News Room
Speeches
May 21, 2008
Rule to provide consideration of the “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009,” (H.R. 5658)
I thank my friend for yielding me this time to discuss “part one” of the proposed rule for consideration of the “Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of 2009.”
This legislation, which was approved by the Armed Services Committee last week by a unanimous vote of 61-0, would make a number of very positive improvements to our Armed Services – and I think that this entire House should be particularly proud of the Committee’s bipartisan efforts to improve the quality-of-life and safety of those serving our country in the Armed Services, and their families.
This legislation would authorize $600 billion in spending for our nation’s armed forces – including $530 billion in spending for defense programs at the Pentagon and Energy Departments and $70 billion to bolster the success of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for part of 2009.
It would authorize $783 million for continued procurement and enhancement of current body armor systems; $1 billion for the training and support of the Iraqi Security Forces; and nearly $2 billion for unfunded readiness initiatives as requested by the Services.
It increases Active Duty Army personnel by 7,000 and the Active Duty Marine Corps personnel by 5,000 – while also providing our Uniformed Service members with a much-deserved pay raise of 3.9 percent.
And, for our active duty troops and veterans who have already done so much to serve our country, it prohibits increased co-pays and premiums for TRICARE recipients, and expands suicide prevention efforts.
Finally, the legislation also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report on Iran’s nuclear capabilities so that this Congress can take a proactive role on recognizing the potential of this threat and be made aware of the threat that these capabilities pose to America and to our allies.
While this legislation does a great deal to improve our Armed Services and to provide them with the resources that they need – and it accomplished much of this in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion – there are a few areas that I think could still be greatly improved.
While the Rules Committee has not yet reported out a rule governing amendment debate for this legislation, I want to take this opportunity to make clear a few of the areas that I and a number of my Republican colleagues believe can be improved through the amendment process.
First, it is my hope that the amendment process for this year’s authorization bill will be as open as it had been under the Republican majority, when between 30 and 40 amendments were regularly allowed to be debated and decided by the entire House of Representatives – not just by the Speaker of the House and her hand-picked Representatives on the Rules Committee.
As a co-Chairman of the Missile Defense Caucus, I am particularly concerned about the reduction in funds and focus that the Armed Services Committee chose to provide in this bill for protecting America from the threat posed by ballistic missiles.
In the Armed Services Committee, my friend Terry Everett from Alabama offered amendments to both authorize the President’s request fully for missile defense and allow procurement to go forward; and to restore half of the $10 million that the committee eliminated from the request for the study of a Space Test Bed.
Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, a fellow co-chairman of the Missile Defense Caucus, offered his own amendment to add $100 million to a program to launch multiple interceptor missiles at once to defeat multiple incoming missiles or decoys in the event of an attack.
While these amendments were defeated in Committee, I believe that the entire House should have the opportunity to hear their arguments and make their own decision on these issues – as they also should on my amendment to state the Sense of Congress that we need to support the development, testing, and fielding of the capability to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase to protect America’s interests.
I am also greatly disappointed that this legislation halts all A-76 competitions for civilian jobs at the Department of Defense for 3 years. The Department has a long history of using public-private competition as an effective management tool, which has resulted in significant savings for the taxpayers.
Overall, the Department of Defense has reported an estimated $2.95 billion in gross savings for public-private competitions completed from fiscal 2003 to fiscal 2007, with a return of approximately $20 for every dollar spent on competition.
I strongly believe that allowing Congress to impose artificial restrictions on the ability of federal agencies to manage themselves efficiently and effectively is short-sighted – and while it may be good for increasing the flagging membership rolls of big PUBLIC sector labor bosses, in this case is simply bad for both the American citizen and the American taxpayer.
Despite these shortcomings which I still hope can be addressed, there are many good things in this legislation, and I will reserve the balance of my time for my colleagues to come down to the floor today and explain more about them.
Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has totally neglected to do anything constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families are facing today.
Because of lack of meaningful action by this Democrat Congress, as a result today as a country we are not efficiently using our energy resources. For decades, our country has been handicapped by not tapping into our existing oil reserves and the effort to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR has been fought and blocked to the detriment of America’s energy independent and the high price that we are now paying at the pump.
So, today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule – not to rewrite it, just to amend it – to allow for consideration of H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008 introduced by Representative Bartlett AS WELL AS quote “any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” End of quote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question. I urge my colleagues to do something about rising fuel costs by voting to defeat the previous question.
