Child Medication Safety Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.

The legislation we have crafted in the Committee on Armed Services is targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military quality of life and readiness. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base respectively, the ability to adequately care for their families and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues second to none.

I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. A recent trip to Iraq served to strongly reinforce my existing pride in our Nation's war fighters. These brave men and women served with honor and distinction as they liberated a nation. Troops from the Eighth Congressional District of North Carolina have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post-conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women deserve our support for this rule and the underlying bill.

This legislation takes care of our most vital asset, our people. It provides every service member with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It also boosts military special pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment bonuses. It funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.

The bill under consideration indicates we have come a long way since the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s and are seeing the results of a restoration of national security funding in our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe we must continue to provide adequate funding for our Nation's military. President Kennedy spent 9 percent of our gross domestic product on national defense. President Ronald Reagan 6 percent. The legislation today spends only 3.4 but is inching upwards; and with the security threats we face today, I believe we must continue moving upward with our defense allocations.

I would like to highlight two issues the National Defense Authorization Act addresses which are of particular concern to me. The first is domestic violence.

Last year, in the wake of several murders involving soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, I requested the Committee on Armed Services to conduct a series of fact-finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the Fayetteville community to examine the problem of domestic violence in the military. Working close with the community and the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their recommendations.

The bill before us provides a provision that allows chaplains to work more closely with military families and gives them the maximum flexibility to work with all family members to prevent potentially tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons of personal safety. It provides traditional compensation for victims and additional measures for implementation of the task force recommendations.

I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this matter and look forward to continuing their work to put an end to domestic violence.

The National Defense Authorization Act addresses another critical issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the DOD purchases products that are made in America. My two top priorities are national and economic security. There is seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered mutually exclusive.

I have vowed to always work to protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing industry, and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. Strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions is the right thing to do for our workers and soldiers. Protecting national security is important; economic security is important as well.

Mr. Speaker, we debated this bill for 25 hours, and we had a good debate. It is time to support this rule in the underlying rule that supports our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule that will allow for consideration of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004. The legislation that we have crafted in the Armed Services Committee is targeted at two of the most critical areas crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military--quality of life and readiness. For the soldiers and airmen in my district at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base respectively, the ability to adequately care for their families and train for the mission for which they are called are the two issues that are second to none. I believe this legislation makes significant progress in these areas and will enable our men and women in uniform to continue prosecuting the war on terrorism. My recent trip to Iraq served to strongly reinforce my pride in our Nation's war fighters. These brave men and women served with honor and distinction as they liberated a nation. Troops from the 8th District of North Carolina have been at the very tip of the spear that ended the dark reign of Saddam Hussein and continue to lead the way in post conflict resolution in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women deserve our support for this rule and the underlying bill.

This legislation first and foremost takes care of our most vital asset of our military, our people. It provides every service member with an average 4.1 percent pay raise. It also boosts military special pay and extends enlisted and reenlistment bonuses. Furthermore, it funds programs to improve living and working facilities on military installations.

The bill under consideration today also indicates that we have come a long way since the procurement moratorium of the mid-1990s, and we are seeing results of the restoration of national security funding in our victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that we must continue to provide adaqaate funding for our Nation's military. President John F. Kennedy spent 9 percent of American's gross domestic product on defense. President Reagan spent six. The legislation in front of us today spends 3.4 percent and is inching upward. With the national security threats we face today, I believe we must continue moving upward in defense spending.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight two issues the National Defense Authorization Act for FY04 addresses that are of particular concern to me. The first is domestic violence. Last year, in the wake of several murders involving soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg, I requested that the Armed Services Committee conduct a series of fact- finding meetings at Fort Bragg and in the Fayetteville community to examine the problem of domestic violence in the military. Working closely with folks in the community and the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, we have made progress in implementing their recommendations. The bill before us today contains a provision that allows chaplains to work more closely with military families and gives them the maximum flexibility to work with all family members to prevent potentially tragic situations. It also provides funding for travel and transportation for military dependents who are relocating for reasons of personal safety. It provides transitional compensation for victims and additional measures for implementation of the Task Force recommendations. I commend Chairmen Hunter and McHugh and the staff of the Total Force Subcommittee for their leadership and attention to this matter and look forward to continuing to work with them to end domestic violence.

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 also addresses another critical issue, that of fortifying the defense industrial base, ensuring that the Department of Defense purchases products that are made in America. My top two priorities are national security and economic security. There is seldom, if ever, a reason that these two goals should be considered mutually exclusive. I have vowed to always work to protect and promote the U.S. manufacturing industry and this is a perfect opportunity to do so. Strengthening the ``Buy American'' provisions is the right thing to do for our workers and our soldiers. Protecting our national security is important but it's just as important to protect our economic security here at home. I have worked hard with Chairman Hunter to mandate more accountability on the specialty metals used in all of the components used in DoD projects, ensure that all of the parts of DoD uniforms come from domestic sources, and require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress in writing of the factors that would ever lead to a decision to waive the domestic sourcing requirement. I am hopeful that our colleagues in the other body will recognize the need to protect U.S. jobs and work with us through the conference process.

Mr. Speaker, it is a gross injustice and misfortune that it took the tragedy on September 11th, 2001 to focus the public eye on the need for a more robust defense budget. But I feel that the legislation in front of us today will help our troops accomplish their mission and the Rule that provides for its consideration is fair and effective. We are establishing a clear and strong course to rebuild our Nation's defenses. I urge my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines--that we will strongly support you and give you the resources necessary to perform the mission at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Let me say to all my colleagues, this is a great defense bill that is coming to the floor, and I hope everybody supports it. It does a lot of things for America's troops. They have just finished this extraordinary operation where they pushed up through Iraq in very dangerous circumstances, engaged in many conflicts at very close ranges and secured their objective and carried out their mission with extraordinary talent and capable and courage.

Now it is our turn. It is our turn to support the troops. It is our turn to provide the readiness capability. It is our turn to provide for modernization of old platforms, and it is our turn to not only fix what we need to win now but to look beyond the horizon and fix and create and produce what we are going to need tomorrow, and this bill does this.

It provides for many of the very important enablers. And I call enablers things like tankers, tanker aircraft, that allow us to maintain that aircraft bridge between the United States or a base that we have overseas and a potential point of conflict where we can keep aircraft going back and forth, whether those aircraft are cargo aircraft to supply the troops or strike aircraft that are putting rounds on target. And because of that we have got provisions in this bill to provide for tankers. We have a tanker fund that allows us to go forward on either a buy or a lease. We have got that provision in.

We have got provisions in for more of our airlift with C-17 aircraft, these great aircraft that are providing the centerpiece of our airlift today along with our older C-5s and our in-theater C-130s.

We worked on other so-called enablers. We have ramped up this stock of precision-guided munitions we need, those munitions that allow you to go in and hit one strut on a bridge and knock it down, instead of having to carpet bomb the entire bridge with hundreds of bombs. We have a so-called deep strike package that allows us to spend $100 million on a new system to replace these bomber aircraft that we are using today. And the newest B-52 was made in July of 1962, so it is more than 40 years old. We have 21 B-1s, and we now have a small batch of 21 B-2 aircraft, our stealth aircraft. We now have a very small fleet of B-1 aircraft, because we had pulled 23 B-1 aircraft out of the fleet because we could not

afford the spare parts to keep all of those aircraft running. We put those 23 aircraft back in the fleets, or as many of them that can be retrieved, and we provide for the spare parts and the sustainability to keep that part of our important deep strike fleet going.

We provide for the 4.1 pay increase. That is the average pay increase, and we do target parts of that to various aspects of the service where we need critical skills.

We do a good job with respect to housing for our troops, for our families. Today you do not just bring a troop, a uniformed person into the services. You bring a family into the services, and you have to provide for those families. We do that in this bill.

This bill has many good things; and our great subcommittee chairman and subcommittee ranking members and my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my great partner who himself is home to the B-2 fleet in America, have done I think an excellent job on putting a great package together.

I want to speak to one aspect of this package that has been talked about a little this morning because people have said, are you killing the environment? Are you hurting the environment? Are you revamping the environment? The answer is no.

What we are doing is providing for freedom to train for our troops. What we have heard over the last many years now is that our bases around the country where these great troops that you saw in Iraq have an opportunity to train, whether they are hitting a beachhead or firing on a range or going through some type of amphibious warfare, those troops need to have places to train and those training grounds are becoming more and more constricted and more and more off-limits to our troops because of application, and I think wrongful application, of our environmental laws.

Let me show you a case in point.

This is a picture of the Marine base at Camp Pendleton in California. There is some 17 miles of beach here, and this is the beach on which the United States Marine Corps practices Iwo Jima. That is where they practice going ashore under heavy fire, where they know they will take substantial casualty for us, for freedom. And guess what we have done with our environmental laws? We have closed them out where they cannot practice.

This is a 17-mile beach. This is a base that is in excess of 100,000 acres. And I want to show my colleagues the various overlays, how the environmental applications have crept in and closed down more and more of this critical training base, and then I want to relate it to bases across this Nation.

Let us turn over to that first overlay. This is your 100,000-acre base. Here is the first overlay where training is now locked out. It is called the estuarine sanctuary. So training is locked out at Camp Pendleton. No Marines can go inside that estuarine sanctuary.

Now we have another restriction. These are the gnatcatcher restrictions. We found a small bird that is considered to be endangered; and because of that these huge areas and, remember, this is a 100,000-plus acre base, these huge areas are now restricted.

Now we have another restriction at Camp Pendleton. Let us turn the third page over. This is the rare plants restriction. It looks to me approximately another 10, 20,000 acres are now restricted from training activity.

Let us turn the next page. These are the riparian areas and the vernal pools which are now also restrictions.

So my point is, the United States Marines came in and talked to the Committee on Armed Services and they said, we used to try to work around these restrictions when we had just a couple of them. Now we can no longer work around them. And, incidentally, there is a lawsuit pending right now and there is an injunction in place for the Marines being able to practice amphibious operations on the vast majority of this beach that we put in place to allow them to practice Iwo Jima for the United States of America. So we have to do something.

So what did we do? Did we do something radical? No, we did not do anything radical. We simply said we want to balance conservation requirements and training requirements.

So what we are going to do is put together a process. It is called an inramp, which is a fancy term for saying if the Fish and Wildlife Department of the United States makes an agreement with the U.S. Marine Corps or the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Army or the U.S. Air Force and they also make an agreement with State Fish and Wildlife in the State, so if it is California, New Jersey, New York or whatever, everybody gets together and you take an area and you make a decision that allows you to balance these two important priorities, conservation and training, and you say, for example, we will allow the rifle range to be here. We will allow the gnatcatcher environment to be here. And maybe if the gnatcatchers migrate in the fall and they leave this area, we will let you have training in this area until they come back. It allows you to make a flexibility adjustment that takes care of both priorities, both conservation of endangered species and training.

Once Fish and Wildlife and State Fish and Game and the military makes this agreement, you cannot come on in after the agreement is made and place another critical habitat over the top of it and paralyze the training operation. That is what we do.

I think it is a very reasonable thing. This was passed first out of Resources with a bipartisan vote, and we passed it in the Committee on Armed Services. And the final vote on the Committee on Armed Services, I might add, when all the smoke cleared and all the dust settled and we had our final vote, I want to thank my ranking member from Missouri for his great leadership here, we had a vote of 58 to 2 in favor of this bill.

So this bill has really good stuff in it for the United States of America, and it balances some very important competing interests the American people have. I do not think any American, if you stopped them on the street and you went over this diagram of how training has been cut back further and further and further, at places like Camp Pendleton, where those Marines that went up the An Nasiriya Corridor trained, I do not think any American would disagree with the idea that you get together Fish and Wildlife and the Marine Corps, you make an arrangement, you set some land aside for the birds, set some land aside for the Marines, and let them both go through their operations.

So I want to thank the gentlewoman for letting me get up and explain this important aspect of the defense bill; and let me urge all Members, Republican and Democrat, to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is correct.

Let me just say to my good colleague and the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a guy who has a great dedication to the Armed Forces, we appreciate all his support and all of the hard work that his committee has done in this area. He has my assurance that we will work with him as this bill walks down through the process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. Frost asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting America's troops, there is no partisan divide in this Congress. Democrats and Republicans join together in saluting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve America. More importantly, we work to provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs that we have asked them to do. So every year, Democrats and Republicans work very hard to put together a defense authorization bill that is as bipartisan as it is robust.

There is much to be proud of in this bill. Its core is a bipartisan product that provides more for national defense than the President requested and more than this Republican Congress approved in its budget. As always, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, deserves a lot of credit. He remains an unwavering advocate for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to defend the United States.

As a longstanding supporter of the U.S. military, I am especially pleased by the success of Democrats' efforts to include substantial quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and their families.

Specifically, this bill includes a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. It also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and the Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad.

For instance, it ensures is that when they serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will also.

Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Committee on Armed Services for including in this bill my legislation to make life easier for the National Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation, and they deserve our support.

Additionally, this bill continues to invest in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and Marines. It includes $4.3

billion for the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force. It also includes over $1.6 billion for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

Mr. Speaker, all of these important, pro-defense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs.

Unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are neither bipartisan nor necessary to maintain the strength of the U.S. military. Indeed, some are nothing more than extremist, right-wing ideology piggy-backed on an otherwise bipartisan bill.

For instance, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut environmental protections? Of course not.

But rolling back America's environmental protections is practically the Holy Grail of the Republican party. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Similarly, Republicans are trying to use this bill to weaken the workplace protections of the patriotic men and women employed by the Pentagon. They even defeated a Democratic attempt to preserve the current rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon.

Mr. Speaker, these anti-environmental riders and attacks on the men and women who work at the Pentagon are not about supporting the military. There are about supporting the Republican party idealogy, and they have no business in a bipartisan bill to provide for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

So Democrats have filed amendments with the Committee on Rules to free this bipartisan bill of these partisan riders. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership has chosen to make ideology of such paramount importance that they have shut out two of the most important Democratic amendments.

First, the Republican ideologues have denied the House the opportunity to even consider the amendment offered by the ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Rahall-Dingell amendment is a common-sense and reasonable alternative to the anti-environmental language reported by the Committee on Resources and incorporated in the Committee on Armed Services bill relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This rule instead makes in order an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. It claims to fix the most egregious provisions in the Committee on Resources bill.

The fact that the Republican leadership has chosen to shut out Democrats in this manner gives many Members on this side of the aisle more than ample reason to oppose this rule.

Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules said last night that it was still possible for additional amendments to be considered for inclusion in the second rule on this bill to be considered by the committee later today. But I doubt any Members will be holding their breath.

The fact is, the Republican leadership would have done well to give this House the opportunity to have a vote on the Rahall-Dingell substitute, rather than risking losing this rule by shutting out so many reasonable Democrats who support the bill.

Additionally, the House Republican leadership has chosen to tell the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Member who has extensive expertise in the issue of nuclear threat reduction, that his amendment is just too hot to handle. The Spratt amendment sought to restore the President's requests for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. That is the President's request that he sought to restore. Yet the Republican leadership has refused to make this amendment in order, in spite of the fact that President Bush asked for this money.

Again, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told me last night that it might be possible to consider including the Spratt amendment in the second rule, but, again, Members will not be holding their breath.

Such arrogance practically begs pro-defense Members on this side of the aisle to oppose this rule, and it ought to give plenty of reason to oppose this rule to Republican Members who value fair play and institutional integrity or President Bush's national security priorities.

Mr. Speaker, serious Members on both sides of the aisle have filed many other substantive amendments. But after seeing so many significant amendments blocked in this first rule, what do they have to look forward to in the second rule? Will they be shut out again just as their colleagues have today?

I, for instance, have submitted three important amendments that address defense issues I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian Defense Department employees serving in combat zones.

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to honor the long-standing tradition of allowing full consideration of substantive amendments like these on the defense authorization bill. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces bill and, in fact, has been followed in previous Congresses, both when the Democrats were in charge and even when the Republicans have been in charge. But this first rule has abandoned that cooperation.

For that reason, I urge Members to vote no on this rule so the Committee on Rules can go back upstairs and start this process over. Maybe on the second try the Republican leaders will allow us to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our minority whip.

It looks like you have plenty of time.

I just have a question that requires a one-word answer.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who are outraged by this unfair rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of our House, who it appears was shut out of the process by the Committee on Rules last night.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill that we are debating here today. Every Member of this body deserves to be heard. In the Committee on Rules yesterday, I urged that we have a free and open debate and that at a minimum on important issues like the environmental rollbacks and our worker protections and rights and our nuclear weapons that we have an opportunity to deliberate and offer amendments. Instead, the Republican leadership appears to be shutting the door on an open debate and it appears has denied outright amendments from distinguished Members like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

The majority has an opportunity to try to repair some of the damage, and they can start with the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment. There are almost 700,000 civilian employees at the Department of Defense who serve this country proudly and patriotically. But with the stroke of a pen this bill will strip them of their most basic rights and protections.

This is a dangerous door that we are opening. We are clearing the way to allowing political and personal favoritism to enter our civilian workforce, which is precisely what our Civil Service system is designed to prevent. This is wrong.

I am sick and tired of those on the other side of the aisle messing around with the lives of American workers. The Republican leadership's arrogance and insensitivity to working Americans is astonishing. The Cooper/Van Hollen amendment would fix these offensive provisions and would reinstate the most basic worker rights and protections. We do not want our civil servants to look like some corrupt Third World dictatorship.

Chairman Dreier last night declared that he would prefer that the Democrats offer a different amendment. Well, that is not how this process is supposed to work. If Chairman Dreier believes so strongly in a different amendment, then he should go and offer it. But the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) followed the procedures set by the Committee on Rules. They have a good amendment, and it deserves a vote up or down.

We are sick and tired of being shut out of this debate in this House. The minority has rights, and we expect the Republican leadership to honor them. The Committee on Rules could do the right thing when it meets later today by making the Cooper/Van Hollen amendment in order for tomorrow's debate.

This is not a trivial matter. This is an amendment on one of the most significant provisions in the defense bill. Anyone who wants to vote against it can vote against it, but it deserves genuine debate. We deserve to have our voices heard, and we deserve a vote on this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote on the previous question, and I am going to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Rahall/Dingell amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a straight party line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that today the Republican leadership is throwing away the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. It is a very sad day indeed when something as important as defending our Nation takes a back seat to partisan politics. In fact, it is more than a sad day. It is shameful, and it is wrong.

This bill is supposed to be about protecting our Nation and providing the very best policies and tools to help our brave servicemen and women defend this great land. Instead, it is a vehicle for fulfilling ideological agendas, agendas that have no place in this critical debate.

I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question. This vote is a matter of fair play. Whether or not a Member supports the Rahall/Dingell substitute, Members of this body should support the right of other Members to be heard. There is no rational reason why any Member of this body should be denied the right to register his or her opinion on the alternative position advocated by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and many, many, many Members of this body.

I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, voting ``yes'' is a vote to shut out alternative points of view, a point of view that happens to represent the views of millions of Americans. I stand firmly in my belief that ensuring a strong national defense is one of the most important duties I have as a Member of Congress. But I also stand firmly in my belief that the United States House of Representatives is supposed to be a representative body. It is not supposed to be an institution where the minority rights get shut out. Join with me to bring back some democracy in this institution by allowing the House to debate and vote on the Rahall/Dingell substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for putting together this legislation which actually is extremely important. I know I have seen in my own practice as a psychologist the importance of helping to make sure that children get to the right professionals and that there is not coercion or threat that goes to the families.

I want to take a few moments, first of all, to lay out with regard to this bill the issues involved with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, an often misunderstood and often maligned diagnosis that because of that lends itself to prejudicial comments as certainly the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) was also alluding to. Attention deficit disorder has a number of diagnostic criteria which are laid out in what is called the ``Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.'' They include categories of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness. Because psychiatric and psychological symptoms are described in behavioral terms they oftentimes seem vague and only behavioral. For example, under the inattention category, it might mean a person who fails to give close attention to details or has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly or does not follow through on instructions to finish school work, et cetera; often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities or avoids or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort.

When one just hears some of those symptoms, one may think that those could cover a wide range of behaviors that may not necessarily reach a diagnosis that requires medication, and there is something to that. That is why it is so very important when there is a concern raised about a child's symptom picture perhaps fitting the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder that that child be thoroughly evaluated by perhaps a team of professionals psychiatrists, psychologists, people who are trained to do this, but not simply referred on the basis of this child is difficult in the classroom.

And let me lay out why. In terms of attention behaviors, we look upon this as a primary, secondary, and tertiary diagnosis. A primary attention deficit disorder is one where a child actually has the symptom pictures of attention disorder related to the biological and in some cases some inherited factors for that, but it is pretty clearly in that category. They meet the diagnostic criteria.

Secondary attention deficit disorder is when the child may have the same problems with concentration and attention and getting their work done, but it is secondary to some other problems. For example, a child may have an anxiety disorder. They may be suffering from depression. They may have sensory problems. I have known children who were referred to me for attention disorder only to find out they needed glasses or they had a subtle hearing loss. They may be having social problems, cultural problems, as they are moving from one school district to another and have a great deal of difficulty. They may have speech and communication problems where they have trouble understanding the teacher. And yet those children's symptom picture can look similar. They are not paying attention, not concentrating, they are not getting their work done, they are agitated and hyperactive. It is important that those other problems are diagnosed clearly and those are treated and those are not the children who should be given medication.

A third type is a tertiary problem, and this is not the problem with the child so much as it is a problem with expectations. That is, people may expect a pre-school child to sit still. People may expect a teenager to concentrate and not daydream. We know anybody with any rudimentary knowledge of having children knows that those are not realistic expectations, and yet there are those sometimes who feel that children who are out of sync with their expectations will somehow require medication, and that is inappropriate.

These diagnostic criteria, I should also add, in the testimony that was given to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, there were some who raised the question of whether or not this was biological. I draw some attention to some research that was done, I believe, in 1990 where they did Positron Emission Tomography. That is, they could look at the activity in the brains of people who were identified with attention disorder and those who were not and found in those who had a diagnosis of attention disorder, their brain activity was somewhat lower.

That is not to mean that they had brain damage. It simply meant by looking at levels of brain activity, they found that those parts of the brain that generally control impulses and thought, that is, the frontal lobe, et cetera, were not as active as those in people who did not have attention disorder. That lent a great deal to the science of understanding attention disorder because all along before that we thought that the brains were overstimulated and it may actually be they were undercontrolled in some regions.

This of course also lends credence to why sometimes one may use medication. The medications used, such as Ritalin or Adderall or Dexedrine, are stimulant medications; and we for many years wondered about this paradoxical effect of why would you give a stimulant medication to actually slow someone down. And the point is that it appears to stimulate those portions of the brain. Basically, sometimes a layman can understand that if they feel tired and groggy and overwhelmed and they are having trouble staying alert and staying focused, sometimes a person, as they are driving down the road, will be overactive.

But the point is this: What I am trying to lay out here is the complexity of this.

Let me end with this one anecdote. When I was practicing as a psychologist, I received a call to evaluate a child, and did so. Then, calling back to the school district, said this child does not appear to have primary attention disorder. I think there were some other issues here, but not that.

I was told then by the referring source in the school district, put this child on Ritalin, or we will never refer another child to your practice again. I challenged that person on that immediately and said I need to go by what I believe an appropriate diagnostic criteria is and suggested they withdraw that threat.

But that is the very reason why we need legislation like this, to say this is not something that should be done to control children. This should be something that is done to help do the best thing in the child's best interest with the best people involved using the appropriate diagnostic criteria.

This is a positive thing for children and ultimately a positive thing for families, and I certainly implore my colleagues vote yes on this bill.