Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1815, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1815, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 25, 2005)
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov