Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the minority party offers a motion to recommit on a bill and the Speaker asks the Member if they are opposed to the bill and the Member announces to the House that they are opposed to the bill and then votes for the bill on final passage, is that a violation of the rules?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note for the record that one of the Members who was on the motion to recommit, the gentleman from Massachusetts, voted against the bill. The Member that offered the motion to recommit voted for the bill, and I assume that then that is a violation of the rules.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to notify the House and you, Mr. Speaker, that when the rules are violated, when it is very clear that the rules are violated, I intend, on a regular basis, to make note of that for the record. I take the point that the gentleman from Maryland makes. And he and I talked about it. And I take the point that I have talked to the Parliamentarian about this. I think his point is a good point. I think if there are Members who feel that they didn't get an opportunity to offer an amendment, or to have their say on a bill, then maybe we ought to change the motion to recommit to an opportunity for any Democrat Member to stand up and offer an amendment on the bill. But my point is, we have rules. And we are being criticized and lectured to every day around here about the fact that people don't like the way the Rules Committee operates, or about the rules. And my point is, if we have rules, we should abide by them. All Members should. So I want the Members of the House, and I want you, Mr. Speaker, to know that I am going to continue to pursue this. But I am also going to pursue, at the beginning of the next session, a way to change the rules to reflect an opportunity for the minority party to have their say on a bill. But until that happens, I believe we should follow the rules. I have no doubt that the gentleman from Maryland, who is a man of the House and understands the rules, would want us to abide by the rules. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, my final point is this: when I raise this point of order, in no way do I impugn the motives of any Member. I have respect for every Member here, and I think Members know that. And I do. They are freely elected. They can come to the floor. My point is, we have rules. We should abide by them. When we don't, I am going to raise a point. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think in the future, the leadership on the other side should instruct their Members about what the rules of the House are, that if a Member wants to offer a motion to recommit, that is well within their right to do it, but they have to vote against the bill. Let me ask another parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the House offers the motion to recommit and is asked the question whether they oppose the bill and say that they do in order that they can offer the motion, is it a violation of the rules of the House that that Member then votes for the bill and contradicts his statement that he was against the bill when he offered the motion to recommit? Is that a violation of House rules?

Mr. LaHOOD. Is it a violation of the House rules for a Member to have the prerogative to offer the motion to recommit and state at that time that they are opposed to the bill, and then vote for the bill, which is what occurred here on the House floor on the intelligence authorization bill? The gentleman from California offered the motion to recommit. He was asked by the Chair if he opposed the bill. He said he opposed the bill. And he is recorded as voting for the bill. Is that a violation of the House rules?

Mr. LaHOOD. Is it possible, then, for the Chair to instruct a Member that wants to vote against the bill that offered the motion to recommit, that they in fact, according to House rules, have to vote against the bill? Can the Chair instruct a Member that perhaps does not know the rules of the House that when they stand up to offer a motion to recommit and they are opposed to the bill, that in fact they have to vote against the bill? They cannot have it both ways, can they, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. LaHOOD. My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. Speaker, can they have it both ways?

Mr. LaHOOD. Can they have it both ways?

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, my response to my friend from Maryland is that I cast no aspersions on any Member. You know better than that. But we have rules around here, and people need to know what the rules are. When the Rules Committee folks come down here and criticize the majority because they do not particularly like the way the Rules Committee operates, then I think it is perfectly proper for Members to realize that if they want to offer the motion to recommit because they have a grievance, because they did not get their amendment, that is well within their right to do it; but they ought to do it under the rules of the House. That is my only point. I cast no aspersions on Mr. Schiff. I have great admiration and respect for him. But I just think all the Members ought to know what the rules are around here.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. LaHOOD. I take your point.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Keller and I especially thank Mr. Kind for introducing this. This was really Ron's idea to honor President Jordan; and I know that the university and the people there are very, very appreciative, Ron, of your thinking to honor Dr. Jordan. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Chairman McKeon and his staff. I want to thank the majority leader's office. The truth is, ordinarily we don't do these kinds of resolutions, but because of the importance of the work of Dr. Jordan, the chairman of the full committee and the majority leader's office agreed that we could have this resolution brought forward. This resolution will be presented tonight by some of us who will be at a fund-raiser at Gallaudet University where some very outstanding Republican basketball players and some outstanding Democratic basketball players will be participating in a basketball game at Gallaudet University. And I hope that some of us, including Mr. Kind and Lynn and others, will have a chance to present this resolution to Dr. Jordan. Dr. Jordan became the first deaf president of Gallaudet University in 1988 after the students and people in the community came forward and said they wanted a deaf president. And at the end of the protest, the Gallaudet board named Dr. Jordan president. He is from Glen Riddle, Pennsylvania. He spent 4 years in the Navy after high school. Dr. Jordan, as was mentioned, was in a car accident when he was 21 years old that left him deaf. He received a BA degree in psychology from Gallaudet in 1970. In 1971, Dr. Jordan received his MA in psychology from the University of Tennessee. He also received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Tennessee in 1973. Once he completed his education, Dr. Jordan began teaching in the Gallaudet Department of Psychology. He became chair of the department in 1983 and dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences in 1986. Dr. Jordan has also been a research fellow at the Donaldson's School for the Deaf in Edinburgh, Scotland; an exchange scholar in Krakow, Poland; and a visiting scholar and lecturer at schools in Paris, Toulouse, and Marseille, France. He lobbied for the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and was a lead witness in support of the ADA during a joint session of Congress. President Jordan, as was mentioned, has raised nearly $40 million for Gallaudet between 1997 and 2001. The money has been used to strengthen the academic program, increase the endowment, and construct the Student Academic Center. He also established the President's Fellow Program. The program is designed to increase the number of deaf and hard-of-hearing faculty members by providing support for deaf and hard-of-hearing college graduates to complete their degrees. He has received 11 honorary degrees and numerous awards, including the Presidential Citizen's Medal and the Washingtonian of the Year Award. Dr. Jordan has also served as the chair and vice-chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. In July 2005, he received the George Bush Medal for the Empowerment of People with Disabilities. He will retire in December of this year, and his true partner in all of the work that he has been doing at Gallaudet has certainly been his wife, Linda. They have been married for almost 38 years. I have had the privilege, along with a Democratic Member of the House, of serving on the board of directors of Gallaudet University. I was first appointed by Speaker Gingrich. In my district there is a school for the deaf, the only school for the deaf in Illinois, in Jacksonville, Illinois. So many of our students come here to Washington, and my interest in the school for the deaf in Jacksonville led to my interest in Gallaudet, and I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Jordan during the time of my tenure on the board of the directors at Gallaudet University, and what a privilege that it has been to work with him. He is a true marathoner. Dr. Jordan has completed more than 200 marathons, 26 miles for a marathon, and 40 100-mile marathons. But he has completed the marathon of his life by doing the job that I am sure he always wanted, to be president of Gallaudet University; and he has been an inspiration for deaf people. Each year I try to go to Gallaudet and visit with the students, and I can tell you he is an inspiration to the students there; and he is an inspiration, I think, to all of us and should be an inspiration to all Americans, that even with disabilities, you can do great things, and he surely has done great things. So I want to add my congratulations to Dr. Jordan for a job well done, and I know he will not fade away. I know he will continue to work with the disability community and work around Washington, D.C. and do all that he can to improve those who have disabilities, particularly those who are hearing impaired. And, again, Mr. Kind, thank you for your consideration in introducing this resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a few words today in recognition of Mr. Charles ``Chuck'' Klyber, a sportsman with a high degree of cooperative spirit and exceptional athletic ability. At 68 years old, Charles competes in the Illinois Senior Olympics games alongside men and women senior athletes in many different events. The Illinois Senior Olympic Games bring together regional athletes 50 years of age and older. The games consist of 26 different sporting events in which participants compete in traditional Olympic-style events, such as track-and-field, basketball, and cycling. Charles celebrated a spectacular 2005 season, setting several records, and winning a combined total of 23 medals. Mr. Klyber reached Gold status in the 10K run and 5000 and 1500-meter running events. Charles also earned Silver medals in the 200, 400, 800, 1500-meter runs, discus, shot put, and javelin. Performances in the 1500-meter, Football Accuracy, discus, and shot put also earned Charles Bronze medals throughout this season. Following outstanding performances, he has been nominated for the 2005 Illinois Senior Olympic Games Athlete of the Year Charles has admirably demonstrated exceptional athletic ability bringing great honor and pride to the State of Illinois, the senior community, and the Illinois Senior Olympics Games of Springfield, Illinois. Continuing his lifelong athletic participation, Charles has set his sights on the 2007 National Senior Olympic Games in Lexington, Kentucky, in which he will run his last race. I commend Charles for his admirable triumphs thus far and wish him success as he continues to complete in the future. He is an inspiration to all of us--and to quote him, ``Who said getting older can't be a blast?''

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for taking time this evening to honor Muftiah, because as some Members know, when we came here in 1994, which is the class I was elected to, not one of us had ever really served as Speaker pro tem because we had been out of the majority for 40 years. For those of us who have had the privilege of acting as Speaker pro tem, we have relied almost exclusively on the Parliamentarians to give us good advice, to share with us the importance of chairing the House in a way that dignifies this body, by following the rules, doing it in a fair and bipartisan way; and for the kind of opportunity that I think Muftiah has provided to those of us who have had this privilege, we are very, very grateful to her. As one who was a former staffer of 17 years for two previous Members, one who served as the longest-serving Republican leader, Bob Michel, in the minority we relied a great deal on the Parliamentarians to help guide us through meeting the challenges of trying to get things done as a minority party. Muftiah was certainly a part of that team that really helped us do that. Then coming into the majority party and serving with great privilege and honor as Speaker pro tem, I can tell you that Muftiah was extraordinary in her ability to help us get through some very, very important legislation not only for those of us in the majority party, but for the country. We could not have done it without her great assistance and great knowledge. She is an extraordinary person, outside of the work she does here in the House and aiding all of us who sit in the Chair, but in her own personal life, as the mother of four children, having a spouse, and having to work long hours. As one who has served here as a staffer, I can tell you that the staff does not get enough credit for the good work that goes on around here in helping us do the work that we do. In particular, the Parliamentarians do an extraordinary job in making sure that things are done correctly, by the book, and Muftiah has certainly been a part of a great team and will be greatly missed. Muftiah, thank you for the wonderful, wonderful, good, solid advice and the professional manner with which you have distinguished yourself in this House of Representatives. I know it is very difficult to walk away. Mr. Speaker, we owe her a great deal for what she has done for those of us who have had the privilege of presiding and for her great advice. Good luck and Godspeed. We are very grateful to you.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the 1 hour in support of the resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, the reason that I introduced this resolution is because I feel very strongly that we are in a position in the House to send a very strong message of support to those who are doing the hard work in Iraq, those who have done the hard work in Afghanistan, and those men and women who we call our citizen soldiers, and a big debt of thanks for what they have been doing in the work that we have asked them to do. I have been a very strong supporter of the President's position when we went to Afghanistan because I thought we needed to bring down al Qaeda. And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Afghanistan. It has been done by the hardworking men and women who brought down al Qaeda and the 25,000 troops that are still there. And no politician can take credit for what has taken place in Iraq. I supported the resolution to go to Iraq. I have supported President Bush on every request that he has made before this House for the money to support our troops, and now we have more than 135,000 troops and many men and women working in the State Department and the embassy there trying to help stand up a democracy, help stand up a police force, and help bring about democracy in Iraq. If we go along with the BRAC Commission recommendations, what we say to those hardworking men and women who have done the work that we have asked them to do is that we are thinking about, not thinking about, the BRAC recommendations would close the bases, close some of the guard bases, say to the citizen soldiers who have done the hard work, thanks, but we don't need you any longer. This is the wrong message to be sending. These hardworking men and women have done the job that we asked them to do, and that is the reason that we have seen such great success in Afghanistan and in Iraq. So I ask Members today to support this resolution and send a message to those who have done the hard work that these BRAC recommendations are not the right approach. When the establishment of the BRAC came about, it was prior to 9/11. It was prior to going into Afghanistan, prior to going into Iraq, and prior to us asking our men and women, the citizen soldiers and the full-time military, to do the hard work that they are doing. This sends the wrong message. This is not the message that we want to send to those that are there, that the Guard bases and the air bases and the military bases that are being recommended for closure or realignment were not right. When we are spending the kind of money that we are spending, we are not saving an awful lot through these BRAC recommendations. I would submit to the House that if 9/11 had happened prior to us passing this BRAC, that BRAC would not have passed, we would not have established a commission, because we would need a very strong military and we would need these Guard bases. I also want to point out to the House that there is a Federal law that has been ignored by BRAC and ignored by the Defense Department. It is a Federal law that says you cannot close air and Guard Reserve bases without the authority of the Governor of the State, and this has been ignored. It was ignored by BRAC, and it was ignored by the Defense Department. I think it is a law that has standing, and I think it is a law that makes an awful lot of sense. The Governors should have a say in what bases are closed. But it was a law that was ignored. So I say to those in the House that today is not the day to send the kind of message that we will be sending if we do not approve the resolution that was considered by the Armed Services Committee and being considered here today. We need to pass this resolution. If we pass the resolution, we do send a strong message to our citizen soldiers and to the military that the work that they are doing is important, that the Guard bases that they represent, that the air bases that they represent are important, and that our citizen soldiers have done the good work. There is going to be another report coming from the Defense Department about realigning and about the kind of defenses that our country wants. We do not know what that report will say, but I think it is another indication that the BRAC is premature. I know what the chairman said about those who served on the BRAC, but I am not sure that we were quite as well served by some of those members as we could have been in some of their deliberations. These are people that were called upon to do very difficult work. They have completed their work, and now it is up to Congress to speak. The Defense Department has spoken. BRAC has spoken. The President has spoken. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is up to the House to speak today. I urge the House to adopt this resolution in support of those that have done the hard work, in support of those who are citizen soldiers who come from the communities that we represent and say to them, we thank you for your hard work. We thank you for what you have done. We thank you for bringing down al Qaeda. We thank you for helping stand up a democracy in Iraq, and we are not going to eliminate the bases from which you come or realign them. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer H.J. Res. 65, a resolution that I introduced that would disapprove the recommendations of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. As I have stated many times since this BRAC round began, it is absolutely wrong that we are considering closing and realigning bases while we are at war. We in Congress spend quite a bit of time proclaiming that we are doing all we can to care for our troops. Spending billions of dollars closing and realigning bases isn't caring for our troops--it's just plain wrong. Congress created the BRAC process so that there would be a non- partisan, independent method of reviewing our military's post-Cold War excess infrastructure. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today and we face challenges that we, as a nation, couldn't even imagine in the late 1980s. There is no more ``peacetime dividend'' to be gained from closing bases. The Global War on Terrorism has reached deep into our military structure and showed us that we can no longer ask our military to do more with less. This BRAC Commission was asked to do a very difficult task in a very uncertain environment. Early next year the Department of Defense will issue its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, a document that will outline the future structure of our military as they continue their fight against terror. We do not know what the QDR will contain, and what sort of infrastructure will be required to support it. We are also waiting to hear the plan for bringing as many as 70,000 troops and their families home from Europe and Asia as the Department reduces its Cold War footprint overseas. We do not know what that plan will contain, either, but those 70,000 people and their dependents will have to live and work somewhere. The BRAC Commission noted in its report to the President that the timing of this BRAC round was not ideal because of all of the uncertainty surrounding these upcoming major events. Even the most well-intentioned decisions, if they are made without taking all of the facts into account, can end up hurting those we say we are trying to help. The list of recommendations that were released by the Department of Defense on May 13 contained more proposed actions than all previous BRAC rounds combined. In its report to the President, the BRAC Commission was very critical of the Department's methods. The Pentagon lumped together unrelated activities into one recommendation, leaving a mess for the Commission to try to untangle. The DoD proposed the consolidation of many jobs and commands that had similar names, even if they did not have the same missions. There was apparently no interaction between the Pentagon and other federal agencies that share assets and installation space, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Coast Guard, agencies that could be now left in serious financial straits if the burden of maintaining these facilities falls completely on them. And, most striking of all, there was very little cooperation and interaction between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. How can we feel secure in voting on these recommendations without knowing the full impact they will have on our homeland security? These bases are not simply staging areas before our military goes to fight overseas. Our military is vital to securing our homeland. We cannot make it more difficult for them to achieve that mission. The one aspect of this year's BRAC round that brought this issue home to many of my colleagues was the inclusion of Air National Guard bases. I am proud to say that I represent 2 flying units of the Illinois Air National Guard in my district, and I have seen first-hand the vital roles they play in our nation's defense. We ask our Guard to make extraordinary sacrifices and become masters of a wide range of issues, from fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan to rescuing victims and providing relief to those who are impacted by natural disasters here at home. They do so willing and heroically, leaving behind their families and their jobs as soon as they get the call. These Guard units, under the purview of the governors of the states, are now being closed or ``enclaved'' without the consent of the governors and without proper consultation of the State Adjutants General. This is how we support those who serve both their states and the federal government? These men and women are not going to uproot their entire lives to follow their units to other states. We will lose them, their knowledge, and their expertise. This is a price we cannot afford to pay. Title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the closure or relocation of Army and Air National Guard units without the consent of the governors of the states in which those units are located. A number of governors have gone on record and refused to give their consent for the movement of their National Guard units. Many states have filed lawsuits in federal court demanding that the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission follow federal law. The Speaker, Senator Durbin and I brought this provision to the attention of the Secretary of Defense in a letter dated March 24. To date, the Pentagon still has not been able to answer that letter. On July 14, the BRAC Commission's own Deputy General Counsel issued an opinion that not only are the proposed Air Guard moves in violation of federal law, they may be unconstitutional. The Commission ignored its own lawyer! This BRAC round is going to leave us with flying units that no longer have planes, and for what reason? These Air Guard moves do not save money. They will weaken the Air Guard in many states and make recruiting and retention of these dedicated Airmen next to impossible. Not only is this wrong, it is illegal, a clear violation of Title 10 of the United States Code. Lawsuits are still pending. Much has been said about the proposed ``savings'' if this round of BRAC is enacted. A figure of $35 billion in savings over 20 years seems to be popular in the media. However, this $35 billion figure includes assumed personnel cost savings; savings that both the BRAC Commission and the GAO have stated should not be included. Once those personnel savings are removed, the total savings falls to approximately $15.1 billion over the next 20 years. We cannot forget that this round of BRAC will cost $21 billion to enact. That kind of math simply does not make sense. This round of BRAC has strayed far from Congress' original intent. We aren't reducing excess infrastructure to save money. This BRAC is the beginning of implementing major force structure changes without the consultation of Congress. Sweeping changes like this require more than just one up or down vote. I have heard a number of my colleagues state that they will support this round of BRAC even though they do not agree with it, simply because this is the process that Congress established. This is not something we can close our eyes and blindly support. We are a nation at war, the timing is wrong, the savings are not there, and Guard units are being moved out of their states in violation of federal law. The process did not work this time, and we need to stand up and say ``Stop''. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper). (Mr. COOPER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)