Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. 5122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5122, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 11, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/