[Pages H3900-H3912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1815, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 293 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 293

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1815) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2006, 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 one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for 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) Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, 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 as 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 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. 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

[[Page H3901]]

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.
Sec. 6. During consideration of the bill under this
resolution--
(a) after a motion that the Committee rise has been
rejected on a legislative day, the Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole may entertain another such motion on that day
only if offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services or the Majority Leader or a designee; and
(b) after a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII) has been
rejected, the Chairman may not entertain another such motion.

{time} 1030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
on H. Res. 293.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday the Rules Committee
met and reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 1815, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
Madam Speaker, the rule is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of
debate equally divided and waives all points of order against the rule.
It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
and shall be considered as read and waives all points of order against
the amendment. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules and provides that amendments shall be
considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, and shall not be subject to amendment.
Additionally, it allows the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
to offer an en bloc amendment consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules and provides one motion to recommit,
with or without instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 1815 and
the underlying bill. This bill will enhance our security, increase the
capabilities of our military, and improve the lives of the brave men
and women who defend our country. Since September 11, 2001, our
military has proven its mettle and validated its doctrine, plans, and
programs during the ongoing war on terror.
Madam Speaker, I genuinely believe that the Committee on Armed
Services has presented us with an outstanding bill that addresses many
of the challenges our troops face on a daily basis. However, it is
important to remember that this yearly authorization is at root an
ongoing transformative process that occurs on an annual basis. This
year we have taken important steps in the improvement and
transformation of our existing forces during an era that is dangerous,
demanding, and filled with challenges that our country neither
anticipated nor prepared for during the 1990s.
To fully appreciate the significance of H.R. 1815, one must
understand the four long-term challenges we seek to address in this
legislation. The first long-term challenge stems from the procurement
holiday that our government voluntarily took during the 1990s. In those
years, neither the President nor the Congress funded the procurement
needs of our Armed Forces. As one example, during the 1990s the
ammunition accounts of our military were woefully underfunded. As a
result, even after radically increasing the productivity of our
ammunition plants in the last few years, we are still struggling to
keep pace with our current and projected needs.
The same is true of equipment, which was neither acquired nor
replaced in sufficient quantities during the years between the collapse
of the old Soviet Union and the onset of the war on terror. As a
result, our military is still dealing with the shortages of equipment
and munitions that were created in the 1990s and that have yet to be
fully resolved. This bill helps address these shortages.
Madam Speaker, the second long-term challenge we must address on a
continual basis is related to the transformation of our military
forces. With the passage of the Goldwater-Nickles reforms of 1986, our
military began putting an increased emphasis on jointness. Over the
years, increased jointness has generated different requirements for our
forces. Those requirements demand procedural, bureaucratic, and
technological changes within our Armed Forces. The principle of
transformation has affected everything that our military does, from how
we fight to how we deliver services to those who serve in our Armed
Forces. Properly used, joint planning, procurement, and operations are
an effective combat multiplier that creates the critical edge that our
forces need to defeat our adversaries. However, transformation comes
with a substantial cost. This is an issue we must address on an ongoing
basis. H.R. 1815 does just that.
Madam Speaker, the third long-term challenge we face is the need to
expand the size of our military. Over the past few years, it has become
clear that we went much too far in downsizing our military forces after
the end of the Cold War. To begin to address our manpower shortage, the
Committee on Armed Services increased end strength by 10,000 soldiers
for the Army and 1,000 Marines for the Marine Corps. This is on top of
increases made in the last 2 years. It is also in addition to reforms
allowing us to use a greater percentage of our military personnel in a
combat capacity.
Unfortunately, even these steps are not enough for our long-term
needs, but they are at least a start and responsive to the heavy
demands we are placing on our military forces. Over the next several
years, we will be forced to look more carefully at manpower needs and
come up with a more realistic assessment of what is actually required.
Still, H.R. 1815 is a good next step and one which we should support
and build upon in the coming years.
The fourth long-term challenge faced by the military results from the
global war on terror. This is not a conventional war. It is a
generational war which will take decades to win. We need to remember
this when approaching the needs of the military in the authorization
and the appropriations process. Hence, I believe we took a wise and
important step in this direction when we added $49 billion to the
defense bill to offset a portion of the costs of this conflict next
year. It is something that indicates our understanding of the long-term
nature of the challenge we face.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1815 is not a perfect bill; but it is a very,
very good piece of legislation. We must remember that the National
Defense Authorization Act moves us in the direction we need to go. For
that, all of us should be grateful. Ultimately, this bill is not about
programs, weapons, or research and development. It is about our
soldiers and their ability to defend the United States.
Today, some may want to discuss issues that, however important, are
superfluous to the war on terrorism and the long-term military
challenges that we face. We owe it to the sons and daughters of America
who are on a global battlefield in the war on terror

[[Page H3902]]

to address the real issues and challenges our military will confront
today and tomorrow. This legislation is a step in a continuing process
of enhancing our military capabilities in a dangerous world.
I would ask Members to support these prudent steps taken in this
thoughtful and comprehensive piece of legislation. Madam Speaker, to
that end, I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here today debating
the rule for next year's Defense authorization bill. But while we
should be discussing ways to better support our hardworking men and
women in uniform, we find ourselves revisiting a debate I had assumed
we settled years ago. Buried within H.R. 1815 is section 574, a
provision that would severely limit the participation of women in our
military. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement of
enormous proportions.
Some will say that section 574 merely codifies existing military
policy; but if this provision is passed, we will be sending an entirely
different message, not just to the brave women currently serving our
Nation throughout the world but to those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice, those who have been wounded or even killed. We will be
telling them and indeed their families, We have seen you at work
defending freedom and liberty here at home and abroad and you aren't
good enough. I cannot think of a more disgusting message to be sending
our troops, especially in a time of war.
This year, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel has not held
hearings, commissioned studies, or released reports on this important
issue. In fact, we have not seen a shred of evidence that a problem
even exists with the integration of women in the Armed Forces. Yet the
religious right wing in this country, against the advice of our
military leaders, has once again decided to bend the process of
government to their political will and force this issue upon America
without research, without fact, without debate, and without the benefit
of the democratic process.
We are in the middle of a war, in Iraq and on terror. Now is not the
time to be telling more than 20,000 women that we do not value their
service, especially when you consider that we are having serious
problems meeting our recruitment goals. What woman is going to join a
military that treats them as if they are second-class citizens not
worthy of respect and dignity? Last night in the Rules Committee we
watched as the coalition of members who stand rightly beside our women
in uniform were slapped down on a party-line vote by the majority in
their attempts to approve the Skelton-Snyder amendment which would
remove this ill-conceived provision from the bill. The Secretary of the
Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote the Armed Services
Committee voicing their strong opposition to this provision.
Likewise, we can have no real discussion on the future of America's
defense without talking about the base realignment and closure process.
I share the concern of many experts and many of my colleagues across
the political spectrum when I say that we are a Nation at war. Now is
not the time to be closing America's military bases.
Many experts are also concerned that we are overconsolidating our
resources in too few locations, especially when the greatest threat to
our security comes not from a massive invasion but from a sneak attack
by a terrorist organization on a target of opportunity. Did we not
learn after Pearl Harbor not to put everything in one place? Does it
not make more sense to have our resources strategically placed across
the country? Moreover, as record numbers of Guard and Reserve troops
are dying in combat defending this country, the Defense Secretary's
proposed BRAC list would ground a third of the Nation's Air National
Guard and Reserve units and shutter hundreds of other armories and
readiness centers across the country.
Many local leaders and homeland security specialists, including the
National Guard Association of the United States, has said that the
consolidation would hamper State responses to local emergencies and
domestic terrorist threats.
Unfortunately, the DOD did not adequately take into account a
military installation's value to homeland security when developing
their criteria. For example, the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station has
been recommended for closure despite the fact that it is the closest
base to three major United States cities and the two largest cities in
Canada. The Guard and Reserves who train there assist the Department of
Homeland Security in interrogating suspicious individuals detained at
the northern border. Yet the Air Force proposes to reduce the Air
Mobility Command by 54 percent in the Northeast, incapacitating
homeland defense in a region which comprises 20 percent of the entire
United States population. I understand this is also a problem for other
major cities and population centers around the country.
That is why I offered an amendment last night that would have
required the commission to evaluate bases for their homeland security
value, but unfortunately it was voted down.
All of us know that recruitment is another major issue that we are
facing today. We have a recruitment crisis in America and an Armed
Forces already stretched way too thin. But the DOD wants to close bases
that regularly exceed their recruitment goals for the Guard and
military reserves, like Niagara Falls. We do not know what will happen
to the large Guard and Reserve units who serve at bases recommended for
closure. We know exactly where their equipment is headed, but even the
Pentagon admits it does not know what is going to happen to our most
valuable assets, and those are the people stationed at the bases.
But perhaps what is most troubling about the BRAC list that was
submitted to the commission is that according to an Air Force BRAC
spokesman, the extensive criteria used to evaluate the strategic
military value of each base was not even adhered to by the Pentagon
when compiling their closure list.

{time} 1045

Instead, they used a collective judgment. I do not even know what
``collective judgment'' is supposed to mean, but I know that in
Niagara, thousands of people are losing their jobs and are at risk at a
base that is highly ranked in performing its duties, and one that has
always been evaluated highly that is on the chopping block. This is
unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this body.
This BRAC constitutes a complete reorganization of our military
resources during a time of war with very little thought, doing untold
damage to the National Guard and military Reserves, and does not
consider the homeland security role.
But there are a lot of concerns about the Pentagon that we have that
we will not talk about today because we did not get enough amendments
approved.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very fair
and balanced rule that will allow us to deal with what is clearly the
single most important issue that we address as a Federal Government and
as a Congress.
I want to begin by complimenting my very good friend, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for his great service to the United States of
America, his superb management of this rule, and his commitment to our
Nation's security. I also want to compliment the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services, as well as the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), for their fine work and the

[[Page H3903]]

fact that they have worked together so well on a wide range of very
important issues.
Madam Speaker, I also want to extend my congratulations to our
commander in chief, George W. Bush, and our great Secretary of Defense,
Donald Rumsfeld.
It is very clear that the United States of America over the past few
years has gone through challenges the likes of which we have never in
our Nation's history seen. Frankly, I believe that we are doing
extraordinarily well.
The Defense Authorization bill that we are going to be considering
today will create an opportunity for a free-flowing debate, a wide-
ranging discussion on important issues that we face. Eighty-nine
amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules for consideration
by 10 o'clock yesterday morning, and I am happy to say that of those 89
amendments, we have been able to take 29 of them and make them in
order. Of those 29, 16 amendments were offered by Democrats that will
be made in order, 13 will be offered by Republicans, and they will deal
with the tough issues that we have faced.
Now, the issue that my friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester, New
York (Ms. Slaughter), just raised is one which has been contentious,
and I believe we have been able to come to a consensus on the issue.
There was a great deal of stir over this question of women in combat
and what exactly we were going to do.
The manager's amendment, Madam Speaker, throws out the provisions
that the committee had, and it put into place a requirement that over a
60 legislative day period, the United States Congress will be involved
in any kind of change in the policy of women in combat that will be on
the horizon. Secretary Rumsfeld has made it very clear publicly that he
does not support any kind of change, and I believe that the action that
we will see in the passage of the manager's amendment will help to
ensure that that will take place.
I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that we are in a position today
where we have just gotten the report issued from the Base Realignment
and Closure Commission, and we know that there are concerns that have
come to the forefront from a number of our Members on the
recommendations of the BRAC Commission. As we begin debate on this
bill, we will allow for a wide-ranging discussion on the issue of base
realignment and closure.
The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), have a BRAC amendment that is made in order,
so that we will be able to discuss that here.
Madam Speaker, the five most important words in the preamble of the
U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' There is
nothing that we do that is more important than providing for the common
defense. Virtually every issue that we address can be handled by some
other level of government, but local governments and State governments
cannot provide for the common defense. That is why it is so important
that we step up to the plate, have bipartisan support for this rule
which will allow for free-flowing debate, and do everything that we can
to ensure that we get a great Defense Authorization bill to the
President of the United States.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong opposition to the rule. To
start with, the Committee on Rules made in order almost no amendments
that were of importance to the Democrats, including my amendment on
women in the military.
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the Committee on Rules has a duty to
this institution and to each of us to create circumstances that will
permit orderly consideration of legislation that is important to our
country and also structured to the debate, so that we will have the
opportunity to work our will on these important issues. Sadly, that is
not the case.
Let me start with the most important issue, women in the military.
Not only did the Committee on Rules not make my amendment in order,
which would have stricken horrendous language and established a study;
and by the way, my amendment was bipartisan in nature, along with my
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the ranking member
on the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed
Services; the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) from the other side of the aisle.
It was not only not made in order, but a brand-new amendment by our
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), was filed, not
in a very timely fashion, and which we did not see for the first time
until last evening. His amendment, which creates a time mechanism
wherein any MOS or specialty changes for women will be notified to the
Congress, also establishes a study. Should that amendment pass, that
wipes out the onerous language that is presently in the bill.
This amendment, though, that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) is offering, is camouflaged with other amendments, including a
memorial to the USS Oklahoma and a veterans' preference amendment and
one amendment dealing with missile defense. Further, it allows only 10
minutes of debate.
I think that is wrong. It is not an overstatement to say that the
action by the Committee on Rules is not living up to its
responsibility.
Let me give a bit of a history of the women in military. All of a
sudden, with only hours' or a day's notice, an amendment was passed in
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Committee on Armed
Services. That amendment related to women in the military, and the
military stated in a letter signed by Lieutenant General Campbell, and
I will place it in the Record, that over 21,900 positions would have to
be closed to women. To say it was wrong is an understatement.
That was wiped out by a second amendment in full committee. The
second amendment was one that froze the specialties and did not allow
full expansion of specialties or MOS's for the women and, furthermore,
it was an attempt to codify 1994 language from Secretary Les Aspin, but
it did not include all of the elements. That is the bill right now.
The new Hunter language, which I described a few moments ago,
fortunately wipes that out. If the Hunter language passes, which is not
necessarily artfully written, but if that passes, the women in the
military can breathe easier. It is a victory for the women in the
military and victory for national security.
Every person that wears the uniform of the United States of America
has the respect of every one of us in this body. We thank them for
their service. The women are putting their hearts, their souls, their
professionalism, their careers on the line every time they put the
uniform on every day, and I think it is wrong to have come up and
challenged these women in what they do for our country in this fashion.
I would also like to mention that the rule failed to mention the
Taylor amendment regarding TRICARE for Reservists.
Department of the Army,

Office of the Chief of Staff,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2005.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Skelton: Sir, if the amendment to H.R.
1815, proposing to prohibit the assignment of female Soldiers
to Forward Support Companies (FSC) addressed only FSCs in
Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat Teams and equivalent
elements of Stryker Brigades, a total of 21, 925 spaces
currently open for assignment to female Soldiers would be
closed.
We appreciate your interest in and support of our Soldiers
as we continue to fight the Global War on Terrorism.
Sincerely,

James L. Campbell,

Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,
Director of the Army Staff.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in support of the rule to provide consideration for the
National Defense Authorization bill. This legislation focuses on force
protection and personnel benefits for the soldiers and

[[Page H3904]]

airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. The
ability to adequately execute the mission for which they are called and
care for their families are the two issues that are second to none. I
believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and
will enable our men and women in uniform to continue to successfully
win the war on terrorism.
My trip to Iraq just a few weeks ago, the third I have made, did
nothing but reinforce my pride and confidence in our Nation's
warfighters. These brave men and women serve with honor and distinction
as they liberate a nation. Troops from the Eighth District of North
Carolina have been at the tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of
Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This legislation, first and foremost, takes care of our most vital
asset of our military: our people. It provides every serviceman with an
across-the-board 3.1 percent pay raise and increases the force
structure of the Army and the Marine Corps. It boosts the maximum
amount of hardship-duty pay and increases the amounts paid for active
duty and Reserve enlistments and reenlistments.
I am particularly happy that we are expanding the capacity of the
military health care system to provide health care to service members
and their families by requiring the reimbursement for services of
mental health counselors without a referral from a primary care
manager.
Additionally, I would like to mention the direct effects this
legislation will have for the men and women at Fort Bragg. There is
over $200 million for infrastructure and housing improvement, including
$11.4 million more than was in the President's request for the Third
Brigade Combat Team barracks complex. I worked hard to secure this
funding because it will help improve the living conditions for our
soldiers and support the Army's transformation to modularity.
Additionally, I am happy to support the funding for a new junior high
school at Fort Bragg.
The National Defense Act also addresses another critical issue, that
of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the Department
of Defense purchases textiles that are made in America. My top two
priorities are national security and economic security. There is
seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered
mutually exclusive. I have vowed to always work and support and promote
the U.S. manufacturing industry, but we must develop transparency
within DOD to ensure that our troops are wearing uniforms made in
America. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the other body will
recognize the need to safeguard U.S. textile jobs and work with us
through the conference process.
Madam Speaker, it is a gross injustice and misfortune that it took
the tragedy of 9/11 to focus the public eye on the need for a more
robust defense budget, but I feel that the legislation in front of us
today will help our troops accomplish their mission. We are
establishing a clear and strong course of support for our troops. I
encourage my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coasties, that we will strongly
support you and give you the resources necessary to perform the
mission.
Madam Speaker, I urge a vote in favor of the rule, as well as the
national defense bill.
The campaign began with shock and awe. At this point, it should be
awe, admiration and appreciation for what these men and women are
doing. Having been here for 7 years, the trend and support for our men
and women in uniform has trended ever upward. That is where it should
be.
As we look at this bill today, the way we can best thank our troops,
show our love and appreciation for them, is to pass this bill and
continue the upward trend that shows that we not only talk about our
troops, but we do things that will make their lives better and show our
appreciation.
I urge support for the rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui).
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding me this time.
Our men and women in uniform are honorably serving this Nation on the
ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other locations. But because of
our commitments, our Armed Forces are relying even more heavily than
usual on our National Guard and Reserves.
It is estimated that National Guard forces make up about half of the
U.S. force on the ground in Iraq. With this in mind, it is truly
disappointing that an excellent amendment by the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) was not made in order under this rule.
The Taylor amendment would give our Reserve and National Guard
members full access to TRICARE, the health care insurance provided to
those in our Armed Forces.

{time} 1100

It is simply irresponsible for us to allow the families of 20 percent
of Reservists and National Guardsmen to go without health care
benefits.
Our National Guard and Reserves know that they can be called up for
more than the usual 1 weekend a month, but they never would have
expected their 1-year tours of duty to be extended well beyond that
time frame. I am concerned that the civilian leadership of the military
has forced us to lean so heavily on the Reserve and National Guard
personnel.
These men and women serving in the National Guard and Reserves are
responding to the unexpected; and now we, their government, need to
respond in kind and not with a lot of platitudes. For all that these
men and women are doing, we should be able to find the $1 billion
necessary to provide them and their families with health care.
Offering every member of the National Guard and Reserves the ability
to access health care coverage is a moral issue. Our treatment of our
Reserve and Guard members is unacceptable. The Taylor amendment began
to address it. I am truly saddened that at a time of great service and
dedication on their part, we are quibbling about fully providing for
our servicemen and -women.
The line between active and reserve personnel has already been
blurred. Our Guard and Reservists need to be focused on fulfilling
their missions. They should not have worries in the back of their mind
about whether their spouse or their child is getting health care back
home.
This provision, passed in full committee, deserves debate on the
House floor. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this rule which will
allow this amendment to be made in order. We should honor our
servicemembers and give them the health care coverage they not only
deserve, but are entitled to.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Oklahoma has
16 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 17\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
(Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, in South Mississippi this
morning, four families of National Guardsmen will be notified that
their loved ones died yesterday in Iraq.
Last Friday, as I visited Walter Reed, I had the opportunity to visit
five Mississippians, three of whom are amputees, all of whom are
National Guardsmen or Reservists.
As the gentlewoman from California just mentioned, over 40 percent of
all the people serving in Iraq right now are Guardsmen and Reservists,
and a disproportionately high percentage of the deaths and wounds have
been received by them.
One way we tried to make it up to them for their supreme sacrifice to
our Nation was to see to that those Guardsmen and Reservists who choose
to can buy into the TRICARE health care coverage provided by our Nation
to every

[[Page H3905]]

other member of the Armed Forces, the regular soldier to their right,
the regular Marine to their left.
It was brought up in committee, and by a majority vote the Armed
Services Committee voted to allow National Guardsmen and Reservists to
buy into TRICARE. But somewhere between the committee and the Rules
Committee, someone decided that there was mandatory spending involved.
So the same Congress that has brought 21 bills to this floor that
waived all budgetary rules, no matter how much it ran up the deficit,
the same Congress that has added $2.2 trillion to the National debt in
just 4 years, that decided Paris Hilton can inherit hundreds of
millions of dollars without paying a penny in taxes, decided because
there was $5 million mandatory spending, these National Guardsmen could
no longer buy into that policy.
So we went to the Rules Committee. We showed the Rules Committee
where the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association
of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the
Adjutant Generals of every single State voted unanimously for this
amendment. The Reserve Officers Association and the Fleet Reserve
Association all endorsed this amendment. And yet the Rules Committee,
in a straight party line vote, decided that National Guardsmen and
Reservists cannot buy their health care.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House,
ignored the call of the adjutant general of Illinois and the 12,500
National Guardsmen in his State.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ignored the call of his adjutant
general and the 20,000 National Guardsmen in Texas.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) ignored the call of his
adjutant general and the 10,000 National Guardsmen from Missouri.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) ignored the call of his
adjutant general and 20,400 National Guardsmen.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) ignored the call of 12,000
National Guardsmen. The list goes on.
The bottom line is, if these people are good enough to serve our
Nation in Iraq, if they are going to die in disproportionately high
numbers, if they are going to lose their limbs in disproportionately
high numbers, do you not think this Congress could find the time to
debate an amendment that has already passed the Armed Services
Committee, and let every Member of this body decide whether or not
those Americans who are serving our country in the Guard deserve the
opportunity to buy health insurance for themselves and their families?
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Committee on Rules

David Dreier, CA--Chairman; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL; Doc
Hastings, WA; Pete Sessions, TX; Adam Putnam, FL;
Shelley Moore Capito, WV; Tom Cole, OK; Rob Bishop, UT;
and Phil Gingrey, GA.
Louise McIntosh Slaughter, NY--Ranking Minority Member;
James P. McGovern, MA; Alcee Hastings, FL; and Doris
Matsui.
____

Hastert, IL--12,594.
DeLay, TX--20,124.
Blount, MO--10,751.
McHugh, NY--16,010
Dreier/Hunter, CA--20,459.
Putnam, FL--12,088.
Doc Hastings, WA--8,495.
Sessions, TX--20,124.
Capito, WV--6,270.
Cole, OK--9,407.
Rob Bishop, UT--6,497.
Gingrey, GA--12,594.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, the well of this House ought to be a free
market of ideas. It ought to be a great national forum where we dissect
legislation and debate the big issues both.
And particularly today, as we take up the Defense authorization bill,
with thousands of troops deployed all over the globe in harm's way,
suffering casualties daily, we are spending $440 billion a year on
national defense, plus the $80 billion in supplementals, over a half
trillion dollars, today particularly we should have a full, vigorous,
and complete debate.
In the 1980s, it was this way. At the height of the Cold War, when
this bill came to the floor, 100, 200 amendments were offered; and most
of them, many of them were made in order. It sometimes took us 2, 3
weeks to get this bill off the floor. We had a full, free, and open
debate.
Today the debate will be circumscribed, carefully controlled to bar
the issues that our Republican colleagues want to avoid or fear losing
if the House were allowed to weigh the issues and work its will. This
is not the way this institution should treat something so important.
In addition, in years past, when we ran the House, there was
something called comity. And senior members of the committee in
particular were allowed to have the deference at least of a few
amendments that would be offered on the House floor. Their experience
was valued.
Today, the gentleman from Missouri's (Mr. Skelton) amendment, shut
out. My amendment on nonproliferation, well crafted, carefully
considered, at least I wanted the opportunity to present that choice to
the people of the House, shut out. I will go down the list with senior
members on the committee, senior Members in the House, offering
thoughtful amendments that at least this House should consider, weigh
and work its will upon, all have been shut out. This is no way to run a
debate on something of such gravity and importance.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and
colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak for peace. I can no longer
keep silent. Mr. Speaker, the time for silence is long past. As we
debate the rule on the Defense Authorization Act of 2006, I believe
that somebody, someplace, sometime, must stand up and speak up for the
cause of peace.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to bring the conflict in Iraq to an
end; 12,000 of our young men and women, the sons and daughters of
America, have been wounded, and more than 1,600 of our soldiers have
died. Tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens are dead, wounded, living in
fear and chaos, uncertain about tomorrow.
How many more of our young men and women will we have to lose in a
car bombing, a kidnapping or armed conflict before we understand that
this war was unnecessary?
I have said it before, and I say it again today: war is vicious. It
is evil. It is bloody. It is messy. It destroys the hopes, the dreams,
the longing and aspirations of a people. It leaves little children
without fathers and mothers. The war in Iraq is tampering with the very
soul of our Nation.
In these Chambers we have struggled with many human problems. We have
made decisions that have changed the course of history. Today I ask of
my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to search their souls and ask themselves,
is it possible for a great Nation to come to a point where we decide to
lay down the burden of war? Is it possible for a great Nation, a
powerful Nation with a proud people to evolve to that level where we
study war no more; where we decide we are going to destroy the tools
and instruments of violence and war and devote all of our intelligence
and all of the resources of this great Nation to lay the foundation for
peace?
The way of peace is a better way, a more excellent way. We cannot and
must not continue to move down the road that leads to a more bloody
war, more violence, more death. If we fail to take heed, if we fail to
listen and be guided by the spirit of history, the future will not be
kind to us.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
partisan rule.
The Rules Committee has once again failed to promote debate and
instead rubber-stamped the majority and the administration's policies.
As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I do not offer
so-called political amendments. I offer

[[Page H3906]]

substantive amendments to real solutions to real problems.
Prisoner abuse is a real problem.
Nuclear proliferation is a real problem.
But the Rules Committee apparently does not think so.
I offered three simple amendments that would have improved the bill
in these areas. They were all rejected.
My first amendment would have mandated that the Pentagon share
International Committee of the Red Cross reports on treatment of
detainees with Congress that we would hold confidential so that we
could be informed and be part of the solution.
The Rules Committee clearly does not worry about fixing our dismal
image in the Muslim world or preventing human rights abuse or upholding
our end of the bargain in overseeing the military.
I submitted an amendment that would have created an office of
nonproliferation in the White House to better coordinate our
nonproliferation efforts.
But the Rules Committee is not worried about nuclear proliferation.
And, finally, over the last 2 weeks the majority has sought to limit
the opportunities for women in the military over the objections of the
Secretary of Defense, the service chiefs and Democrats.
The Rules Committee seems to agree with the majority on the Armed
Services Committee that when men volunteer for the Army, they become
soldiers. But when women volunteer for the Army, they become women
soldiers.
Mr. Speaker, this rule is a travesty and should be soundly rejected.
Vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, to my good friends on the other side, I would simply
point out that most of the speakers are actually members of the
authorizing committee and passed out this bill 61 to 1, had
opportunities to offer those amendments at the committee level,
presumably did so, and if they did so, were not successful, and still
felt the bill was worthy of being sent on to the floor for further
consideration.
In addition, the Rules Committee actually considered and has allowed
29 amendments, a majority of which are Democratic amendments. There is
always going to be a judgment debate as to what should or should not be
considered and how much time should be devoted in a process to any
particular piece of legislation. So I respect the gentlewoman from
California's opinion, but obviously we have a difference on this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
(Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter) for allowing me time to speak.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition of Rule H.R. 1815. Last night
the Rules Committee rejected an amendment that I offered to help our
military families who have lost loved ones in the defense of our
freedom. My amendment would eliminate the survivors benefit pension
dependency and indemnity compensation offset.
Under current law, survivors are prohibited from receiving payments
from both programs at the same time. This is unfair and an unjust
provision that hurts the families of those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice to defend our freedom and democracy.
If a soldier was enrolled in a survivor benefit plan when they died
of service connected causes, the spouse's SBP benefit is reduced dollar
for dollar by the amount of the DIC, a $933 a month deduction. The
remaining SBP is barely enough for a spouse with a family to survive or
pay the basic needs such as food, clothing, and rent. We should be
taking care of these families, not abandoning them in this time of
need.

{time} 1115

I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 808, which would correct the gross
injustice for the families of all military personnel and retirees who
died of a service-connected cause.
We must keep our promise that we made to the brave men and women who
have given their lives for our freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, so
that we can have the opportunity to debate my amendment and to vote on
this important issue. If this effort fails, I would ask that you vote
``no'' on the rule for H.R. 1815, and give our soldiers and their
families the respect that they deserve.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Marshall).
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, most Americans do not know that this
country taxes disabled veterans. We take from military retirees, who
are also disabled, 100 percent of their disability benefits. We started
doing this in the 1800s. It is indefensible, in my opinion, and I think
most Americans, if they realized we were doing it, would recognize that
this is an indefensible policy of our country.
Mr. Speaker, for the last 20-some-odd years a supermajority of the
Members of this House have signed on to legislation to end the disabled
veterans tax. Once again, there is legislation that would end the
disabled veterans tax with many cosponsors. Most of the Members of this
House will ultimately cosponsor that legislation.
My amendment, Mr. Speaker, would have brought to the floor as part of
the Armed Services authorization bill a complete elimination of the
disabled veterans tax. That amendment was ruled out of order by the
Committee on Rules. I think that rule is wrong. I think Members of this
House want to vote on that particular subject.
Two years ago in the House Committee on Armed Services authorization
bill we took a small step toward eliminating this tax. Mr. Speaker, we
should take the final step of eliminating this tax by permitting the
amendment to be made. It would receive an overwhelming vote. We would
end the disabled veterans tax and we would end an injustice to our
veterans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter) has 5 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) has 15 minutes remaining.
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
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me
time.
This restrictive rule is unfortunate and unnecessary. We have heard
from my colleagues today, talking about huge issues and deep concerns.
It is unfortunate that one additional casualty in the short-circuiting
of this process is that we will not discuss the hidden issue
surrounding base closures, and that is the cleanup of the mess the
military leaves behind.
I offered a modest amendment that would have at least required that
the 17 bases from the 1988 round of base closures be dealt with by the
Department of Defense with a framework. But even as we move into a
fifth round of base closures, that problem remains unaddressed.
To date, the Pentagon has been dragging its feet and Congress has
been missing in action. Due to this unnecessarily restrictive rule, the
bill is another lost opportunity to treat communities with closed bases
fairly, and for Congress to continue to be absent without leave.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong
objection to this rule. It allows debate on some important amendments,
but leaves out many more, some of them dealing with key issues that I
believe the House should have an opportunity to consider.
As a new member of the Committee on Armed Services, I am grateful to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for working with me on a
number of provisions on the bill that are important to my State of
Colorado.

[[Page H3907]]

But I am disappointed that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
and the committee did not see it fit to work with Democrats on issues
of additional importance to the Nation.
Last week, the Committee on Armed Services voted for the Taylor
amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent basis.
But this language was removed due to budget constraints, and the
Committee on Rules refused to make the Taylor amendment in order.
The Committee on Rules also precluded debate on the Spratt amendment
to increase spending on nonproliferation programs, on the excellent
Tauscher amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment, and on an
amendment I offered with my colleague, a bipartisan amendment to help
former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from
cancer related to exposure to radiation.
The rule also precludes debate on
the Skelton-Snyder-Wilson-Shimkus
amendment that should have been offered, another bipartisan amendment,
to strike the provisions saying that any positions currently closed to
women shall remain closed.
Many more amendments worthy of consideration were not made in order,
Mr. Speaker.
My friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) mentioned that in
the committee the bill was voted out almost unanimously, but that does
not mean that on the floor we cannot improve it. There are many of
these amendments that should have been made in order.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. It stifles debate
and I cannot support it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. It
allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out many more,
some of them dealing with key issues that I believe the House should
have an opportunity to consider.
As a new Member of the Armed Services Committee, I am grateful to
Chairman Hunter for working with me on a number of provisions in the
bill that are important to me and my state of Colorado. But I'm
disappointed that Mr. Hunter and the Committee didn't see fit to work
with the Democrats on additional issues of importance to the nation and
to the prosecution of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm sure that the views of the Republican leadership of the Armed
Services Committee influenced the deliberations of the Rules Committee
and thus the final rule that was adopted. But it is the Rules
Committee--not the Armed Services Committee--that determines which
amendments are made in order.
Last week the Armed Services Committee voted for Representative
Taylor's amendment to provide TRICARE to all Reservists on a permanent
basis. But Chairman Hunter took the language out due to budget
constraints, and the Rules Committee refused to make Mr. Taylor's
amendment in order. The Rules Committee also precluded debate on
Representative Spratt's amendment to increase spending on
nonproliferation programs, on Representative Tauscher's excellent
amendment on sharing reports on detainee treatment with Congress, and
on an amendment I offered with my colleague Representative Beauprez to
help former nuclear weapons workers in Colorado who are suffering from
cancer and other conditions related to their exposure to radiation and
other hazards.
The rule also precludes debate on an amendment to be offered by
Representatives Skelton, Snyder, Wilson and Shimkus to strike the
provision saying that any positions currently closed to women shall
remain closed. Mr. Hunter will offer an amendment that waters down the
provision slightly but combines it with other provisions, thus
preventing a clean up or down vote on this very important issue.
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 issues affecting our military and our
policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, this rule stifles debate, and I cannot support it.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I had to leave the room
briefly. It was my understanding, when I left the room, that the
gentleman had mentioned that the bill had passed committee 61 to 1. Is
that correct?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. That is correct.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Is the gentleman aware that when the bill
passed the committee, the amendment that provided TRICARE for every
single Guard member and Reservist was a part of that bill?
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I am aware of that.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Okay. I just want the gentleman to know
that that 61 to 1 vote included that amendment.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Reclaiming my time, I am also aware that the
item the gentleman mentioned was actually stricken on the parliamentary
question.
I would like to submit for the Record the chairman of the committee's
letter to that effect and also the statement from CBO upholding that
decision.
Committee on Armed Services,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Dear Armed Services Committee Colleague: This morning the
Congressional Budget Office informed me via letter (copy
attached), that the amendment agreed to during the
committee's mark-up of H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, extending TRICARE
coverage to all reservists will result in additional direct
(or mandatory) spending. As a result, the inclusion of this
provision would cause the bill to exceed the mandatory
spending allocation provided under the Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget. Exceeding the mandatory allocation will cause
H.R. 1815 to violate the Congressional Budget Act and subject
the bill to a point of order against its consideration on the
House floor.
I have consulted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee
on this matter and he informs me that if the bill is brought
forward to the floor in violation of the Budget Act, he will
exercise his prerogative to raise the applicable point of
order and thus prevent its consideration on the floor.
Accordingly, after informing Mr. Skelton and the sponsor of
the amendment, I am exercising the authority granted to me by
the committee to remove this section in order to bring the
bill back into compliance with the Budget Act and eliminate
this impediment to its floor consideration. In summary, if
this action is not taken, a point of order will be raised and
sustained against the bill and its consideration will be
blocked.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter,
Chairman.
Attachment.
U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2005.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As requested by your staff, we are
sending you this letter containing our preliminary estimate
of a provision in H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, as ordered reported
by the committee on May 19, 2005. The provision would provide
access to TRlCARE health insurance benefits for reserve
component personnel. Implementing that provision would have
significant effects on both spending subject to appropriation
and direct spending.
The provision would affect direct spending by increasing
mandatory expenditures in the Federal Employees Health
Benefits (FEHB) program. On a preliminary basis, CBO
estimates that enacting this provision would increase direct
spending for the government's share of FEHB premiums for
retirees by $5 million in 2006, $94 million over the 2006-
2010 period, and $269 million over the 2006-2015 period.
Under the provision, all reservists in the Selected Reserve
would be eligible to enroll in TRlCARE, the health insurance
system for the Department of Defense (DoD). Based on
information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 120,000
reservists work for the federal government. CBO expects that
some of these reservists who are currently enrolled in the
FEHB program would leave that program and enroll in the new
TRlCARE for Reservists program because the premiums would be
lower than for FEHB and the coverage would be more generous.
Generally, TRICARE premiums are lower because medical costs
are highly correlated with age--the average reservist is age
34 while the average for enrollees in the FEHB program
(including retirees) is closer to age 60.
Because the estimated health care costs for reservists
switching to TRICARE are likely to be lower than the average
per capita costs for all other enrollees in the FEHB program,
average costs for the FEHB program would rise, even though
its total costs would decline. Thus, CBO expects premiums for
the remaining enrollees in the FEHB program would rise to
cover the higher average cost. The government's share of
premiums for annuitants (about 72 percent) is direct
spending.
In addition to the direct spending effects, this provision
would affect spending subject to appropriation. CBO estimates
that implementing this provision would increase spending by
DoD for this new benefit by about $230 million in 2006, and
$4.6 billion over the 2006-

[[Page H3908]]

2010 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.
In addition, we estimate that spending for reservists in the
Coast Guard would increase by $2 million in 2006 and $46
million over the 2006-2010 period, assuming appropriation of
the estimated amounts. Finally, under this provision,
spending by the federal government for active workers in the
FEHB program would decline by an estimated $340 million over
the 2006-2010 period.
If you have any questions, the CBO staff contact is Sam
Papenfuss, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am against this rule and the underlying
bill. Good substantive amendments that the American people need to hear
debate on were not ruled in order.
I have offered an amendment to force the Pentagon to share the names
of the companies that have received $20 billion to make Pentagon
computers talk to each other. According to the GAO, DOD business
systems remain fundamentally flawed, unable to provide timely and
reliable information and leaving DOD vulnerable to fraud, waste, and
abuse. And yet we continue to give the Pentagon more and more, despite
their admission that they cannot track $2.3 trillion and despite the
fact that they lost $100 million in Iraqi building funds and $9 billion
in Iraqi oil revenue.
Both my amendments would force the Pentagon to tell us where all of
this money is going.
My second amendment would have required the Pentagon to tell the
American people who had the contracts to operate the detention centers
like Abu Ghraib that have so shamed us recently.
Just imagine what we could do for Americans in need without all that
Pentagon waste. I do, and that is why I ask these questions.
Other amendments addressing critical issues were not allowed, and I
can think of no reason why the majority refuses to allow a full debate
on these critical issues confronting us today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) for yielding me time and the Committee on Rules for their
hard work on this bill, on the many amendments that they reviewed, took
testimony on, and for their shaping of this package which will move the
defense bill onto the floor here momentarily and allow us to do what it
takes to make sure that the men and women of the Armed Forces, who are
fighting in the war against terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other
theaters around the world, will have the tools to get the job done.
Now, we have two considerations here. One consideration is to make
sure that Members get their amendments heard and have their voices
heard. The other consideration is to make sure we get a bill. And
sometimes one of those considerations overbalances the other.
The worst thing that could happen is not to move this bill
expeditiously through the House, move it quickly to conference, and
provide the leadership not only for the base bill this year, but for
the $49 billion that we have bolted onto the base package that, at the
end of this fiscal year, will give our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
the force protection, the armor, the pay, the troop levels and all the
other things that we need to carry out this mission.
So this is a crucial and critical bill, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate
the expeditious fashion that the committee has moved in.
This bill provides a 3.1 percent pay raise for our troops. We have
increased pay 25 percent over the last 4 years. It provides many, many
personnel benefits. It provides an expansion of family housing. It
provides additional bonus flexibility for the services to continue to
attract and recruit Americans to come into the armed services. And it
gives our people additional warfighting capability, additional sensors,
additional armor, additional munitions and weapons, all the tools that
they need to get the job done.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have put in some very important
limitations on the costs of weapons systems. We see weapons systems
costs going through the roof. We see a DDX program that now says it is
going to cost $3 billion a ship. In a very businesslike way, we have
analyzed these costs and the increases, and we have put in limitations
and mechanisms that will allow us to control these costs. If we do not
start bringing down the costs per ship, per aircraft, per big unit, we
are not going to have enough of these systems to provide the coverage
we need around the world.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most important of bills. It is a bill that
goes to the very heart of our freedom, and that is the equipping and
projection of our Armed Forces. I thank the Committee on Rules for
doing a great job in packaging this bill in a way that we can move it
expeditiously across the floor.
I thank the gentleman for his great work and his great work as a
former member of the Committee on Armed Services, who is going to be
coming back to see us and who sits in with us regularly.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, my faith means everything to me. And because of it, I
strongly believe that the men and women in uniform should be able to
practice their own faith as the Constitution guarantees.
Recent accounts paint a picture of considerable religious intolerance
at our Air Force Academy. There has been a tide of complaints about
harassment of anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian and special
treatment for those who are. And the Air Force recently reassigned
Captain MeLinda Morton, an Academy chaplain, who spoke out about this
issue.

{time} 1130

These accounts must be thoroughly and publicly investigated. We must
avoid a repetition of the initial slow response of allegations of
sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy.
Last week, I, along with 45 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the
Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation. I
understand that the DOD Inspector General is looking into the
reassignment of Captain Morton. But Air Force investigators looking
into the allegations of religious intolerance have not interviewed key
people who brought this issue to light, and this does not bode well for
how seriously the Air Force is taking this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) had an
amendment to direct the Pentagon to protect religious freedom at the
Air Force Academy. Unfortunately, it was not made in order. I hope this
does not signal that the House will not take this issue seriously.
Religious freedom is the bedrock on which this Nation is founded. It
would be intolerable if those who risk their lives for American ideals
and values are denied the very religious freedom that they are
defending.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the
previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow three
very important amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules
last night and defeated on party-line votes.
The first amendment is by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor)
and would provide members of the selected reserves access to the
TRICARE military health care program on a permanent basis for the
duration of their service. The second amendment, by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Marshall), would provide eligibility for payment of both
retired pay and veterans disability compensation for certain additional
military retirees with compensable service-connected disabilities. The
last amendment is by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) and
would repeal the dependency and indemnity compensation offset from
survivor benefit plans' surviving spouse annuities.

[[Page H3909]]

Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from
taking up the authorization bill, but a ``yes'' vote will preclude the
House from considering these three amendments critical to the debate of
our national defense. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, in closing, I again want to draw the attention of
the Members to the strengths of H.R. 1815. It takes many steps forward
in reforming the procurement and acquisition systems, increasing end
strength, and provides $49.1 billion in supplemental funds for the war
on terror.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond just briefly to some of the
concerns expressed on the other side of the aisle. First, about the
process by which the Committee on Rules operated.
I remind my good friends that this bill was again reported out of the
House Committee on Armed Services by a vote that was nearly unanimous,
only one dissent; that 29 amendments have been made in order; that the
majority of those amendments are Democratic amendments; and that we
will, obviously, have an additional opportunity to debate the full
merits of the bill as we move forward. I think there is more than ample
time for discussion and debate.
Second, on the Reservist health care issue. This is a difficult
issue, to say the least. It is an emotional issue and an important
issue. I would like to point out that under the leadership of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Committee on Armed Services
has made important progress in this particular area. It has extended
the amount of time that members that are going to be deployed are
eligible for TRICARE. It has extended the amount of time that those who
are leaving service are able to enjoy the benefits of TRICARE. It has
allowed additional time granted for time served in deployment and
combat situations. So I think the Committee on Armed Services has
expressed a continuous desire to keep looking at these issues.
I have personally visited with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh), who is the subcommittee chairman responsible for this
particular area; and he has assured me he wants to continue the
progress that has been made over the last several years.
Again, I remind my good friends there were many opportunities when
they were in the majority to address these type of issues. While we
have been in the majority, we have addressed concurrent receipt in a
step-by-step process that is moving us in the right direction. We have
addressed survivor benefits in a step-by-step process moving us in the
right direction. And now we are addressing the critical issue of health
care as well. So I think important progress is being made on all these
fronts, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, I would like to note that this legislation would not have
been possible without much hard work on the part of the gentleman from
California (Chairman Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the ranking member of the committee; and the other
subcommittee chairmen, and finally the members of the Committee on
Armed Services themselves. As evidenced by their hard work, this is a
bipartisan bill that the vast majority of the House should be able to
agree is a good product. H.R. 1815 passed in the committee, again by a
vote of 61 to 1. It deserves the same strong bipartisan support on the
floor, as does its underlying rule.
Mr. Speaker, many today have complained about what they consider to
be critical shortcomings in this legislation. No legislation is ever
perfect; and as I said in my opening statement, the defense
authorization specifically is more of an ongoing process than a final
product. However frustrated some may be with particular aspects of H.R.
1815, it undoubtedly moves our military in the direction it needs to
evolve and enhances the security of our country and the well-being of
our men and women in uniform.
I would urge the Members on the other side of the aisle to consider
carefully what a ``no'' vote would mean and say to our servicemen and -
women in the field. Therefore, I once again urge my colleagues to
support this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, while I rise today in support of H.R.
1815, the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006,''
I do have concerns about language in the bill that would limit the role
of women serving in the military and restrict the opportunities
available to them. I am hopeful that we will pass an amendment later
today to correct this language.
I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to provide retirement
credit to the members of the National Guard serving on State duty who
responded to the 9/11 attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.
I, along with my friend and colleague, Representative King, and other
members of the New York delegation, have introduced legislation, H.R.
2499, which would accomplish the same goal, and I am thankful that the
Committee has worked with us to correct this inequity.
I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton,
Representative Synder, and especially Representative McHugh, who were
so instrumental in this process, and I commend them for their
commitment to the men and women serving this country all over the
world.
I also would like to acknowledge both the military and minority staff
of the committee for their assistance.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were an unprecedented
event in American history.
The provisions included in this bill will show our gratitude to the
brave men and women who responded on that day by giving them the
retirement benefits to which they are entitled.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 293--Rule on H.R. 1815, National Defense
Authorization Act for FY 2006

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the amendments printed in section 8 shall be in
order as though printed after the amendment numbered 1 in the
report of the Committee on Rules if offered by the Member
designated. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
specified in section 8 and shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Sec. 8. The amendments refered to in section 7 are as
follows:
(1) Amendment by Representative Taylor of Mississippi or a
designee.

Amendment to H.R. 1815, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

At the end of subtitle A of title VII (page 290, after line
5), add the following new section:

SEC. 707. EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY OF SELECTED RESERVE MEMBERS
UNDER TRICARE PROGRAM.

(a) General Eligibility.--Subsection (a) of section 1076d
of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) Eligibility.--A member'' and
inserting ``(a) Eligibility.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a member'';
(2) by striking ``after the member completes'' and all that
follows through ``one or more whole years following such
date''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member who is
enrolled, or is eligible to enroll, in a health benefits plan
under chapter 89 of title 5.''.
(b) Condition for Termination of Eligibility.--Subsection
(b) of such section is amended by striking ``(b) Period of
Coverage.--(1) TRICARE Standard'' and all that follows
through ``(3) Eligibility'' and inserting ``(b) Termination
of Eligibility Upon Termination of Service.--Eligibility''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Such section is further amended--
(A) by striking subsection (e); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (e) and
transferring such subsection within such section so as to
appear following subsection (d).
(2) The heading for such section is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE standard coverage for
members of the selected reserve''.

(d) Repeal of Obsolete Provision.--Section 1076b of title
10, United States Code, is repealed.
(e) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 1076b; and
(2) by striking the item relating to section 1076d and
inserting the following:

[[Page H3910]]

``1076d. TRICARE program: TRICARE Standard coverage for members of the
Selected Reserve.''.

(f) Savings Provision.--Enrollments in TRICARE Standard
that are in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of this Act under section 1076d of title 10, United
States Code, as in effect on such day, shall be continued
until terminated after such day under such section 1076d as
amended by this section.
Page 508, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
Page 509, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $180,000,000)''.
____

(2) Amendment by Representative Salazar of Colorado or a
designee:

Amendment to 1815, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Salazar of Colorado

At the end of subtitle B of title XV (page 474, after line
9), insert the following new section:

SEC. 15XX. REPEAL OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION
OFFSET FROM SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN SURVIVING
SPOUSE ANNUITIES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program under
chapter 13 of title 38, United States Code, and the Survivor
Benefit Plan under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, are separate and distinct programs,
with--
(A) the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program,
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, providing
financial support for the survivors of those dying on active
duty or from a service-connected disability and available
only to unmarried surviving spouses, minor children, and low-
income parents; and
(B) the Survivor Benefit Plan, a contributory program
administred by the Secretary of Defense, providing the
surviving spouse of a military retiree and those killed in
service a monthly annuity upon the death of the
servicemember.
(2) By law, an amount paid to a beneficiary under the
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program for any month
is deducted from a payment for that month to the same
beneficiary under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
(3) The offset described in paragraph (2) is inequitable,
and it is necessary that such inequity should be corrected,
both as a matter of fairness and as an important tool for
recruiting and retention of critical personnel in the Armed
Forces.
(4) The inequity of the offset requirement described in
paragraph (2) has quickly become a significant issue for
surviving spouses and the families of those who have died in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
(5) The requirements of Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom and the fatalities that continue
to occur in those operations have created a compelling need
to rectify issues that adversely affect retention of critical
personnel in the Armed Forces.
(6) Congress and the leadership of the Department of
Defense did not anticipate that the offset between Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation benefits and Survivors Benefit
Plan annuities would create financial hardships on surviving
families of members of the uniformed services whose cause of
death is service-connected.
(7) In light of the matters stated in paragraphs (1)
through (6), there is an urgent and compelling need for
Congress to immediately eliminate the offset of payments
between the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program and
the Survivor Benefits Plan program.
(b) Repeal of DIC/SBP Offset.--Subsections (c), (e), and
(k) of section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, and
subsection (c)(2) of section 1451 of such title are repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection
(a)--
(1) shall take effect on September 11, 2001; and
(2) shall apply with respect to payment of annuities under
subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code,
for months beginning on or after that date.
(d) Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously Refunded to
SPB Recipients.--(1) A surviving spouse who is in receipt of
an SBP annuity that is in effect before the date specified in
subsection (b) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who had previously
received an SBP retired pay refund shall repay an amount
determined under paragraph (2). Any such repayment shall be
made in the same manner as a repayment under subsection
(k)(2) of section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The amount of a repayment under paragraph (1) shall be
the amount that bears the same ratio to the amount of that
refund as the surviving spouse's life expectancy (determined
in accordance with standard actuarial practices) bears to the
anticipated total duration of the annuity (determined as the
sum of such life expectancy and the duration of the annuity
already received).
(3) In this subsection:
(A) The term ``SBP annuity'' means an annuity under the
program established under subchapter II of chapter 73 of
title 10, United States Code.
(B) The term ``SBP retired pay refund'' means a refund
under subsection (e) of section 1450 of title 10, United
States Code, as in effect before the date specified in
subsection (b).
(e) Budget Treatment.--All amounts paid pursuant to this
section for fiscal year 2006 and prior years are designated
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402(a)(2) of
H. Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2006.
____

(2) Amendment by Representative Marshall of Georgia or a
designee:

Amendment to H.R. 1815, as Reported

Offered by Mr. Marshall of Georgia

[Ending the Disabled Veterans Tax]

At the end of subtitle D of title VI (page 243, after line
2), insert the following new sections:

SEC. 6XX. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND
VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL MILITARY RETIREES WITH COMPENSABLE
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

(a) Extension of Concurrent Receipt Authority to Retirees
With Service-Connected Disabilities Rated Less Than 50
Percent.--Section 1414 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (a).
(b) Repeal of Phase-in of Concurrent Receipt of Retired Pay
and Veterans' Disability Compensation.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the final sentence of
paragraph (1);
(2) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating
subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and (d),
respectively; and
(3) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated), by striking
subparagraph (4).
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 1414 of such title is amended
to read as follows:

``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also
eligible for veterans' disability compensation: concurrent
payment of retired pay and disability compensation''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for
veterans' disability compensation: concurrent payment of
retired pay and disability compensation.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as of January 1, 2006, and shall apply to
payments for months beginning on or after that date.

SEC. 6XX. COORDINATION OF SERVICE ELIGIBILITY FOR COMBAT-
RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION AND CONCURRENT
RECEIPT.

(a) Eligibility for TERA Retirees.--Subsection (c) of
section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``entitled to retired pay who--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``who--
``(1) is entitled to retired pay, other than a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20
years of service creditable under section 1405 of this title
and less than 20 years of service computed under section
12732 of this title; and
``(2) has a combat-related disability''.
(b) Amendments to Standardize Similar Provisions.--
(1) Clerical amendment.--The heading for paragraph (3) of
section 1413a(b) of such title is amended by striking
``rules'' and inserting ``rule''.
(2) Specification of qualified retirees for concurrent
receipt purposes.--Subsection (a) of section 1414 of such
title, as amended by section 2(a), is amended--
(A) by striking ``a member or'' and all that follows
through ``retiree')'' and inserting ``an individual who is a
qualified retiree for any month'';
(B) by inserting ``retired pay and veterans' disability
compensation'' after ``both''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Qualified retirees.--For purposes of this section, a
qualified retiree, with respect to any month, is a member or
former member of the uniformed services who--
``(A) is entitled to retired pay, other than in the case of
a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less
than 20 years of service creditable under section 1405 of
this title and less than 20 years of service computed under
section 12732 of this title; and
``(B) is also entitled for that month to veterans'
disability compensation.''.
(3) Standardization with crsc rule for chapter 61
retirees.--Subsection (b) of section 1414 of such title is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Special Rules'' in the subsection heading
and all that follows through ``is subject to'' in paragraph
(1) and inserting ``Special Rule for Chapter 61 Disability
Retirees.--In the case of a qualified retiree who is retired
under chapter 61 of this title, the retired pay of the member
is subject to''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as of January 1, 2006, and shall apply to
payments for months beginning on or after that date.

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H3911]]

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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 212]

YEAS--225

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
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
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
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
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)

NAYS--200

Abercrombie
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
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
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
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
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)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
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
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
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
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
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Castle
Clay
Emerson
Gingrey
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Pickering

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1200

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania and Mr. HIGGINS changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 198, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 213]

AYES--225

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
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
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
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
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
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

[[Page H3912]]

Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--198

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
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
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
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
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
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-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
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
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
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
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
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--10

Clay
Emerson
Gingrey
Hastings (WA)
Issa
Jones (NC)
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Musgrave
Pickering

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1208

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.

____________________