sons and daughters in Iraq represent our country well, but 
their job continues to be very difficult and very dangerous, and it 
will not be over anytime soon. It is clear that American troops will be 
based in Iraq for at least the next year and possibly longer.
  And that is why the bill before us today is so important. Before 
anything else, the defense authorization bill is a bill to support our 
troops. The funding in the bill today will keep our service men and 
women in Iraq and around the world safe, provide them with the tools 
they need to fight the war on terror, and give them and their families 
a better quality of life.
  First and foremost, we provide $25 billion in supplemental funding 
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that our troops have 
everything they need to conduct the war on terror and return home to 
their families safely. We provide over $1 billion for armored Humvees 
and body armor. We help ensure the strength of our military by adding 
39,000 more Army and Marine Corps troops.
  We make sure that our troops experience a good quality of life by 
giving them a 3.5 percent pay raise, and we help ensure that all of our 
fighting men and women receive health care by expanding TRICARE 
coverage to Reservists and their dependents.
  The bill also helps those who have served our country so honorably 
over the years by making sure that those who are left behind when a 
soldier falls receive the full benefits that they deserve through the 
Survivor Benefit Plan.
  And while there are a great many provisions here we can take pride 
in, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is by no means perfect. There 
remain a number of serious issues that we must resolve.
  This morning, in the Committee on Rules, my colleagues and I tried to 
offer an amendment to the rule which would have more than doubled the 
amount authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 
supplemental. Similarly, we tried to provide $414 million to provide 
fair pay and benefits for our troops.
  There are a great many Members who support these provisions, Mr. 
Speaker. They have broad support throughout the House, but they were, 
like dozens of other important amendments offered in the Committee on 
Rules, denied a vote on the floor by the Republican leadership. That is 
a shame, Mr. Speaker, because we all want what is best for our troops.
  Because this House was denied the opportunity to consider a great 
many important amendments, I will be voting ``no'' on today's rule. I 
will also be urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we 
may consider one of the amendments that was denied, the amendment of 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to provide fair pay and 
benefits for the troops.
  That said, despite what happened at the Committee on Rules this 
morning, I stand in strong support of the underlying bill and our 
troops. There has never been any doubt that this House, this Nation, 
and its people stand 100 percent behind our men and women in uniform, 
fighting to secure peace the world over.
  I hope we can soon continue the discussion on how best to provide for 
our service men and women and keep our Nation safe. And although I will 
be voting against the rule today, I will be voting for the underlying 
bill. It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting ``yes'' on the authorization bill today.
  I only wish that the majority leadership, in the spirit of 
bipartisanship that normally surrounds defense measures, had permitted 
some very important amendments to be offered. And we will be hearing 
from some of my colleagues in the rest of the debate on this rule about 
how strongly they feel about their rights being denied here on the 
floor today.

                              {time}  1145

  When we are trying to promote our military and trying to do the right 
thing around the world, we should promote democracy here on the floor 
of the House and not stifle it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for the defense 
authorization bill. In total, this rule provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate 
on a number of key issues affecting our military and our national 
defense. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4200, passed the Committee on 
Armed Services by a vote of 60 to 0, and it meets the challenges of a 
Nation

[[Page 10113]]

whose soldiers are at work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe 
in the fight against terror.
  Following almost 5 hours of hearings yesterday in the Committee on 
Rules, we have provided the opportunity for further debate by making in 
order 28 amendments, including 10 Democrat amendments, 15 Republican 
amendments, and three bipartisan.
  This is a fair and traditional rule for a DoD authorization bill that 
will permit the House to support our Nation's men and women in uniform 
and ensure that our defense capabilities remain second to none while 
having excellent debate later today on a wide array of amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this important bill falls well in line with what the 
Founders envisioned when they crafted article I, section 8 of the U.S. 
Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to 
``raise and support Armies,'' as well as to ``provide and maintain a 
Navy.''
  Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, our Nation bore witness to one of 
the most horrific crimes in history. Today, our Nation's servicemen and 
-women are fighting for freedom in the civilized world on multiple 
fronts across the globe. Our commitment to these ideals depends on our 
military and our military personnel, and this bill is a statement that 
we will continue to defend freedom and ensure that our homeland remains 
safe.
  First, this legislation provides the funding needed to continue the 
U.S. military's transition into the 21st century. H.R. 4200 authorizes 
nearly $2 billion for the U.S. Army to procure weapons-tracked combat 
vehicles; $10 billion for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and 
conversion; and over $13.5 billion for the U.S. Air force to procure 
additional aircraft. The authorization for these and other programs 
will help ensure that the U.S. military remains the most efficient, 
most lethal, and most effective fighting force in the world.
  But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly hope to maintain the level of 
excellence obtained by the U.S. military without the achievements of 
the men and women who proudly wear the uniform. I am continually 
impressed by the resolve, patriotism, and commitment exhibited by these 
heroes day in and day out. As such, this Congress must work to 
reinforce this strength, and H.R. 4200 makes good progress towards that 
end.
  I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 3.5 percent 
pay increase in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 4200 also 
recommends the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses military personnel 
must contribute toward housing costs. Both of these provisions will not 
only help ease the burden placed on military personnel and their 
families but should also help to ensure that the U.S. military is able 
to retain these highly trained personnel.
  Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that not everyone will be 
satisfied with this measure. What we must remember, however, is that 
the primary responsibility of this government is to provide for the 
common defense of this country. As one of the Founders put it, wise and 
free people direct their attentions first to their own safety.
  As such, I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and the 
underlying measure, H.R. 4200, to not only uphold the obligations of 
the Congress and the Federal Government, but also to show our men and 
women in uniform that their service to this Nation and their fellow 
Americans does not now nor will it ever go unappreciated.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services, who was denied the opportunity to offer 
key amendments.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule; I rise in 
strong opposition to the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorely distressed over this rule. The base bill 
that our Committee on Armed Services worked on and put out is a pretty 
good bill. We have done some good things, particularly for the troops. 
But I raise the question as to why in the world the Committee on Rules, 
at my request to have 6 hours of debate, 3 hours on each side on a $422 
billion bill, has limited it to 2 hours, 1 hour on each side. Is the 
Committee on Rules majority afraid of debate?
  Specifically, there are several issues we need to debate. This is the 
crucible of democracy; young men, young women in uniform, all across 
this world, all across the globe, standing firm for democracy and 
decency and what we stand for. And we are limited in our debate time?
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that they limit us. We should discuss the 
cost of the war in Iraq; the cost of the war in Afghanistan; the role 
of contractors. This is a serious role that has arisen recently and 
that needs to be discussed on the floor of this House.
  The issue of the Iraqi prisoner detainee abuse, which has flooded the 
world news media, needs to be talked about from both sides of the 
aisle; and the transition to a new government in Iraq, on June 30, 
which we really have no idea what it will look like, needs a discussion 
and a thorough airing here in this Chamber. These are important issues, 
and we are limited to 1 hour on each side to discuss them.
  I am sorry that has happened. Two hours is not nearly enough. It does 
the young men and young women in uniform a disservice, it does 
democracy in this Chamber a disservice.
  Mr. Speaker, I also pointed out four amendments that I wished to be 
made in order, and only one was approved by the Committee on Rules. I 
studied the amendments; and, as ranking member of the Committee on 
Armed Services, I thought I spoke with some knowledge.
  These are serious, thoughtful amendments which, I believe, deserve 
full and extended debate on the House floor. These issue areas and the 
amendments to which I refer are:
  Sanchez amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice to 
bring it into conformity with modern criminal sexual assault statutes;
  Cooper/Ryan amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
  Spratt amendment on increasing pay for our troops and their quality 
of life by making targeted cuts in missile defense programs; and
  Tauscher amendment on Department of Energy nuclear weapons policy.
  Only one of these, the Tauscher amendment, was made in order. This is 
simply unacceptable. These are serious amendments that try to deal 
responsibly with complex issues. They reflect broadly held views by 
members on this side. A meaningful debate on these issues would reflect 
well on the House and would serve the country well. The failure to make 
them in order is disappointing, unfair and reflects badly on the House. 
It is an outrage!
  If the previous question is defeated, the House will have the chance 
to at least partially redress this wrong by considering the Spratt 
amendment, which will directly benefit the troops.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to 
vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the 2005 National Defense 
Authorization Act and the rule. This bill contains tremendous support 
for our military. Among those items that I think are particularly 
noteworthy is increased housing benefits for our troops; a pay raise, 
including an increased pay raise for hardship duty; additional health 
care benefits for Reservists; additional armor for Humvees; body armor; 
better survivor benefits; an increase of 30,000 troops, which I think 
at the present time we very badly need; and the most efficient weapons 
system available.
  A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I visited Landstuhl Hospital in 
Germany, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and talked to an awful lot of our 
troops over there; and I was singularly impressed with the quality, the 
commitment, and the expertise of the troops that I met. This was one 
week before Christmas, and yet I did not hear one complaint from any 
one of the soldiers that I talked to. They seemed to have a 
tremendously strong sense of mission.
  A young captain from my home State of Nebraska who had been away from

[[Page 10114]]

his wife and infant child for 1 year made two comments that stuck with 
me that I think are worth repeating.
  First of all, he said that it is better that we fight terrorists here 
in the Middle East than we fight them at home. I think that all of us 
realize we are not completely immune from terrorism on these shores. 
However, we would also have to recognize the fact that terrorism has 
certainly been crippled. It has had to focus its attacks primarily in 
the Middle East. It certainly has made the United States a safer place 
over the last year and a half.
  Then the second comment that he made I think is particularly 
important. He said it is really important that the American people not 
lose patience, and I would say that includes Congress as well, because 
the captain was proud of the accomplishments that our military had 
accomplished in that area.
  What he was pointing out, simply, was the improvement in the 
infrastructure; the increase in commerce in that part of the world; the 
improvement in health care; the fact that infants, young people, about 
90 percent of them had been vaccinated in Iraq; the improvement in 
government, at least the potential for a representative government to 
be formed.
  So we certainly believe that the quality of people we have over there 
is exceptional, they deserve our support, and this bill does that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have served here for 22 years and served 
all those years on the House Committee on Armed Services, and today I 
am the recognize second ranking Democrat on that committee; and if 
there is any comity left in this institution, surely I should have the 
right to offer one well-considered, carefully crafted, very serious 
amendment. That is what I proposed. That is what I offered.
  I knew that the Committee on Rules had been narrowing down the debate 
for years and years, so I went prepared to the Committee on Rules and 
asked for simply one amendment.
  Now, I do not stand here in personal pique because my amendment has 
not been made in order. Far from it. It is not that this rule shuts me 
out or shuts out the people I represent in South Carolina. It shuts out 
our troops. It shuts out our sergeants and warrant officers. It denies 
every trooper who goes into combat the opportunity to have $250,000 of 
group life insurance at Uncle Sam's expense. That is what it does.
  The amendment that I proposed would take $414 million out of 
ballistic missile defense and move it, first of all, $300 million for 
targeted pay increases for noncommissioned officers, NCOs, who bear the 
burden of fighting, who are the backbone of our military in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. These personnel, grades E-5 through E-9, are the troops we 
need most to keep. If they vote with their feet and leave the Army, we 
will have a broken Army.
  What I proposed is what the Quadrennial Review proposed 3 years ago, 
what we have voted up twice in the last 2 fiscal years, but do not in 
this budget, is a targeted increase for these troops.
  In addition, I proposed we take 25 to $50 million and say to every 
soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine going into harm's way, into combat, 
once you draw imminent danger pay, the Government of the United States 
of America will pick up the premium, we will provide you with $250,000 
in group life insurance, SGLI, a great idea.
  It is the least we can do for these troops. After all, we did, and I 
think rightly, $1.4 million in average benefits for the victims of 9/
11. Can we not guarantee our troops in combat at least $250,000 in 
light of that?
  So what they have denied me with this rule is the opportunity to have 
a hearty, healthy debate on our priorities. Can we take a little bit 
out of a program that is slated to increase by $1.2 billion, take $400 
million out of it and move it around, put it into a pay raise for our 
NCOs and our warrant officers, put it into a life insurance premium for 
our troops? And then take a little bit of it and deal with some 
problems in ballistic missile defense, which this budget, for all it 
does for BMD, does not do, for example to Patriot-3s. It took out a 
Tornado, it took out an F/A-18. We need to put more money into IFF, 
Identification Friend Or Foe.

                              {time}  1200

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

[[Page 10115]]

have wiped out the pay gap for Reservists and National Guardsmen 
immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, for the soldiers who suffer from the pay gap, the 
proposal in the legislation we are considering is too little and too 
late. In a time of war, it is unconscionable to impose all of the 
sacrifice on one segment of society. Yet, the administration and the 
Republicans in this House continue to back massive tax cuts for the 
wealthiest, placing financial burdens on other groups, including the 
Reservists and members of the National Guard who are already 
sacrificing so much for all of us.
  It is an outrage that this body is not allowed to vote, not allowed 
to vote on providing members of our National Guard and our Reserves 
some financial relief. My amendment, which would provide immediate help 
to the tens of thousands of Reservists and members of the National 
Guard, was ruled out of order. Why? Because the Republican leadership 
is convinced that were we to debate my amendment freely on this floor, 
it would pass overwhelmingly.
  It is an outrage to the Reservists and members of the National Guard 
that we are denied that opportunity. I urge all of my colleagues to 
oppose this unfair, unequitable and undemocratic rule.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

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

[[Page 10116]]


  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, every fair-minded Member of this House 
should be outraged at the rule we are being forced to debate under 
today. Two hours, a giant piece of legislation will be rammed through 
this House in 2 hours, less than 15 seconds per Member of this body; 
less than 15 seconds for each 700,000 group of constituents that we 
have the honor of representing; less than 15 seconds each to talk about 
over one-half of all the domestic discretionary spending of the United 
States of America; less than 15 seconds per Member to talk about the 
defense budget of the United States at a time of war; less than 15 
seconds per Member to talk about a defense budget that is larger than 
every other defense budget in the world put together; less than 15 
seconds per Member to talk about the needs of our troops in the field 
while they are fighting a war.

                              {time}  1215

  There will be no real debate allowed under this rule for properly 
funding our troops. It is true, thank goodness, that finally under 
pressure that the Republicans have put in $25 billion to fund our 
troops in kind of an emergency supplemental, but the truth is our 
troops need more money than that. They are running out of money now. 
Let me repeat, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are running out of 
money now.
  The Pentagon is already having to raid every cookie jar in the 
building to try to fund their needs. We should do better by our troops. 
We should fully fund their needs. We should tell the truth to the 
American people about the real cost of this war, which is a lot closer 
to $200 billion than any other number.
  I had an amendment that we wanted to debate and discuss that would 
have put in $67 billion for our troops so that funding would not just 
start in October, as intended by the Republican majority and, as they 
put it, end in December and January. They are fully funding about 3 or 
4 months of this war to disguise the true cost of it. We should fund 
the needs of our troops for an entire year, and we should be proud of 
it.
  With all the life-threatening risks that our men and women face in 
uniform overseas, financial uncertainties should not be an additional 
risk; yet that is what is being imposed on them by this body with this 
simplistic rule which is 2 hours of debate, less than 15 seconds per 
Member to talk about the true needs of our troops.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina, unfortunately, was absent from 
the Committee on Rules when I testified. There were only two Members 
there. They are hurrying through this so quickly in a rubber-stamp 
fashion that we are not able to properly discuss one of the most 
important bills of the year and perhaps of the decade.
  Mr. Speaker, our committee has been rated by CSIS, the Center For 
Strategic and International Studies, as one of the worst Committee on 
the Armed Services in decades. Why? This is one of the reasons, 
inability to do our job correctly.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to respond to the gentleman that I am not sure when 
he testified, but other than having a lunch appointment and voting on 
the floor, I was in that hearing the whole time; and I would also like 
to say, there is a total of 9\1/2\ hours of debate on this bill. It is 
not just 2 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker from the minority I think 
misrepresented the situation. This process started in January. We have 
been through the subcommittee process. The gentleman went through the 
subcommittee process, had ample time to make his arguments, went 
through the full committee process.
  We forged a document through that process where everybody had ample 
time, including a debate that started at 10 o'clock in the morning last 
week and ended at midnight, to make our points; and following that 
debate, this bill was reported by a unanimous vote. So those who are 
crying foul today because of this rule are the same people who have 
worked since January to make their points, 12 hours last week to make 
their points, and a 9-hour debate today. It seems pretty fair to me.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 13 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, my friend from New Jersey makes reference 
to 9 hours of debate when, in truth, in fact, we have 2 hours of 
general debate on this issue.
  I recommended to the Committee on Rules four major amendments. I 
stated the amendments from our committee, and I do not make 
recommendations lightly; and when I do, I hope the Committee on Rules 
would take them seriously. Most important is one that deals with 
quality of life for the soldiers and the troops and their families.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had a proposed 
amendment that would increase pay, increase quality of life. It 
targeted cuts towards the missile defense program which is being 
boosted up by well over $1 billion. What more can be said.
  The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) had a proposed 
amendment to modify the Uniform Code of Military Justice, bringing this 
law into conformity with the Federal criminal sexual assault statutes. 
That was passed 18 years ago by this Congress. Now there are some 18 
years of appellate history that can be used, and yet that was denied.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan) had an amendment authorizing a total of $67 billion for 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, when in truth and fact, the 
Committee on Rules set aside a reserve sum of some $50 billion meeting 
the Cooper/Ryan proposal by more than half.
  The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), thank goodness they 
allowed an amendment that she has on the Department of Energy nuclear 
weapons policy.
  These are important amendments, important not just to the future of 
our country, not just important to our policy, important to those who 
wear the uniform, important to their families, where we are going. It 
is important, I think, that we vote down this rule and come back with a 
better one.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House Republican 
leadership has allowed more time to debate the renaming of post offices 
from the floor this year than time to debate the Defense authorization 
bill during a time of war. It is sad. It is sad that the muzzling of 
democracy continues here in the United States, even as American 
citizens die and try to bring democracy to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is unfair. I would say that the bill itself 
has many positive things to it, and I do salute much of the bipartisan 
effort that went into shaping the Defense authorization bill itself. 
Let me discuss two specific parts of the bill, one positive and one of 
great concern to me.
  On a positive note, the bill finally improves benefits for pensions 
for widows of servicemen and -women. This had been long overdue to 
change this unfair treatment of military widows. The sergeant's wife, 
for example, that served 20 years in the Army, only receiving a $7,000 
a year pension. I salute the Republicans who supported it in committee, 
and I want to thank the veterans organizations and the 200 Democrats 
who joined in my petition to pressure a vote on this long overdue 
consideration.

[[Page 10117]]

  Second, it is unfortunate that this bill does not take action to 
continue this next year the largest, most important housing improvement 
program in our Nation's military history; and it is really sad when we 
consider tomorrow the House Republican leadership will push a tax cut 
bill that will provide self-serving tax cuts for Members of Congress; 
but today, we are saying to 24,000 military families, we cannot afford 
to improve the housing that they live in, even if their loved one is 
someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Self-serving tax cuts for 
Members of Congress being more important than improving military 
housing for those servicemen and -women sacrificing and serving our 
Nation in Iraq? It is wrong.
  This rule is wrong. Vote ``no'' and let us reconsider this bill under 
new regulations and rules.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just correct my friend because 
he may have missed it, but we did lift the housing cap for 
privatization of housing. That was done pursuant to the Miller 
amendment in the committee. So we did two things, both the survivor 
benefits and the housing cap.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman a question, the 
staff of the committee has told me, and I have asked repeatedly, that 
it addresses the housing cap for fiscal year 2006, but does not solve 
the problem for 2005; and as a consequence, 24,000 military families 
will have their housing improvements put on hold.
  Mr. HUNTER. I just say to the gentleman, it is permanent removal of 
the housing cap.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this rule.
  Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the 
defense authorization bill whose needs were proven and whose costs was 
fully offset, and it was sadly rejected.
  The Air Force's Joint Surveillance Target Radar System, or the 
JSTARS, is a program vital to our Nation's security in a time of war 
and is crucial to the jobs of hard-working men in Louisiana. My 
amendment would have ensured the continuation of this program in order 
to build the number of planes that the military requested.
  The next generation of JSTARS, the E-10A program, has been delayed 
twice and will not provide the needs of our military in sufficient 
time.
  Without my amendment made in order, resources will be cut for our 
troops, plain and simple. Shortchanging the military on their order for 
planes sells short this vital program and endangers valuable military 
support jobs in Louisiana.
  The delay of the E-10A will disrupt our military industrial base and 
will affect our Nation's responsiveness to production needs.
  The need is real, Mr. Speaker. The workforce is in place and our 
troops deserve the best we can provide. The JSTARS program merits 
funding and continuation. We will be continuing to discuss this, and it 
is a shame that we have not had this opportunity on the floor of the 
House to fully discuss this. The workers in my district deserve 
consideration to complete their mission, just as we have asked our 
troops to complete their mission.
  I strongly oppose this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for her kindness in yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Defense 
Authorization Act, this comes at a benchmark moment for the United 
States of America, if not the world, in terms of our history.
  Our Nation and our allies are engaged in a global war against 
terrorism, we all know that, a war that began long before September 11, 
2001, and is obviously going to continue well into the future. It is a 
war fanatics declared on America and its friends. It is a war that we 
cannot avoid. It is a war that must be fought, and it is a war that 
will be won.
  President Bush understood early on that this sustained conflict would 
be difficult, and he told us so; and the truth of his words becomes 
more evident as time goes by, and it is our job to step up and provide 
for the challenge.
  Our Nation's brave men and women in uniform and out face danger every 
day, not only in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan but actually 
around the whole world. We have sustained casualties. The inevitability 
of losses in dangerous work has not deterred us, nor has it diminished, 
of course, our heartfelt gratitude for the sacrifices made by some of 
the best our Nation has to offer, some from my home State, Florida, 
some from my district, as they fought in service of our country, for 
ideals that we all believe in, ideals that will endure, will prosper, 
and will better the lives of fellow human beings everywhere.
  These people bring credit and honor to us all. They must be 
remembered and cherished, and I have no doubt they will; and this 
legislation goes in that direction.
  The legislation we consider today provides the resources needed to 
continue the fight that we are in. H.R. 4200 allows America's military 
to function at a superior level. It includes programs that look 
forward, anticipating needs so that they can be met quickly and with 
precision when and wherever future threats arise.
  In addition, the Defense Authorization Act maintains the oversight 
ability of the Congress. The limited, but nonetheless damaging, 
instances of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib will be dealt with 
transparently and fairly to show the world that free societies respect 
civilized standards and enforce them.
  As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 
I appreciate that H.R. 4200 includes a strong intelligence component 
that ensures American war fighters on the ground or in whatever mode 
are provided with the best possible information; and I am most grateful 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, for understanding this and 
providing for it.
  Timely, accurate information is a vital weapon in the war on 
terrorism, both for force protection, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Hunter) well knows, and for mission success. Yes, we can expect 
more violence in Iraq as the June 30 transfer of sovereignty 
approaches.

                              {time}  1230

  And, yes, unfortunately we can expect terrorists to target other 
events, including elections in free countries this year. But with the 
passage this year and maintaining levels of support for our military 
and intelligence capabilities, we can supply our soldiers and 
intelligence people with the resources and information they need to 
win.
  This rule considered a lot of things. The committee got a good bill 
together, and I do not think there is any reason not to go forward with 
the debate. I urge support for the rule, I urge support for the bill, 
and I urge a vigorous debate on the information herein.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the record.
  The committee dealt with the housing cap to allow improved military 
housing starting in fiscal year 2006, but it only adds $1 for the cap 
in 2005. So that means 24,452 military families will have their housing 
improvement plans put on hold even as their loved ones are fighting in 
Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Thirteen military bases will have their housing programs basically 
frozen, even though tomorrow we are

[[Page 10118]]

going to vote to provide a tax cut for Members of Congress.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  The gentleman concurs, as I think our common ground here is that we 
have permanently lifted this cap, with the lift starting in 2006. 
However, the housing program can continue under the current cap for the 
time being. And it is not a certain thing that we are definitely going 
to run out of money.
  I would just say to the gentleman that I would be happy to work with 
the gentleman and the Committee on the Budget to attempt to accommodate 
2005 and make sure there is not a seam between 2005 and 2006.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I understand we will hit the cap as early 
as this November.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not a certain 
thing. So telling all the families that they absolutely will not have 
housing is not a certain thing at this point.
  I think the gentleman and I and others can work to make sure there is 
not a seam between 2005 and 2006.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of the defense authorization bill, 
but strong opposition to this rule.
  Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we are considering 
leaves out many important amendments which many on our side had hoped 
to offer. I had one which would have postponed additional expenditures 
for a ground-based missile system in Alaska which has not met 
operational testing requirements, and would have put those funds into 
port security. My amendment reflects the views of 49 Admirals and 
Generals whose letter to the President is dated March 26.
  In my view, as ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, the potential damage from a radiological device coming 
in through our ports is a much greater risk than the risk of a missile 
attack from North Korea.
  There are, however, some good amendments put in order, one of which I 
strongly support. The Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment, which we have 
offered every year for the last decade, would treat military 
servicewomen as women in America are treated, by allowing them their 
constitutional right to the full range of legal reproductive health 
care in foreign military hospitals, provided they pay for it. Current 
law prohibits this and requires servicewomen who put their lives on the 
line on austere fronts in the war on terror to seek approval from their 
commanding officer in order to travel elsewhere in order to obtain an 
abortion, as medical facilities may be inadequate or unavailable.
  I view current law as unconstitutional. I think it is ridiculous at a 
time when military women are performing incredible service around the 
world that they still are treated differently from women in America. So 
I urge strong support of the Davis-Sanchez-Harman amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit herewith for the Record the March 26, 2004 
letter to President Bush from 49 Admirals and Generals:

     49 Generals and Admirals Call for Missile Defense Postponement

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

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because several worthy 
amendments to this bill were not ruled in order for consideration, 
including my own amendment that I offered, which was an amendment that 
was very simple. It said, if this country is going to resume the 
testing of nuclear weapons, it would first have to be authorized to do 
so by Congress.

[[Page 10119]]

  I think Congress, the people's Representatives, ought to be involved 
in such a significant decision. This is not a partisan issue. It is an 
issue about having the people's Representatives involved.
  The United States did conduct over 900 nuclear weapons tests at the 
Nevada test site from 1951 until 1992, and during most of this time, 
people who lived downwind of the test site were not warned about the 
adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure.
  What is not widely known is that the fallout from weapons testing 
traveled across the entire country. Studies by the National Cancer 
Institute concluded that people in every single county in the lower 48 
States were exposed to fallout.
  A moratorium on nuclear weapons testing was instituted in 1992, but 
recent funding decisions in the appropriations process by Congress are 
leading us down the path to renewed nuclear testing and, therefore, as 
far as I am concerned, it is important that the people's 
Representatives, the United States Congress, ought to be asked to come 
up for a vote on whether or not we should resume nuclear testing.
  This amendment was not ruled in order and, therefore, I encourage all 
my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be obvious to everybody 
that we have a huge agenda of meritorious issues that will not be 
brought to the well of the House. We will not have today a free market 
of ideas as we deal with and debate one of the most important bills we 
will bring up.
  So when I emphasize to every Member that if you want to have a free 
and full and serious debate, then you should vote against this rule and 
you should vote first against the motion to move the previous question. 
That will open up the process so that we can offer amendments.
  And before concluding, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, given the 
amendment I am proposing that would deal with the needs of our NCOs and 
an incipient problem, and that is retention and recruitment, will the 
gentlewoman allow me to make a unanimous consent request to put in 
order amendment No. 89, which would increase the targeted pay increase 
for senior enlisted personnel and warrant officers and use, as an 
offset, a partial reduction in the big increase in the ballistic 
missile program.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the approval of my 
amendment, amendment No. 89.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina asks 
unanimous consent that his amendment, which is not proposed to be made 
in order by the Committee on Rules, be permitted to be in order. Does 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina object to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  Mrs. MYRICK. Yes, I do object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
and on the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), which the Committee on 
Rules defeated on a straight party-line vote early this morning and for 
which unanimous consent was just denied.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row the Republican 
leadership has chosen to throw away the long-standing tradition of 
bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. Nearly 
100 amendments, most of them by Democratic Members, were shut out of 
the rule, including the Spratt amendment. It is a very sad day for the 
American people and particularly for those serving in the military.
  Partisan politics have absolutely no place when it comes to 
protecting the brave American men and women who are serving in our 
military in harm's way. The Spratt amendment would provide $300 million 
additional dollars to give well-deserved pay raises to the sergeants 
and warrant officers who train and lead enlisted personnel. His 
amendment also guarantees military personnel serving in combat zones 
will have life insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
and extraneous materials be inserted in the Record immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, which 
silenced all three of my amendments.
  My first amendment called for the creation of an international 
commission, with Iraqi, U.S., and U.N. participation, to monitor prison 
conditions in Iraq. The Geneva Convention is neither quaint nor 
obsolete, and this amendment would have ensured compliance and help to 
restore badly damaged U.S. credibility.
  My second amendment would have created a database of those who have 
been detained.
  My third amendment prohibited the use of U.S. funds in the overthrow 
of democratically elected governments. Given the allegations of this 
government's involvement in the overthrow of President Aristide in 
Haiti, this amendment would have restored confidence in the protection 
of democracy.
  Once again debate was stifled on many critical issues. The Republican 
majority continues to abuse its power.
  Oppose this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

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

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

                  Amendment to H.R. 4200, as Reported

                Offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina

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

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

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

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

       Section 310 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Additional Increase to Cover Deductions for 
     Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Coverage.--(1) During 
     the period specified in paragraph (3), in addition to the 
     rate of pay authorized by subsection (a) or (e) for a month, 
     a member who is eligible for special pay under this section 
     for a month and who is insured during that month under 
     Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance shall also receive an 
     amount equal to the amount of the deduction from basic pay 
     prescribed for the level of Servicemembers' Group Life 
     Insurance coverage obtained by the member under section 1967 
     of title 38.
       ``(2) To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     concerned shall give members

[[Page 10120]]

     who will be assigned to duty under circumstances or in an 
     area for which special pay is provided under this section 
     notice, in advance of the deployment, of the following:
       ``(A) The availability of additional pay under this 
     subsection for members insured under Servicemembers' Group 
     Life Insurance.
       ``(B) The ability of members who elected not to be insured 
     under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, or elected less 
     than the authorized maximum coverage, to obtain additional 
     coverage as provided in section 1967(c) of title 38.
       ``(3) Additional pay under paragraph (1) shall be available 
     only during the period beginning October 1, 2004, and ending 
     December 31, 2005. The total amount expended under such 
     paragraph may not exceed $50,000,000.''.
       At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 28, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

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

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

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________