[Pages H2510-H2519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

{time} 1130

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

[[Page H2511]]

would have established a Truman-like commission, which we have been
trying for 2 years to do, one designed to ferret out corruption and
incompetence in our military contracting; and for some reason, the
majority of this House does not want to look where all that money is
missing in Iraq.
Despite the fact that the same measure has passed the House numerous
times, and despite the fact that it is the clear will of this body that
this commission be created and despite the fact that the word
``incompetence'' has become the most apt description of this
administration, a select few in this leadership made these decisions
for all of us that we would not even consider that amendment today, an
amendment which, were it enacted, would allow us to go looking for the
$9 billion in taxpayer money that this administration has literally
lost in the war in Iraq.
There are many more amendments to this bill that the leadership
refused to allow us to consider today, and because they are making
decisions for all of us and for the American people without their
consent, they decided we would not be allowed to consider Mr. Markey's
amendment which would prevent your tax dollars from being used to
torture people in the name of the United States of America. I know that
makes all of us proud that we are saying that we are going to go ahead
and allow torture.
I never thought I would see the day in this country when we would
compromise our core values so horribly, and to do so without our
consent is unconscionable.
The question my fellow Americans should be asking themselves is
``why.'' Why will the Republican leadership not allow the free flow of
ideas that are supposed to be the hallmark of our government?
I think we are all beginning to see how the rigidity of their agenda,
the narrow focus of their concern and their obsession with control are
not only damaging their own political future, but are deeply damaging
the Nation.
Even though the complicated challenges we face no longer seem to fit
the Republicans' narrow set of solutions, they march onward in lockstep
with their unyielding and ineffective agenda, but reality seems to be
playing out much differently than their program allows for.
Tax cuts for the rich cannot save the world and it cannot save
Americans. Preventing Americans from talking about an idea does not
make it go away, and the ends do not always justify the means.
Democrats and the rest of America have already opened their eyes to
these realities. Why does the Republican leadership not open theirs?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to begin, if I may quickly, by reminding my friends on the
other side of the aisle the basic nature of this bill.
It was a very bipartisan bill. It was universally praised as being
bipartisan by Members of both parties. In particular, Chairman Hunter
was singled out for operating inclusively, in a bipartisan manner.
There were 88 amendments offered in the House Committee on Armed
Services. Seventy-five of those passed. Of those passed, 38 were
Democrats, 36 were Republican, one was bipartisan. There were over 100
amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Of those, 31 were made in
order, an additional six were dealt with in the manager's amendment.
Only eight amendments were brought up for reconsideration in the Rules
Committee by the minority.
Now, I understand that not everybody is pleased with every aspect of
the bill, but to characterize the bill as anything other than
bipartisan, and bipartisan in process, I think is to not recognize the
nature of the process we have gone through.
With respect to Mr. Skelton's amendment, nobody in this House, I can
assure you, respects Mr. Skelton more than I do. I have served with him
on his committee. I publicly praised him yesterday, and that praise is
fully and well deserved. He is one of the distinguished Members of our
body.
I do point out his amendment was, in fact, considered in the House
Committee on Armed Services. It did fail. There were bipartisan members
for it and bipartisan against it, although it was largely a party-line
vote.
At some point you have to ask yourself, why do we have committees, if
not to make these decision? When a matter is dealt with fully by a
committee, who are well-versed in it, I think that should carry heavy
weight in determining whether or not we move on and consider a
particular amendment on the floor; and in this case, I think that was
thoroughly vetted and thoroughly discussed although, of course, my
friends still have the opportunity to include that provision in a
motion to recommit.
Let me conclude by just quickly going on and going through some of
the things that were included in TRICARE.
Under the bill that was fashioned by our distinguished chairman and
ranking member, working in a bipartisan fashion in the House Armed
Services Committee, H.R. 5122 will prohibit until December 31, 2007,
the Department of Defense's ability to increase TRICARE Prime, Standard
and TRICARE Reserve Select cost shares.
H.R. 5122 calls for an independent analysis to determine the
appropriate cost-sharing formula for the TRICARE program.
H.R. 5122 zeros out the costs for generic and formulary prescriptions
for participants in the TRICARE pharmacy and mail order program.
H.R. 5122 also adds $735 million to the Defense Health Program to
restore funding cuts included in the DOD budget request in anticipation
of increased beneficiary cost shares which, as mentioned, H.R. 5122
prohibits.
H.R. 5122 includes TRICARE coverage for forensic examinations
following sexual assaults and domestic violence.
H.R. 5122 provides TRICARE coverage for anesthesia and hospital costs
for dental care provided to young children and to mentally or
physically challenged beneficiaries.
I say this simply to make the point that we have had several years,
frankly, where this committee has worked diligently to improve the
TRICARE system to enhance the benefits available to our men and women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma
for his great work on behalf of the men and women who wear the uniform
and for his work on this bill, and all the members for the work on this
bill.
I just say to my great colleague from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), we did
put this bill together in a bipartisan fashion, and we did entertain
this amendment in the House Committee on the Armed Services. And the
point is that we came out of the committee with a very carefully
crafted bill in which we are trying to incentivize military families to
use mail order; and so we took down the cost of mail order
pharmaceuticals to guess what, zero; both generic and formulary drugs
down to zero. They do not pay a dime.
Now they win when they get these prescriptions through the mail, and
the taxpayers win because the costs are much less. That means you do
not even have the cost of transportation to go down to pick up that
particular prescription. So we took those down to zero.
The other thing we did that was a remarkable thing, that really
completed this transition of recognizing the National Guard, is we
moved the availability of TRICARE not just to National Guardsmen, who
heretofore were given TRICARE for an extended period of time before
they mobilized and for an extended period of time after they mobilized,
but we then moved it to all National Guardsmen who are drilling
reservists, all National Guardsmen, and with only a copayment of 28
percent of the costs.
So this is a monumental bill that has moved billions of dollars of
medical benefits to these great people who wear the uniform of the
United States.
Let me just say to my colleagues, this is a bipartisan bill. The
gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely right. We did all the right
things, and that is why it passed by a vote of 60-1.
No one has more respect for the gentleman from Missouri than myself.
We did consider his amendment in the committee, and the provision that
his amendment dealt with is a part of this balance of trying to move
people to

[[Page H2512]]

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

{time} 1145

ARPA-E would encourage and support our best and brightest researchers
and scientists to develop cutting-edge technology necessary to make
America energy independent.
Second, the amendment would have required the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the Director of
National Intelligence, to study and report to Congress on the national
security implications of our increasing demand for foreign oil.
Finally, the amendment would have increased the funds available for
the Defense Energy Support Center which buys and manages oil and other
energy supplies for the military service, the largest user of petroleum
in our country.
It also would have increased the funds available for the Advanced
Power Technology Office which promotes the increased use of fuel cells,
electric hybrids and hydrogen for military and homeland defense
vehicles and equipment.
These proposals would have been paid for by shifting more than $300
million in excess funds from the $9.1 billion proposed for ballistic
missile defense programs. I refer to them as ``excess'' because the
staff says they cannot be spent in fiscal year 2007.
Let me conclude by saying that it is imperative that the Members
address this vital issue. I am pleased that Mr. Skelton, Mr. Spratt and
other members were supportive.
Energy independence must be addressed in a serious, thoughtful
manner. When we put our minds to something, in my opinion, Americans
can solve any of the problems that confront them. Now, more than ever,
we must focus on addressing our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
I want to say in closing that I deeply regret that this important
issue was not allowed to come to the floor. I understand that portions
of this, only a portion, was considered in the committee, but surely
the issue of addiction to petroleum products, which our President has
talked about, is worthy of bringing to this floor, and I urge that it
be done.
I oppose this rule because I believe it has been restrictive to the
detriment of our national security and democracy in this House.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend who just spoke
and talked about the need to shore up energy supplies for our country,
I agree with him totally. And I agree with the idea that we should not
have to rely on that lifeline of petroleum coming out of the Middle
East, which has security ramifications.
Let me say to my friend that opening up a piece of land that is as
big as a third of the United States, that is, Alaska, a third of the
size of the continental United States, would go a long way toward doing
that. The amount of petroleum that we could be getting from one of our
own States within our own boundaries without having to depend on that
lifeline would accrue to the national security.
I say to the gentleman, I think it is a sad thing that the majority
of his party has not seen fit to do that. We are pursuing lots of
alternative forms of energy, but one problem with this particular
amendment is, it would take the money out of missile defense. I know
the gentleman is worried about the prospect of ballistic missiles that
are being tested by countries in the Middle East, that are being tested
to ranges that will include Israel, for example, and at some point,
certain locations in the United States.
So there are two aspects to these amendments. One is what you do; and
the other is where you pull the money from. The other part of that
story is where you pull the money from.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. We had a very thoughtful discussion about what you have
raised as alternative sources of energy in our own country, or
alternative sources for petroleum products in our own country. A full
discussion. I think that is a worthy discussion.
I do not think the amendment that I offered in any way negates that
discussion or negates the importance of having that debate. I agree
with the gentleman.
With respect to the source of funding, the staff discussed it. We
believe in the $9.1 million in 2007 this sum cannot be spent because of
practical reasons, as the gentleman probably knows, and I think his
staff agrees because we worked with his staff and with Mr. Skelton and
Mr. Spratt to ensure that we were not undermining because as you know,
I have been supportive of the defense system.
We believe this is such a critical issue. And as I said, the
President raised the addiction. We have to transfer not only the price
that the consumer is paying, which is affected by the lack of
alternatives to petroleum products, and therefore, those producers of
petroleum products throughout the world have us as a captive consumer
and we do not have price flexibility, but also in terms of the price at
the pump for our consumers.
So both from a national security standpoint and an economic
standpoint, I think this was the way to go.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is a
thoughtful statement. I think that what we have seen, regrettably, from
the gentleman's party, from the Democrat side, has been a series of
``noes'' to initiatives that would have increased the supply of
petroleum.
The amount of increase in petroleum that we have undertaken in the
last 4 or 5 years would have, by the projections I have seen, have been
made up by oil which could have come from, for example, Alaska which is
a third of the size of the United States.
So when the gentleman's party effectively closed down Alaska for
supplying petroleum, a large piece of Alaska for supplying petroleum
from the northern sector, that deprived us of an enormous supply of
petroleum which would have had a direct effect on the price at the
pump.

[[Page H2513]]

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

{time} 1200

That is not right. That is not the way we want to treat these young
folks. Let us do all we can to help them. And this is one way. Let us
at least vote on it. I will speak in favor of it. I would hope that
many people on the other side of the aisle would not only speak for it,
but would vote for it. It is a good amendment. I dare you to put it on
the calendar for us to vote. That is what we need to do so we can say
fully and fairly to the young folks, we have done our best for you.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I may, again, I want to thank my good friend from Missouri. There
is nobody who cares more about men and women that wear the uniform of
the United States than Mr. Skelton.
I do wish to point out again the amendment was considered by the full
House Armed Services Committee. It did not succeed.
I also want to point out again we made considerable progress in
TRICARE, many millions of dollars spent.
And, finally, something which maybe many Members may not be aware of
because they don't serve on that committee, active duty family members
actually get most of their prescriptions free from military hospitals.
Only 11 percent of prescriptions are obtained through a TRICARE retail
pharmacy. So we are really not talking about a great deal of money. And
we have a study authorized in this legislation under way to look at
what the appropriate distribution of the cost of these types of items
should be. I actually think the House Armed Services Committee has gone
a very long way in trying to address this very, very important issue;
and I have no doubt we will revisit it next year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to, once again, echo my great
respect for my partner on this committee, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), and just offer that one thing we have done in this
package is to take down the cost of pharmaceutical drugs to zero for
those enlisted

[[Page H2514]]

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

[[Page H2515]]

End of debate.
He first defended his proposal as a way to help veterans hunt. When
that didn't fly, it was to protect the animals.
Mr. Speaker, this absurd provision is indefensible, and a vote on it
should win; and that is why there will be no vote on it.
So as Members consider how to vote on this rule, I would ask them to
think about the national parks in their district and offer them this
advice: don't let the chairman take a drive in your district; he might
come up with better uses than letting the public visit their own
national park, and then you would be down here in my place trying to
keep our national parks open.
I oppose this rule. I ask the House to vote ``no'' and save itself
from this embarrassment.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I would love
to have the chairman take a drive in my district any day. We have Fort
Sill Army Post, Tinker Air Force Base, and he loves soldiers, so that
is fine by me.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a Vietnam
veteran and Purple Heart recipient.
(Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker and Members, it is not only
disappointing but it is truly mystifying to me to know why it is the
amendment that I offered would not be made in order. I think everybody
is in agreement that we need to do everything that we possibly can to
better protect the men and women who are serving in uniform in Iraq.
Everybody knows that the insurgent attacks are up in Iraq. They are
up from last year. They are up from the year before. And the fact that
those who recruit those insurgents can claim that we are there as
occupiers to control the flow of Iraqi oil is a very powerful
recruitment tool.
My amendment merely is a sense of Congress that says we are not there
to control the Iraqi oil. Let's send a strong message to those who are
subject to recruitment. Let's send a strong message to all of those who
think that this is oil motivated. Let's let them know that we are not
there for the oil.
Why would anyone on the Republican side of the aisle have a problem
with sending that message? We need to send it. We need to send it now.
We need to go back and fix this bill to be able to consider, not only
my amendment, but the other good amendments that were before us. And we
need to make sure that everybody knows it is not about the oil, and do
everything we can to protect our men and women serving in uniform.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I simply point out to my friends
on the other side of the aisle that all of these matters can be dealt
with in a motion to recommit. I would invite them to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this
rule. As the ranking member pointed out, let us debate and vote on the
Skelton, Andrews, Israel, Hoyer, Gordon and Udall amendments.
Earlier, the chairman and the ranking member had an important
discussion about oil production. It was a legitimate debate. But the
purpose of the Hoyer amendment is to focus on alternative fuel
production.
We all share support for the missile defense program. But it is the
largest single weapons research and development program in the DOD at
$10 billion. We are asking for $63 million to include an alternative
fuels production initiative in the Department of Defense so that we can
move closer to energy independence. Energy independence equals energy
security. That means national security.
Mr. Speaker, I can think of nothing more important to us today than
breaking our addiction to foreign oil and making sure that we are
secure in the long run, and the American people understand the
importance of this initiative.
Let's reject this rule and include these important amendments in the
debate that is forthcoming, give the whole House a chance to vote and
express its will.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong objection to this rule. This
was the second chance for the Rules Committee Republicans to get it
right, but they got it wrong again.
The rule allows debate on some important amendments but leaves out
the most crucial ones. The rule essentially prevents an airing of key
issues--and consequently reflects poorly on this body and does a
disservice to the American people.
In his testimony before the Rules Committee, Armed Services Committee
Ranking Member Skelton expressed strong support for a number of
amendments that would strengthen the bill (and strengthen real security
for all Americans.)
Among them were his own, an amendment to lower the increased retail
pharmacy co-payment fees for military families; an amendment offered by
Mr. Andrews and others to increase funding for nonproliferation
programs; and an amendment by Mr. Israel to require that chaplains
demonstrate sensitivity, respect, and tolerance toward servicemembers
of all faiths. None of these amendments was made in order.
Mr. Skelton also expressed strong support for an amendment on energy
security that I offered and a similar one that I offered with my
colleagues Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Gordon.
But even as Americans struggle to afford near-record high gas prices,
Republicans refused to allow debate on these amendments to increase
funding for alternative fuels programs at the Department of Defense.
America's addiction to oil from any source means that our security is
vulnerable and will continue to be until we have the vision to look
beyond the oil wells. I'm very disappointed that the Republican
leadership doesn't see this as a priority.
Another amendment not made in order was one offered by Mrs. Capps and
Mr. Snyder to strike language in the bill prohibiting the National Park
Service from carrying out a 1997 court-ordered settlement agreement
that requires the shutdown of a private trophy hunting operation on
Santa Rosa Island, part of the Channel Islands National Park. There
have been no hearings on this issue, the National Park Service is
opposed to it, and DoD has not requested it. The Republican leadership
should have allowed debate on this amendment.
Many more amendments worthy of House consideration were not made in
order. This means that the bill we will debate today on the House floor
will not address some of the key challenges affecting our military and
our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Speaker, this rule stifles debate, and I cannot support it.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the most pathetic rule since I have
been here, and I am not the only one who believes this. Last weekend I
was on a walk. I met an old friend of mine who told me his son, as we
were speaking, was landing in Mosul, Iraq with the United States Army.
And my friend and his wife were raising their grandson, a 2-year-old
because this soldier is a single parent.
And while he is over there fighting with courage, this House doesn't
have the courage to debate Iraq. And every single amendment that was
offered that would offer a strategic vision that questions George
Bush's decisions in Iraq was denied.

{time} 1215

The Abercrombie amendment to say we should have some plan to leave by
2010, denied. The Cardin amendment to have some plan, denied.
This House basically today has said it is only going to do one thing
and that America should do only one thing, and that is trust the
eminent judgment of President George Bush, who is apparently
infallible, unquestionable, and nothing that this U.S. Congress should
challenge.

[[Page H2516]]

My friend begs to differ, whose son landed in Mosul. This House
should challenge George Bush on Iraq. We should have a debate on it. We
should not ignore it. While our soldiers have courage enough to fight,
we ought to have courage enough to fight George Bush's misguided
policies in Iraq.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see my good friend
from Washington again. We actually visited Iraq together. I know how
strongly he feels about this issue. I respect that. I would also point
out, though, that we have discussed Iraq on many occasions in this
House. We have in the past, we will in the future.
In addition to that, again I just wanted to remind my friends of the
simple numbers: 88 amendments considered by the House Armed Services
Committee, 75 accepted, about evenly split; 100 amendments proposed to
the Rules Committee, 31 accepted, 6 considered or incorporated in the
manager's amendment. Frankly, all the other matters where folks are
disappointed or have a different point of view can be dealt with in a
motion to recommit. I suspect they will be.
The reality is, we have had a very bipartisan process. We agree on 98
or 99 percent of the issues that will be incorporated, I suspect, on
the final vote.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, as I
understand it, yesterday Mrs. Davis of California's amendment under
consideration of the defense bill was in order, even though it had been
considered in committee.
I assume that there was no rule prohibiting the consideration of that
amendment yesterday; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SNYDER. And so when we hear this discussion today, we have heard
it now with Mr. Skelton's amendment, we have heard it with Mr. Israel's
amendment, that because they were considered in the House Armed
Services Committee, there is no rule prohibiting their consideration
during consideration of the bill on the House floor today; is that
correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. That is a matter
for debate on the rule, as to how it proposes to treat particular
proposed amendments.

[[Page H2517]]

Mr. SNYDER. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. SNYDER. The suggestion has been made that these amendments that
have not been made in order for debate and discussion today be put in
the form of a motion to recommit. Under the rules of the House,
whatever motion to recommit is offered, is it accurate to say that
there will be 5 minutes allotted to the proponent of that motion to
recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The standing rules
provide for 5 minutes of debate in support of a motion that includes
instructions.
Mr. SNYDER. So if the decision is made by our side to try to combine
10 amendments that have been denied discussion on this floor today into
a motion to recommit, that would work out to an average of 30 seconds
to discuss nuclear proliferation, 30 seconds to discuss the pharmacy
amendment, 30 seconds to discuss the policy of chaplains.
Is that an accurate description of the rules of the House, Mr.
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. While the Chair can't engage hypothetical
questions, the gentleman is correct that there are 5 minutes of debate
in support of a motion to recommit.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience and conduct
today.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no''
on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will
amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Skelton amendment on
prescription drug copayments for members of the military and their
families.
This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was
defeated on a 4-8 straight party line vote.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment seeks to reduce proposed
increases in copayments for military families back to current cost
shares.
As the war in Iraq drags on and on, we continue to ask more and more
of the brave men and women who serve in our military. They are asked to
sacrifice everything, from their own lives to the health and
livelihoods of their families. These families are already struggling
paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet.
Maybe the increase in the copayments don't seem like much to the
wealthy Americans who were rewarded by Republicans yesterday with a
hefty five-figure tax break but, they sure make a significant break in
the budgets of low- and moderate-income families with children.
Mr. Speaker, not only is Ranking Member Skelton one of the most
distinguished and respected Members of the House, he is also an expert
on military personnel. To deny him the opportunity to even offer this
responsible amendment is simply outrageous. Even those who don't
support his amendment ought to have the courage to vote whether or not
to help our soldiers and their families pay for medicine.
I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not block the defense
authorization bill and will not affect any of the other amendments that
are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to debate
and vote on the Skelton amendment.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, we have had a good chance to
debate the issues in the process today. After this debate, I am
convinced that the process worked as it should. There can be no
debating the basic facts. The House Armed Services Committee considered
88 amendments; 75 of those amendments, 38 Democrat, 36 Republican, one
bipartisan, were incorporated into the legislation.
The House Rules Committee received over 100 amendments; 31 of those
were made in order. They were about evenly balanced between the two
parties. An additional six were incorporated into the manager's
amendment. Numerous minority amendments were accepted and moved through
regular order. The ranking members of the subcommittees and the full
House Armed Services Committee all support the underlying legislation.
Ultimately, there can be no dispute that the process followed for
this legislation was fully the regular order. It was fair and protected
minority rights.
I think that we should focus, as we come to the conclusion of this
debate, on what unites us instead of what divides us. The fact is that
we agree on both sides of the House with 97 or 98 percent of what is in
the actual legislation.
This is actually a model of bipartisan cooperation, a consensus,
despite some of the rhetoric that we have here today. To that end, Mr.
Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this rule for consideration of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year
2007 National Defense Authorization Act.
There is no doubt that the bill before us today authorizes critical
funding and programs for our troops, our Nation, and my home state of
Connecticut. It authorizes billions for weapons systems vital to our
Nation's security, such as the F-22A, Joint Strike Fighter and C-17
aircraft. It provides critical health care access to our National Guard
and reserve by expanding their access to the TRICARE program and
rejecting most of the Pentagon's proposed hike in TRICARE fees. For our
men and women in Iraq, it authorizes billions for IED protection, body
armor, up-armored Humvees and other equipment that will help keep them
safe.
By most accounts, this bill appears to have been considered in a
bipartisan manner by the House Armed Services Committee. Protecting and
providing for our men and women in uniform is one of our most important
duties as elected representatives. It should not and must not be a
partisan issue.
It is therefore unfortunate that this bill has been brought to the
floor by the majority leadership under a restrictive rule that prevents
the House to considering several important and pragmatic amendments
offered by Democrats that would have greatly contributed to our debate
and this bill.
Today we are not allowed to consider the amendment by the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, which would have
blocked a provision increasing pharmacy cost-share fees for our troops,
their families, and military retirees. While rejecting most of the
President's proposed fee increases for TRICARE, this bill increases the
co-pay for generic drugs from $3 to $9, and the co-pay for brand name
drugs from $6 to $16. These proposed increases may not amount to much
on paper, but they add up to real money for a military family relying
on their TRICARE coverage for their health care and prescription drug
needs.
The last thing we should be doing in this bill is increasing the
burdens placed on military families at a time when their loved ones are
being routinely and repeatedly deployed abroad. Getting by is hard
enough these days for these families, and increasing the costs for
their health care is unacceptable. Despite wide opposition to TRICARE
fee increases, a handful of Republicans on the rules committee last
night denied this House the opportunity to consider the Skelton
amendment on its merits and allow a straight up or down vote.
In addition, this rule blocks consideration of several other measures
that address critical aspects of our national security. For example, an
amendment that would have addressed the security implications of our
dependence on foreign oil by expanding resources for the development of
alternative energy sources, such as fuel cells, at the Defense and
Energy departments was blocked. An amendment establishing a Truman
Commission-style committee to investigate billions in contract abuses
in Iraq will not see the light of day on the floor. A provision that
would help to restore our reputation in the world by denying the use of
taxpayer funds for the use of torture will not be debated. Finally, an
important proposal to increase funding for one of our most critical
national security challenges--the proliferation of nuclear weapons--was
denied consideration today.
Mr. Speaker, the national security challenges we face today, and will
face in the future, are simply too important to be left subject to
partisan politics. It is unfortunate that this rule fails to reflect
the cooperation and bipartisanship on these issues that our troops and
our nation expect and deserve.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
``Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution the amendment specified in section 7 shall be in
order as though

[[Page H2518]]

printed after the amendment numbered 23 in the report of the
Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Skelton of
Missouri or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as
follows:

Amendment to H.R. 5122, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Skelton of Missouri

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 192, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 139]

YEAS--223

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

NAYS--192

[[Page H2519]]

McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--17

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

{time} 1252

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

Recorded Vote

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

[Roll No. 140]

AYES--226

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

NOES--195

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

NOT VOTING--11

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

{time} 1308

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

____________________