[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7878-7888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5122, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that Mr. Cole 
of Oklahoma has 24 minutes remaining and Ms. Slaughter of New York has 
28 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, every day the thousands of men and women who are based 
in the United States and elsewhere protect our borders, defend our 
national security, and ensure our peace of mind. Many of them have been 
deployed around the world, to Iraq and elsewhere. They have performed 
their duties with honor and I want them to know that we have the 
highest regard and respect for them.

                              {time}  1130

  The men and women of our Armed Forces have entered into a sacred 
covenant with this Nation. They have pledged to place their lives on 
the line for us, and in return, we have promised to give them the tools 
they need to fulfill their promise and the respect worthy of someone 
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
  The underlying legislation for this rule represents the embodiment of 
our commitment to the troops, and while I know the overall bill enjoys 
bipartisan support, including mine, I must point out that this morning 
I believe the leadership of this body has betrayed that covenant.
  It seems that just 1 week after passing a so-called reform bill with 
no teeth, the majority is back to their same old tricks, arrogantly 
preventing debate and consideration of critical measures that improve 
the bill and the lives of the people serving this Nation.
  They even prevented the distinguished ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, from offering an amendment to his own 
defense bill. The Skelton amendment would have prevented the copays for 
medication for our military and their families from going up, which 
they will if this bill is passed without the Skelton amendment, but the 
Republican leadership refused to make it in order.
  For those Americans who are not familiar with the Rules Committee, 
and I expect that is most of them, and how it works, what that 
effectively means is that a select few in the Republican leadership 
have decided what the entire Congress and the entire Nation and what 
the men and women in uniform will get. They decided that on their own, 
without even a vote on the House floor, without the debate and 
consideration of this full body.
  Given the rhetoric we hear on this floor every day about the troops 
and how important they are, I feel compelled to ask my friends in the 
majority to justify how in less than 24 hours after they approved $70 
billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, how they could refuse to allow us 
to even consider a measure to improve the health care of our troops and 
their families. We owe our troops more respect than this.
  It is for similar reasons that many of my Democratic colleagues and I 
are concerned with section 590 of this bill. The section removes a 
long-standing requirement in our military code that requires chaplains 
to exhibit a level of tolerance, compassion and understanding towards 
the religious diversity of the soldiers to whom they administer 
counsel. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? We are taking away the idea 
that they should serve with tolerance, compassion and understanding; it 
was too inflammatory.
  I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident our chaplains have 
both the sense and the respect for their fellow soldiers to do this and 
to do it willingly. But why would this majority lower that standard and 
expect anything less from our chaplains, as they clearly do?
  We have soldiers of every faith and no faith fighting for us under 
the American flag. They all deserve our respect, particularly in 
moments of great despair or need. Is this majority so arrogant as to 
suggest that they should micromanage how a chaplain administers faith 
on a battlefield? I can think of few things more offensive or absurd.
  My friend, Mr. Israel, offered an amendment to the bill that would 
have corrected the problem, restoring the requirement that all 
chaplains demonstrate sensitivity, respect and tolerance, but Mr. 
Israel's amendment was tossed out the window, along with common sense 
on this issue. It has been forbidden by the leadership from even being 
considered on the floor today.

[[Page 7879]]

  As was an amendment from Representatives Tierney and Leach which 
would have established a Truman-like commission, which we have been 
trying for 2 years to do, one designed to ferret out corruption and 
incompetence in our military contracting; and for some reason, the 
majority of this House does not want to look where all that money is 
missing in Iraq.
  Despite the fact that the same measure has passed the House numerous 
times, and despite the fact that it is the clear will of this body that 
this commission be created and despite the fact that the word 
``incompetence'' has become the most apt description of this 
administration, a select few in this leadership made these decisions 
for all of us that we would not even consider that amendment today, an 
amendment which, were it enacted, would allow us to go looking for the 
$9 billion in taxpayer money that this administration has literally 
lost in the war in Iraq.
  There are many more amendments to this bill that the leadership 
refused to allow us to consider today, and because they are making 
decisions for all of us and for the American people without their 
consent, they decided we would not be allowed to consider Mr. Markey's 
amendment which would prevent your tax dollars from being used to 
torture people in the name of the United States of America. I know that 
makes all of us proud that we are saying that we are going to go ahead 
and allow torture.
  I never thought I would see the day in this country when we would 
compromise our core values so horribly, and to do so without our 
consent is unconscionable.
  The question my fellow Americans should be asking themselves is 
``why.'' Why will the Republican leadership not allow the free flow of 
ideas that are supposed to be the hallmark of our government?
  I think we are all beginning to see how the rigidity of their agenda, 
the narrow focus of their concern and their obsession with control are 
not only damaging their own political future, but are deeply damaging 
the Nation.
  Even though the complicated challenges we face no longer seem to fit 
the Republicans' narrow set of solutions, they march onward in lockstep 
with their unyielding and ineffective agenda, but reality seems to be 
playing out much differently than their program allows for.
  Tax cuts for the rich cannot save the world and it cannot save 
Americans. Preventing Americans from talking about an idea does not 
make it go away, and the ends do not always justify the means. 
Democrats and the rest of America have already opened their eyes to 
these realities. Why does the Republican leadership not open theirs?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to begin, if I may quickly, by reminding my friends on the 
other side of the aisle the basic nature of this bill.
  It was a very bipartisan bill. It was universally praised as being 
bipartisan by Members of both parties. In particular, Chairman Hunter 
was singled out for operating inclusively, in a bipartisan manner.
  There were 88 amendments offered in the House Committee on Armed 
Services. Seventy-five of those passed. Of those passed, 38 were 
Democrats, 36 were Republican, one was bipartisan. There were over 100 
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, 31 were made in 
order, an additional six were dealt with in the manager's amendment. 
Only eight amendments were brought up for reconsideration in the Rules 
Committee by the minority.
  Now, I understand that not everybody is pleased with every aspect of 
the bill, but to characterize the bill as anything other than 
bipartisan, and bipartisan in process, I think is to not recognize the 
nature of the process we have gone through.
  With respect to Mr. Skelton's amendment, nobody in this House, I can 
assure you, respects Mr. Skelton more than I do. I have served with him 
on his committee. I publicly praised him yesterday, and that praise is 
fully and well deserved. He is one of the distinguished Members of our 
body.
  I do point out his amendment was, in fact, considered in the House 
Committee on Armed Services. It did fail. There were bipartisan members 
for it and bipartisan against it, although it was largely a party-line 
vote.
  At some point you have to ask yourself, why do we have committees, if 
not to make these decision? When a matter is dealt with fully by a 
committee, who are well-versed in it, I think that should carry heavy 
weight in determining whether or not we move on and consider a 
particular amendment on the floor; and in this case, I think that was 
thoroughly vetted and thoroughly discussed although, of course, my 
friends still have the opportunity to include that provision in a 
motion to recommit.
  Let me conclude by just quickly going on and going through some of 
the things that were included in TRICARE.
  Under the bill that was fashioned by our distinguished chairman and 
ranking member, working in a bipartisan fashion in the House Armed 
Services Committee, H.R. 5122 will prohibit until December 31, 2007, 
the Department of Defense's ability to increase TRICARE Prime, Standard 
and TRICARE Reserve Select cost shares.
  H.R. 5122 calls for an independent analysis to determine the 
appropriate cost-sharing formula for the TRICARE program.
  H.R. 5122 zeros out the costs for generic and formulary prescriptions 
for participants in the TRICARE pharmacy and mail order program.
  H.R. 5122 also adds $735 million to the Defense Health Program to 
restore funding cuts included in the DOD budget request in anticipation 
of increased beneficiary cost shares which, as mentioned, H.R. 5122 
prohibits.
  H.R. 5122 includes TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations 
following sexual assaults and domestic violence.
  H.R. 5122 provides TRICARE coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs 
for dental care provided to young children and to mentally or 
physically challenged beneficiaries.
  I say this simply to make the point that we have had several years, 
frankly, where this committee has worked diligently to improve the 
TRICARE system to enhance the benefits available to our men and women.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
for his great work on behalf of the men and women who wear the uniform 
and for his work on this bill, and all the members for the work on this 
bill.
  I just say to my great colleague from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), we did 
put this bill together in a bipartisan fashion, and we did entertain 
this amendment in the House Committee on the Armed Services. And the 
point is that we came out of the committee with a very carefully 
crafted bill in which we are trying to incentivize military families to 
use mail order; and so we took down the cost of mail order 
pharmaceuticals to guess what, zero; both generic and formulary drugs 
down to zero. They do not pay a dime.
  Now they win when they get these prescriptions through the mail, and 
the taxpayers win because the costs are much less. That means you do 
not even have the cost of transportation to go down to pick up that 
particular prescription. So we took those down to zero.
  The other thing we did that was a remarkable thing, that really 
completed this transition of recognizing the National Guard, is we 
moved the availability of TRICARE not just to National Guardsmen, who 
heretofore were given TRICARE for an extended period of time before 
they mobilized and for an extended period of time after they mobilized, 
but we then moved it to all National Guardsmen who are drilling 
reservists, all National Guardsmen, and with only a copayment of 28 
percent of the costs.
  So this is a monumental bill that has moved billions of dollars of 
medical benefits to these great people who wear the uniform of the 
United States.

[[Page 7880]]

  Let me just say to my colleagues, this is a bipartisan bill. The 
gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely right. We did all the right 
things, and that is why it passed by a vote of 60-1.
  No one has more respect for the gentleman from Missouri than myself. 
We did consider his amendment in the committee, and the provision that 
his amendment dealt with is a part of this balance of trying to move 
people to buy their pharmaceuticals through the mail, because if they 
buy them through the mail, it does not cost them a dime. For that 
reason, I think the committee bill is an excellent bill.
  It is tough to get to less than zero, and I would hope that everyone 
would simply support this bill, let us move ahead, let us get it to 
conference, and let us do the right thing for the men and women who 
wear the uniform.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to express my deep disappointment 
that the Rules Committee declined to make my amendment concerning one 
of the most vital national security issues facing our Nation, our 
continued dependence on foreign sources of oil, in order.
  As Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, stated, ``The future of our 
economic and national security is more than ever coupled to our energy 
policy.'' That is why I believe this amendment would have been so 
appropriate on this bill.
  Let me stress, the amendment that I offered, along with Congressman 
Bart Gordon as well as Mark Udall, who is on the floor with us right 
now, was decidedly nonpartisan. It was not offered in an attempt to 
gain short-term political advantage. It was offered in an attempt to 
encourage this body to focus on the national security implications of 
our continued addiction to oil, of which the President spoke in his 
State of the Union, and to suggest practical methods to address that 
addiction.
  Let me add, when I testified before the Rules Committee on Tuesday, I 
was pleased with the serious discussion of this amendment, as well as 
the virtually unanimous support of the concept of this amendment. There 
was no opposition stated by any member of the committee on either side 
of the aisle.
  In short, this amendment called for three things. First, it would 
have authorized $250 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-
Energy, or ARPA-E, within the Department of Energy.

                              {time}  1145

  ARPA-E would encourage and support our best and brightest researchers 
and scientists to develop cutting-edge technology necessary to make 
America energy independent.
  Second, the amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of 
National Intelligence, to study and report to Congress on the national 
security implications of our increasing demand for foreign oil.
  Finally, the amendment would have increased the funds available for 
the Defense Energy Support Center which buys and manages oil and other 
energy supplies for the military service, the largest user of petroleum 
in our country.
  It also would have increased the funds available for the Advanced 
Power Technology Office which promotes the increased use of fuel cells, 
electric hybrids and hydrogen for military and homeland defense 
vehicles and equipment.
  These proposals would have been paid for by shifting more than $300 
million in excess funds from the $9.1 billion proposed for ballistic 
missile defense programs. I refer to them as ``excess'' because the 
staff says they cannot be spent in fiscal year 2007.
  Let me conclude by saying that it is imperative that the Members 
address this vital issue. I am pleased that Mr. Skelton, Mr. Spratt and 
other members were supportive.
  Energy independence must be addressed in a serious, thoughtful 
manner. When we put our minds to something, in my opinion, Americans 
can solve any of the problems that confront them. Now, more than ever, 
we must focus on addressing our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
  I want to say in closing that I deeply regret that this important 
issue was not allowed to come to the floor. I understand that portions 
of this, only a portion, was considered in the committee, but surely 
the issue of addiction to petroleum products, which our President has 
talked about, is worthy of bringing to this floor, and I urge that it 
be done.
  I oppose this rule because I believe it has been restrictive to the 
detriment of our national security and democracy in this House.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend who just spoke 
and talked about the need to shore up energy supplies for our country, 
I agree with him totally. And I agree with the idea that we should not 
have to rely on that lifeline of petroleum coming out of the Middle 
East, which has security ramifications.
  Let me say to my friend that opening up a piece of land that is as 
big as a third of the United States, that is, Alaska, a third of the 
size of the continental United States, would go a long way toward doing 
that. The amount of petroleum that we could be getting from one of our 
own States within our own boundaries without having to depend on that 
lifeline would accrue to the national security.
  I say to the gentleman, I think it is a sad thing that the majority 
of his party has not seen fit to do that. We are pursuing lots of 
alternative forms of energy, but one problem with this particular 
amendment is, it would take the money out of missile defense. I know 
the gentleman is worried about the prospect of ballistic missiles that 
are being tested by countries in the Middle East, that are being tested 
to ranges that will include Israel, for example, and at some point, 
certain locations in the United States.
  So there are two aspects to these amendments. One is what you do; and 
the other is where you pull the money from. The other part of that 
story is where you pull the money from.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. We had a very thoughtful discussion about what you have 
raised as alternative sources of energy in our own country, or 
alternative sources for petroleum products in our own country. A full 
discussion. I think that is a worthy discussion.
  I do not think the amendment that I offered in any way negates that 
discussion or negates the importance of having that debate. I agree 
with the gentleman.
  With respect to the source of funding, the staff discussed it. We 
believe in the $9.1 million in 2007 this sum cannot be spent because of 
practical reasons, as the gentleman probably knows, and I think his 
staff agrees because we worked with his staff and with Mr. Skelton and 
Mr. Spratt to ensure that we were not undermining because as you know, 
I have been supportive of the defense system.
  We believe this is such a critical issue. And as I said, the 
President raised the addiction. We have to transfer not only the price 
that the consumer is paying, which is affected by the lack of 
alternatives to petroleum products, and therefore, those producers of 
petroleum products throughout the world have us as a captive consumer 
and we do not have price flexibility, but also in terms of the price at 
the pump for our consumers.
  So both from a national security standpoint and an economic 
standpoint, I think this was the way to go.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is a 
thoughtful statement. I think that what we have seen, regrettably, from 
the gentleman's party, from the Democrat side, has been a series of 
``noes'' to initiatives that would have increased the supply of 
petroleum.

[[Page 7881]]

  The amount of increase in petroleum that we have undertaken in the 
last 4 or 5 years would have, by the projections I have seen, have been 
made up by oil which could have come from, for example, Alaska which is 
a third of the size of the United States.
  So when the gentleman's party effectively closed down Alaska for 
supplying petroleum, a large piece of Alaska for supplying petroleum 
from the northern sector, that deprived us of an enormous supply of 
petroleum which would have had a direct effect on the price at the 
pump.
  Further, the gentleman knows it takes about 10 years to permit a 
refinery. The gentleman is an expert in this. The gentleman knows the 
way we get low prices in this country for any commodity is competition.
  That means if you are baking bread on one side of the street for $2 a 
loaf, and I come across from the other side of the street and I can 
bake it for a buck a loaf, I win and the consumers win. If you takes 
you 10 years to get a permit for your bakery, you never get into the 
competition and the price of bread never comes down.
  And if it takes you 10 years to permit a refinery because of 
environmental restrictions that the Democratic Party will not let go 
of, you never see that oil coming on line and you never see that 
competition from another refinery. It is a debate.
  But on the point of funding, the idea that you can just harvest a 
third of a billion dollars out of missile defense and that is not going 
to have any effect on the program because you think that money is not 
needed right now, we will have other parts of the program, the missile 
defense program, that needs more money. As the gentleman knows, when 
you have hundreds of programs, some of them need money, some of them 
can give up money at any given time.
  The idea that this missile defense, which is necessary to protect 
both our troops in theater, who have been fired upon and killed in some 
cases by low-end ballistic missiles, like the Scuds that were used 
against us in the first Gulf War, and countries like Israel that need 
to have defense that see their neighbors right now developing ballistic 
missiles that will come in high and fast into those countries; the idea 
of forcing our Members to choose between defending their troops and 
having a new technological program on petroleum innovations, in my 
estimation, this is something that is a subject for judgment. We have 
exercised our judgment.
  I think we have done a good job in the committee. I think we have put 
together a good bill in the committee. It passed out 60-1. I think that 
is testament to the fact that we have a balanced package and we need to 
move forward.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to add the additional point on the committee's 
bipartisan and very enthusiastic and aggressive effort to do everything 
we could for the troops, the advantage to the position on drugs. Not 
only is the copay zero on mail order drugs, but when you get your 
pharmaceuticals through the mail, the recipient can get a 90-day supply 
instead of a 30-day supply. So there are several advantages there.
  Again, it is a reflection of Mr. Skelton's, Mr. Hunter's, and the 
committee's desire in a bipartisan fashion to do everything that we 
possibly and reasonably can for the troops.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed 
Services and a hero of mine.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Missourian, Mark Twain, once 
said, ``The more you explain it to me, the more I don't understand 
it.'' And that is where we are on this rule; in particular not allowing 
some amendments, including my amendment which would be very helpful to 
the families of those in uniform, to be in order. Thus, I rise in 
strong opposition to the rule.
  Let me speak about my amendment first. It reduces the copay of the 
servicemembers and their families for prescription drugs. Currently, 
there is a $3 copay charge for generic drugs and a $9 copay for name-
brand drugs. Under the bill, it zeros out mail-order orders, which is 
fine in some cases, but increases the generic drugs to $6, and 
increases name brand to $16.
  You have to say that is not a lot, but if you are a corporal with 
three children that get sick and you have to multiply the $16 times one 
or two or three times when you have serious illness in your family, it 
is going to cost an awful lot more. That is why it is important that we 
do our very best to take care of the troops.
  This is not brain surgery. This is helping the troops in some small, 
positive, decent way.
  And, you know, this amendment was not made in order.
  I have to compliment the bipartisanship of the base bill. I am proud 
of it. Chairman Hunter did a good job in working on that, and we worked 
our will on some of the amendments, including the one I offered.
  It only lost by two votes, 28 for it and 30 against it. What is wrong 
with taking that measure up on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and letting us work our will for the troops, for the 
young people, particularly for that private first class, that sergeant, 
that corporal that might have a family that needs help?
  You say, well, they can do it by mail order.
  If your child is really sick or has the flu or it is over a long 
weekend, you are not going to get anything by mail order. You are going 
to go down to the drugstore and you are going to pay through the nose, 
just as this bill is requiring.
  All we want to do is help the young folks; this is a way we can do 
it. And if the amendment is voted down, the will of the House has 
worked its way. I would do my best to convince every Member of this 
body to vote for it.
  So I think what we need to do is to go back to the Rules Committee 
and ask them to allow the Skelton amendment to be made in order.
  There are other amendments that should have been looked at. Mr. 
Israel has one that deals with chaplains that is very, very evenhanded. 
Mr. Hoyer has one, as well as Mr. Udall and Mr. McGovern and some other 
Members, regarding energy, that should be looked at.
  But I speak mainly in favor of my proposal. Rather than charging 
additional money to these young troops should they have a sick child or 
a sick spouse, let us reduce it back to where it was. That is not 
difficult. In the process say, hey, thank you for the job you are doing 
rather than let us stick you for a few more dollars to pay to the drug 
companies. That is not right.

                              {time}  1200

  That is not right. That is not the way we want to treat these young 
folks. Let us do all we can to help them. And this is one way. Let us 
at least vote on it. I will speak in favor of it. I would hope that 
many people on the other side of the aisle would not only speak for it, 
but would vote for it. It is a good amendment. I dare you to put it on 
the calendar for us to vote. That is what we need to do so we can say 
fully and fairly to the young folks, we have done our best for you.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If I may, again, I want to thank my good friend from Missouri. There 
is nobody who cares more about men and women that wear the uniform of 
the United States than Mr. Skelton.
  I do wish to point out again the amendment was considered by the full 
House Armed Services Committee. It did not succeed.
  I also want to point out again we made considerable progress in 
TRICARE, many millions of dollars spent.
  And, finally, something which maybe many Members may not be aware of 
because they don't serve on that committee, active duty family members 
actually get most of their prescriptions free from military hospitals. 
Only 11 percent of prescriptions are obtained

[[Page 7882]]

through a TRICARE retail pharmacy. So we are really not talking about a 
great deal of money. And we have a study authorized in this legislation 
under way to look at what the appropriate distribution of the cost of 
these types of items should be. I actually think the House Armed 
Services Committee has gone a very long way in trying to address this 
very, very important issue; and I have no doubt we will revisit it next 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the chairman of the 
House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to, once again, echo my great 
respect for my partner on this committee, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), and just offer that one thing we have done in this 
package is to take down the cost of pharmaceutical drugs to zero for 
those enlisted families if they simply get them through the mail; and 
they can now get a 90-day supply rather than a 30-day supply, and that 
is what we are trying to incentivize them to do. It is better for them. 
They have got no cost of transportation to go pick up their medicine, 
and it is better for the taxpayers. And that is the direction that we 
are trying to take our military families.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, last night, once again, the majority on 
the Rules Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate that this House 
is capable of debating the many important issues relevant to the 
defense authorization bill. But once again, they turned their backs to 
a full and open debate.
  Once again, the majority on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to 
demonstrate that Members of the minority and their concerns will be 
treated with respect. But once again, the majority on the Rules 
Committee showed that courtesy, respect, and collegiality are not part 
of their vocabulary.
  Mr. Speaker, when a bill has a provision that directly affects 
another Member's district and that Member wishes to offer an amendment 
to debate the consequences of such a provision, simple courtesy 
requires that the amendment should be made in order. Yet last night, 
the gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Capps, was denied her 
right to speak and act on behalf of her constituents and to have her 
amendment made in order to strike from the bill the section that 
prohibits the National Park Service from carrying out the 1997 court-
ordered settlement that stops trophy hunting on Santa Rosa Island.
  Twice the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was 
asked whether he had any problems with Mrs. Capps offering her 
amendment, and he said he did not.
  I respect the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and I 
appreciate the work that he and the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, have 
done together. But if the chairman had no objection, and I have the 
transcript here, then why did the Rules Committee have an objection to 
this?
  Of the 100 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for 
consideration, scarcely a third of those were allowed to be debated 
under yesterday's rule and this rule. This morning, this rule makes 23 
amendments in order, 10 of which are bipartisan amendments or offered 
by Democrats; and of those 10, four simply seek reports or studies.
  Meanwhile, as we have heard, the Rules Committee denied the ranking 
member of the House Armed Services Committee, the most honorable and 
most distinguished congressman, Ike Skelton, the right to debate the 
only amendment he submitted to the Rules Committee. That amendment 
would have let this House debate whether or not to reduce drug 
copayments for military families.
  What a horrific show of disrespect, not only to Mr. Skelton, but to 
our military families who sacrifice every single day for our Nation. It 
is wrong.
  And if Republicans want to increase drug copayments for our military 
families, then make your case. But on our side of the aisle we believe 
the opposite, and at least there should have been a debate and a vote 
on this matter.
  If Members want to know what is wrong with this House, why civility 
has been lost in this House, why this House can no longer be described 
in any sense of the word a deliberative body, you only have to look at 
the rule for the defense authorization bill.
  The majority picks and chooses what will be debated, ignores 
substantive amendments, and rejects even the ranking member the right 
to offer important amendments.
  In addition to rejecting the amendments offered by Ranking Member 
Skelton and Congresswoman Capps, the majority of the Rules Committee 
decided this House isn't the place to debate accountability in Iraq, 
again denying debate on a bipartisan amendment submitted by Mr. Tierney 
to establish a Truman Commission on Iraq.
  It has decided that this is not the place to debate nonproliferation 
issues. A bipartisan amendment was denied that was coordinated by Mr. 
Andrews; that this isn't the place to talk about alternative energy 
resources and research and the applications within the military. They 
denied Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Udall their amendments.
  This is not the place, according to the majority of the Rules 
Committee to talk about religious tolerance. They denied the amendment 
by Mr. Israel.
  Or this is not the place to talk about torture. They denied an 
amendment by Mr. Markey.
  These are not frivolous matters, Mr. Speaker. They are profound 
matters affecting our national defense and the health and the safety of 
our military personnel and their families. We read and we hear about 
them every day in the news. We are asked about these issues by our 
constituents, and this House should have had an opportunity to openly 
debate each one of them.
  But not in this House. Not under this leadership.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. Let us have a genuine 
debate on one of the few bills that comes before this House where all 
of these amendments are germane. Let us return democracy to the U.S. 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just wish to quickly point out, again, the record which seems to 
get lost in the rhetoric: 88 amendments considered in the House Armed 
Services Committee, 75 accepted; 100 amendments dealt with by the Rules 
Committee, 31 brought to the floor; six others dealt with during the 
manager's amendment.
  If my friends had their way, it wouldn't matter how many times 
amendments were defeated along the way. Every single one would come to 
the floor of the House of Representatives. If we were going to operate 
that way, we simply could do away with the committee system all 
together and simply operate by Committee of the Whole. I don't think 
that makes good sense.
  So we are very pleased with the manner in which this bill has been 
dealt with. Members of both sides have regarded it as a very bipartisan 
piece of legislation. I will make a prediction it is going to pass with 
an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a moment to say to my 
friend from Oklahoma that when the Democrats were in charge here we 
would take up to 2 weeks in the Rules Committee looking at the defense 
bill which was almost always open because we all recognized the 
importance and that is where we spend the money. We didn't rush bills 
out the door in those days, and I long for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
  Yesterday, I spoke about a provision in the defense bill that has 
nothing to do with helping our troops and everything to do with 
congressional hubris.
  This provision would kick the public off Santa Rosa Island, a part of 
the Channel Islands National Park.

[[Page 7883]]

  Mr. Snyder and I have an amendment to strike that provision, but the 
Republicans on the Rules Committee have decided the House just won't 
vote on it.
  This provision affects a national park in my congressional district. 
There have been no hearings on it. DOD didn't ask for it. Park Service 
flat out opposes it.
  Yet, it is in the bill with no discussion, no opportunity to let the 
House decide whether it is a good idea or not to kick taxpayers off the 
land that they spent $30 million for.
  I can only assume the Republican leadership is afraid to have a 
debate on this. And I don't blame them, in a sense. This provision is a 
travesty. They should be embarrassed.
  They might have to explain why the public should be kicked off this 
island so a privately run, extremely lucrative trophy-hunting operation 
can continue in a national park.
  This all started when the chairman of the committee said he was 
driving down the highway, saw the island, thought that hunting in the 
national park was a good idea.
  End of debate.
  He first defended his proposal as a way to help veterans hunt. When 
that didn't fly, it was to protect the animals.
  Mr. Speaker, this absurd provision is indefensible, and a vote on it 
should win; and that is why there will be no vote on it.
  So as Members consider how to vote on this rule, I would ask them to 
think about the national parks in their district and offer them this 
advice: don't let the chairman take a drive in your district; he might 
come up with better uses than letting the public visit their own 
national park, and then you would be down here in my place trying to 
keep our national parks open.
  I oppose this rule. I ask the House to vote ``no'' and save itself 
from this embarrassment.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I would love 
to have the chairman take a drive in my district any day. We have Fort 
Sill Army Post, Tinker Air Force Base, and he loves soldiers, so that 
is fine by me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a Vietnam 
veteran and Purple Heart recipient.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, it is not only 
disappointing but it is truly mystifying to me to know why it is the 
amendment that I offered would not be made in order. I think everybody 
is in agreement that we need to do everything that we possibly can to 
better protect the men and women who are serving in uniform in Iraq.
  Everybody knows that the insurgent attacks are up in Iraq. They are 
up from last year. They are up from the year before. And the fact that 
those who recruit those insurgents can claim that we are there as 
occupiers to control the flow of Iraqi oil is a very powerful 
recruitment tool.
  My amendment merely is a sense of Congress that says we are not there 
to control the Iraqi oil. Let's send a strong message to those who are 
subject to recruitment. Let's send a strong message to all of those who 
think that this is oil motivated. Let's let them know that we are not 
there for the oil.
  Why would anyone on the Republican side of the aisle have a problem 
with sending that message? We need to send it. We need to send it now.
  We need to go back and fix this bill to be able to consider, not only 
my amendment, but the other good amendments that were before us. And we 
need to make sure that everybody knows it is not about the oil, and do 
everything we can to protect our men and women serving in uniform.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to my friends 
on the other side of the aisle that all of these matters can be dealt 
with in a motion to recommit. I would invite them to do that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this 
rule. As the ranking member pointed out, let us debate and vote on the 
Skelton, Andrews, Israel, Hoyer, Gordon and Udall amendments.
  Earlier, the chairman and the ranking member had an important 
discussion about oil production. It was a legitimate debate. But the 
purpose of the Hoyer amendment is to focus on alternative fuel 
production.
  We all share support for the missile defense program. But it is the 
largest single weapons research and development program in the DOD at 
$10 billion. We are asking for $63 million to include an alternative 
fuels production initiative in the Department of Defense so that we can 
move closer to energy independence. Energy independence equals energy 
security. That means national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing more important to us today than 
breaking our addiction to foreign oil and making sure that we are 
secure in the long run, and the American people understand the 
importance of this initiative.
  Let's reject this rule and include these important amendments in the 
debate that is forthcoming, give the whole House a chance to vote and 
express its will.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. This 
was the second chance for the Rules Committee Republicans to get it 
right, but they got it wrong again.
  The rule allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out 
the most crucial ones. The rule essentially prevents an airing of key 
issues--and consequently reflects poorly on this body and does a 
disservice to the American people.
  In his testimony before the Rules Committee, Armed Services Committee 
Ranking Member Skelton expressed strong support for a number of 
amendments that would strengthen the bill (and strengthen real security 
for all Americans.)
  Among them were his own, an amendment to lower the increased retail 
pharmacy co-payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by 
Mr. Andrews and others to increase funding for nonproliferation 
programs; and an amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains 
demonstrate sensitivity, respect, and tolerance toward servicemembers 
of all faiths. None of these amendments was made in order.
  Mr. Skelton also expressed strong support for an amendment on energy 
security that I offered and a similar one that I offered with my 
colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon.
  But even as Americans struggle to afford near-record high gas prices, 
Republicans refused to allow debate on these amendments to increase 
funding for alternative fuels programs at the Department of Defense. 
America's addiction to oil from any source means that our security is 
vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look 
beyond the oil wells. I'm very disappointed that the Republican 
leadership doesn't see this as a priority.
  Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and 
Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park 
Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement 
that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on 
Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There 
have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is 
opposed to it, and DoD has not requested it. The Republican leadership 
should have allowed debate on this amendment.
  Many more amendments worthy of House consideration were not made in 
order. This means that the bill we will debate today on the House floor 
will not address some of the key challenges affecting our military and 
our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule stifles debate, and I cannot support it.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).

[[Page 7884]]


  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the most pathetic rule since I have 
been here, and I am not the only one who believes this. Last weekend I 
was on a walk. I met an old friend of mine who told me his son, as we 
were speaking, was landing in Mosul, Iraq with the United States Army. 
And my friend and his wife were raising their grandson, a 2-year-old 
because this soldier is a single parent.
  And while he is over there fighting with courage, this House doesn't 
have the courage to debate Iraq. And every single amendment that was 
offered that would offer a strategic vision that questions George 
Bush's decisions in Iraq was denied.

                              {time}  1215

  The Abercrombie amendment to say we should have some plan to leave by 
2010, denied. The Cardin amendment to have some plan, denied.
  This House basically today has said it is only going to do one thing 
and that America should do only one thing, and that is trust the 
eminent judgment of President George Bush, who is apparently 
infallible, unquestionable, and nothing that this U.S. Congress should 
challenge.
  My friend begs to differ, whose son landed in Mosul. This House 
should challenge George Bush on Iraq. We should have a debate on it. We 
should not ignore it. While our soldiers have courage enough to fight, 
we ought to have courage enough to fight George Bush's misguided 
policies in Iraq.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my good friend 
from Washington again. We actually visited Iraq together. I know how 
strongly he feels about this issue. I respect that. I would also point 
out, though, that we have discussed Iraq on many occasions in this 
House. We have in the past, we will in the future.
  In addition to that, again I just wanted to remind my friends of the 
simple numbers: 88 amendments considered by the House Armed Services 
Committee, 75 accepted, about evenly split; 100 amendments proposed to 
the Rules Committee, 31 accepted, 6 considered or incorporated in the 
manager's amendment. Frankly, all the other matters where folks are 
disappointed or have a different point of view can be dealt with in a 
motion to recommit. I suspect they will be.
  The reality is, we have had a very bipartisan process. We agree on 98 
or 99 percent of the issues that will be incorporated, I suspect, on 
the final vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Israel).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind persons in the 
gallery that they are guests of the House of Representatives and that 
it is inappropriate under the rules of the House to show either 
approval or disapproval of speeches given on the House floor.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I need 1\1/2\ minutes to make 
my point. I think this is rather clear and rather simple.
  I was in Iraq about 3 weeks ago when a bipartisan delegation was sent 
to urge the leaders of the Iraq Government to show respect and 
tolerance for their different faiths and create a unity government.
  This rule explicitly rejects respect and tolerance for servicemembers 
of different faiths in our own military. I offered an amendment that 
sought common ground, that preserved in its entirety every single word 
that the majority had in with respect to allowing and ensuring the 
right of military chaplains to pray in accordance with the dictates of 
their conscience.
  Every word of the Republican language was in, and then I added this 
simple statement, ``and shall behave with sensitivity, respect, and 
tolerance towards servicemembers of all faiths.''
  Who could be against sensitivity, respect and tolerance to 
servicemembers of all faiths? The Rules Committee majority, which 
wouldn't even allow us to debate my amendment, which wouldn't even 
allow us to vote on that amendment.
  Who could be against national security that depends on unit cohesion 
and allowing our local commanders to make fundamental personnel 
decisions and ensure good order and discipline? The Rules Committee 
majority, which wouldn't even allow us to debate that amendment or 
listen to those military guidelines.
  People talk a good game around here about family values. But when it 
comes time to vote on family values, they won't vote on family values 
in our military. They talk a good game about a strong military and 
security, but when the time comes, won't listen to our commanders.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I commend the gentleman for his effort. I can think of 
no faith that would disagree with the wording that you have proposed. I 
think it is just too bad that it was not allowed to be put in order, 
because I think it would have received more than a substantial vote in 
this House.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I will remind my colleagues that every faith talks about the 
importance of respect and tolerance for one another. Unfortunately, 
this Congress has chosen to reject those values by not even allowing us 
to discuss them when it comes to our own military.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. No one 
has more respect for the gentleman from New York than I. I just want to 
remind my colleagues that we had a vote on the gentleman's amendment in 
committee, and we did put it in, and it was an amendment to a provision 
that we put into the bill that was, I thought, an excellent provision; 
I think, most members of the committee agreed.
  I think that is reflected by the 60-1 vote that ultimately discharged 
the bill, agreed with, that was what it said, that chaplains of all 
faiths, all faiths, would be allowed to pray according to the dictates 
of their own conscience.
  Now, I know you can add a word or two or a comma or a change of 
phrase, and the effect of a small group of words can have 60 different 
interpretations by various members of the committee.
  But the provision that we left with, because I think there has been a 
concern that we have commanders, I think there is concern that 
chaplains be allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own 
conscience. We asserted in a positive statement that they would be able 
to do that.
  That was something I think most members agreed with. In fact, they 
did agree with it on a bipartisan basis. The gentleman offered a change 
to that, and that was rejected. So I just want my colleagues to know 
that we thought, and I think today, that a statement that says that all 
chaplains, no matter what faith, are able to pray according to the 
dictates of their own conscience. It is a statement of fairness and 
serves the military well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission said that a quantity of 
highly enriched uranium about the size of a grapefruit, if it were used 
to make a bomb that could be put in a van that could be driven into 
lower Manhattan, could level lower Manhattan by a nuclear weapon.
  Where you would you find this enriched uranium?
  There are 106 reactors in the former Soviet Union that use highly 
enriched uranium. Forty-two of them are being converted to the kind of 
uranium that can't be used to make a bomb. Sixty-four of them are still 
in operation today. Sixty-four of them are still a potential source of 
that bomb that could level lower Manhattan.
  We had an amendment that said for every $1,000 we are going to spend 
on the ballistic missile defense program, let us take $3 out of every 
$1,000 and spend it on cleaning up and shutting down those 64 reactors 
in the former Soviet Union. Do you think we should or not?

[[Page 7885]]

  This House won't get to make that decision because this amendment is 
not in order. If you ever need a reason to oppose this rule, there is 
your reason.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
  May I inquire if my colleague has more?
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. No, I am prepared to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I 
understand it, yesterday Mrs. Davis of California's amendment under 
consideration of the defense bill was in order, even though it had been 
considered in committee.
  I assume that there was no rule prohibiting the consideration of that 
amendment yesterday; is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SNYDER. And so when we hear this discussion today, we have heard 
it now with Mr. Skelton's amendment, we have heard it with Mr. Israel's 
amendment, that because they were considered in the House Armed 
Services Committee, there is no rule prohibiting their consideration 
during consideration of the bill on the House floor today; is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. That is a matter 
for debate on the rule, as to how it proposes to treat particular 
proposed amendments.
  Mr. SNYDER. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SNYDER. The suggestion has been made that these amendments that 
have not been made in order for debate and discussion today be put in 
the form of a motion to recommit. Under the rules of the House, 
whatever motion to recommit is offered, is it accurate to say that 
there will be 5 minutes allotted to the proponent of that motion to 
recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The standing rules 
provide for 5 minutes of debate in support of a motion that includes 
instructions.
  Mr. SNYDER. So if the decision is made by our side to try to combine 
10 amendments that have been denied discussion on this floor today into 
a motion to recommit, that would work out to an average of 30 seconds 
to discuss nuclear proliferation, 30 seconds to discuss the pharmacy 
amendment, 30 seconds to discuss the policy of chaplains.
  Is that an accurate description of the rules of the House, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair can't engage hypothetical 
questions, the gentleman is correct that there are 5 minutes of debate 
in support of a motion to recommit.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and conduct 
today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' 
on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will 
amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Skelton amendment on 
prescription drug copayments for members of the military and their 
families.
  This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was 
defeated on a 4-8 straight party line vote.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment seeks to reduce proposed 
increases in copayments for military families back to current cost 
shares.
  As the war in Iraq drags on and on, we continue to ask more and more 
of the brave men and women who serve in our military. They are asked to 
sacrifice everything, from their own lives to the health and 
livelihoods of their families. These families are already struggling 
paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet.
  Maybe the increase in the copayments don't seem like much to the 
wealthy Americans who were rewarded by Republicans yesterday with a 
hefty five-figure tax break but, they sure make a significant break in 
the budgets of low- and moderate-income families with children.
  Mr. Speaker, not only is Ranking Member Skelton one of the most 
distinguished and respected Members of the House, he is also an expert 
on military personnel. To deny him the opportunity to even offer this 
responsible amendment is simply outrageous. Even those who don't 
support his amendment ought to have the courage to vote whether or not 
to help our soldiers and their families pay for medicine.
  I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not block the defense 
authorization bill and will not affect any of the other amendments that 
are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to debate 
and vote on the Skelton amendment.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good chance to 
debate the issues in the process today. After this debate, I am 
convinced that the process worked as it should. There can be no 
debating the basic facts. The House Armed Services Committee considered 
88 amendments; 75 of those amendments, 38 Democrat, 36 Republican, one 
bipartisan, were incorporated into the legislation.
  The House Rules Committee received over 100 amendments; 31 of those 
were made in order. They were about evenly balanced between the two 
parties. An additional six were incorporated into the manager's 
amendment. Numerous minority amendments were accepted and moved through 
regular order. The ranking members of the subcommittees and the full 
House Armed Services Committee all support the underlying legislation.
  Ultimately, there can be no dispute that the process followed for 
this legislation was fully the regular order. It was fair and protected 
minority rights.
  I think that we should focus, as we come to the conclusion of this 
debate, on what unites us instead of what divides us. The fact is that 
we agree on both sides of the House with 97 or 98 percent of what is in 
the actual legislation.
  This is actually a model of bipartisan cooperation, a consensus, 
despite some of the rhetoric that we have here today. To that end, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 
2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
  There is no doubt that the bill before us today authorizes critical 
funding and programs for our troops, our Nation, and my home state of 
Connecticut. It authorizes billions for weapons systems vital to our 
Nation's security, such as the F-22A, Joint Strike Fighter and C-17 
aircraft. It provides critical health care access to our National Guard 
and reserve by expanding their access to the TRICARE program and 
rejecting most of the Pentagon's proposed hike in TRICARE fees. For our 
men and women in Iraq, it authorizes billions for IED protection, body 
armor, up-armored Humvees and other equipment that will help keep them 
safe.
  By most accounts, this bill appears to have been considered in a 
bipartisan manner by the House Armed Services Committee. Protecting and 
providing for our men and women in uniform is one of our most important 
duties as elected representatives. It should not and must not be a 
partisan issue.
  It is therefore unfortunate that this bill has been brought to the 
floor by the majority leadership under a restrictive rule that prevents 
the House to considering several important and pragmatic amendments 
offered by Democrats that would have greatly contributed to our debate 
and this bill.
  Today we are not allowed to consider the amendment by the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, which would have 
blocked a provision increasing pharmacy cost-share fees for our troops, 
their families, and military retirees. While rejecting most of the 
President's proposed fee increases for TRICARE, this bill increases the 
co-pay for generic drugs from $3 to $9, and the co-pay for brand name 
drugs from $6 to

[[Page 7886]]

$16. These proposed increases may not amount to much on paper, but they 
add up to real money for a military family relying on their TRICARE 
coverage for their health care and prescription drug needs.
  The last thing we should be doing in this bill is increasing the 
burdens placed on military families at a time when their loved ones are 
being routinely and repeatedly deployed abroad. Getting by is hard 
enough these days for these families, and increasing the costs for 
their health care is unacceptable. Despite wide opposition to TRICARE 
fee increases, a handful of Republicans on the rules committee last 
night denied this House the opportunity to consider the Skelton 
amendment on its merits and allow a straight up or down vote.
  In addition, this rule blocks consideration of several other measures 
that address critical aspects of our national security. For example, an 
amendment that would have addressed the security implications of our 
dependence on foreign oil by expanding resources for the development of 
alternative energy sources, such as fuel cells, at the Defense and 
Energy departments was blocked. An amendment establishing a Truman 
Commission-style committee to investigate billions in contract abuses 
in Iraq will not see the light of day on the floor. A provision that 
would help to restore our reputation in the world by denying the use of 
taxpayer funds for the use of torture will not be debated. Finally, an 
important proposal to increase funding for one of our most critical 
national security challenges--the proliferation of nuclear weapons--was 
denied consideration today.
  Mr. Speaker, the national security challenges we face today, and will 
face in the future, are simply too important to be left subject to 
partisan politics. It is unfortunate that this rule fails to reflect 
the cooperation and bipartisanship on these issues that our troops and 
our nation expect and deserve.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 811 Rule for H.R. 5122, FY07 Department of 
                         Defense Authorization

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution the amendment specified in section 7 shall be in 
     order as though printed after the amendment numbered 23 in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by 
     Representative Skelton of Missouri 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. 5122, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Skelton of Missouri

       In section 731 (relating to TRICARE pharmacy program cost-
     share requirements), insert before ``Paragraph (6)(A)'' the 
     following: ``(a) Cost-Share Requirements.--''.
       In such section, add at the end the following:
       (b) Refund of Pharmacy Costs.--
       (1) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may pay an 
     eligible covered beneficiary a refund, subject to the 
     availability of appropriations for such refunds, consisting 
     of the difference between--
       (A) the amount the beneficiary pays for costs incurred 
     during fiscal year 2007 under cost-sharing requirements 
     established by the Secretary under section 1074g(6)(A)(B)(ii) 
     of title 10, United States Code, as amended by subsection 
     (a); and
       (B) the amount the beneficiary would have paid during such 
     fiscal year if the cost sharing with respect to agents 
     available through retail pharmacies were $3 for generic 
     agents and $9 for formulary agents.
       (2) Costs covered.--The refunds under paragraph (1) are 
     available only for costs incurred by eligible covered 
     beneficiaries during fiscal year 2007.
       (3) Eligible covered beneficiary.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible covered beneficiary'' has the meaning 
     provided in section 1074g(f) of title 10, United States Code.
       (4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations 
     to implement this subsection not later than October 1, 2006.
       (c) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     under title XV of this Act, $290,000,000 is authorized for 
     the purposes of the refund authorized under subsection 
     (b)(1).
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 192, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly

[[Page 7887]]


     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Abercrombie
     Cannon
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ford
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Moore (WI)
     Peterson (PA)
     Poe
     Smith (TX)
     Tauscher
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu

                              {time}  1252

  Messrs. BERMAN, WYNN and BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. KING of New York changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139. I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 195, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--226

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

                               NOES--195

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

[[Page 7888]]


     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Evans
     Ford
     Frelinghuysen
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (RI)
     Peterson (PA)
     Smith (TX)
     Wu

                              {time}  1308

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________