Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5658, Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5658, DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 -- (House of Representatives - May 21, 2008)

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most comprehensive and important pieces of legislation that the House considers each year. The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for this bill is proof that we understand our obligation as legislators to support our military and ensure our national security by coming together and producing quality measures.

I am proud that the chairman and ranking Republican of the Armed Services Committee introduced the underlying legislation together. Chairman Skelton and Representative Hunter are to be congratulated for a job well done. Without their work, the unanimous support for the bill with a vote of 61-0 in the Armed Services Committee would not have been possible.

Mr. Speaker, for too long, President Bush's administration has neglected the needs of our military. I was just in Baghdad 2 days ago, and I saw evidence of this neglect. While the President has shown little hesitation to send troops into harm's way, his refusal to take care of them and their families when they return is downright despicable.

The underlying National Defense Authorization Act gives our servicemen and -women and their families the resources that they need and deserve. That includes providing a 3.9 percent pay raise for all servicemembers and expands the authority of the Defense Department to offer bonuses.

This bill takes care of our soldiers and their families by increasing access to financial aid for education, expanding survivor benefits, and enhancing health care services. And it rejects President Bush's proposal to inflict $1.9 billion in TRICARE fee and premium increases and other increases in health care costs for soldiers.

The bill also strengthens our national security by providing our troops with state-of-the-art equipment and authorizes the expansion of the military.

It includes fiscally responsible provisions that are designed to increase efficiency and accountability in the military.

The bill cracks down on the Blackwaters of the world and requires the Department of Defense to put into place policies and systems under which contractors are held accountable for their actions.

The underlying legislation also addresses the issue of readiness. Our Armed Forces are hurting today because we continue to ask them to do more with less.

Under this bill, Congress is making it clear that at least one of the three branches of government will not allow rhetorical and ideological policies to stand in the way of doing the right thing by our troops.

We continue to send our brave young men and women into battle without proper equipment or protection. The National Defense Authorization Act authorizes nearly $800 million for personal body armor, as well as $2.6 billion for mine resistant ambush-protected vehicles for our troops in the Middle East.

Finally, the bill prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, requires the Iraqis to invest in the reconstruction of their own country, and I, for one, have emphasized this repeatedly since the beginning of this adventure in Iraq. And this bill provides funds to help train both Iraqi and Afghani security forces.

Mr. Speaker, no one political party holds a monopoly on national security. The underlying legislation is clear evidence that, under new leadership, Congress is addressing the needs of our armed services.

America cannot afford to continue to make the same mistakes we have made in the past. The stakes are too great, and the world is too dangerous.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Speaker, when Democrats were elected to the majority in 2006, we promised America that we would govern responsibly, with conviction and in a bipartisan fashion.

The Duncan Hunter Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, named appropriately after our colleague from California, is a bill that is a perfect example of all three of these things. It is further proof of how things have changed here in the House in a very short period of time.

The bill continues the necessary cleaning up of the mess created by the Bush administration by modernizing our forces and restoring readiness to our military. It gives our Armed Forces the tools they need to get the job done abroad while taking care of our soldiers and their families here at home.

This is a good rule for a great bill. I urge my colleagues to support both.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

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 Democratic 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 Democratic 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 definition of the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending business.''

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 Democratic majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

BREAK IN THE TRANSCRIPT

Source