[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3973-H4018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 514 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4576.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1550


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Gillmor (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I are 
pleased to bring before the Membership today the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. This bill, which 
received strong bipartisan support in our subcommittee and the 
Committee on Appropriations, passing through the committee with no 
amendments, continues the efforts of the Congress to ensure that our 
Nation's military is ready for the challenge of the 21st century. Those 
challenges are daunting as any we have faced during the Cold War, and I 
am gratified that my colleagues understand that our security and the 
defense of freedom must remain above partisanship.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the beginning of this that the foundation 
laid by our subcommittee is designed to make certain that America 
remains as the single superpower well into the next century. Indeed, 
the foundation laid in this committee's product is a direct result, 
first of all, of the work done by my colleague and my chairman, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) when he was chairman of this 
subcommittee, and now as full Committee chairman and before that, the 
foundation was further laid by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) when he was chairman of the committee. I must say, if we have a 
committee in the House in which both parties work better together, I do 
not know what committee that is. For indeed, this is a product of the 
work of our very fine staff working with the members of the committee 
on both sides of the aisle who recognize just how critical it is that 
America be ready for the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this bill in many ways is a very 
forward-leaning bill. Among other things, perhaps most important, we 
have taken seriously the efforts on the part of the new chief of the 
Army, General Eric Shinseki, to develop a vision and a transformation 
strategy that will take our Army into a posture that will cause it to 
be the Army we need well into 2020, 2025, 2050. Indeed, it is the Army, 
the men and women of our military, who make a critical difference in 
terms of America's strength.
  So I am proud to say that the bill is designed to accelerate the 
efforts on the part of General Shinseki in building that vision for the 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, we are approximately $1.2 billion above and beyond the 
budget request in connection with the Army's vision implementation. We 
have gone forward, rounding out the first interim brigade that Eric 
Shinseki is recommending, and we are fully funding as well a second 
brigade in support of his effort. We have included language that will 
require the Army to give us direct feedback so that we can monitor 
carefully the progress that is being made in their effort at Fort 
Lewis, Washington.
  Let me say that as we look to the next century, the Members should 
know that we are hurdling into an age of warfare that will require 
heretofore unimaginable speed, complexity, and flexibility for our 
fighting machines and the men and women who design, build, and operate 
them. Imagine, if you will, a battle where most of our fighter pilots 
never see their enemy before they are engaged. Imagine pinpoint attacks 
on enemy ground targets from 35,000 feet in the air or 100 miles away 
at sea. Imagine computer-guided flying machines that never put our 
personnel at risk. Imagine planning and executing a battle on foreign 
shores from the computer stations in the Pentagon.
  This is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Our Armed Forces 
faced many of these challenges in their engagement in Kosovo, and it is 
indicative of the rapidly changing climate that the Congress and our 
military leaders must address for the real future.
  Mr. Chairman, America, as I have suggested, is the country which will 
preserve freedom in the next century. This bill is designed to set the 
stage to be sure that we are ready for that. In connection with a 
fundamental piece of our direction, the bill includes over $40

[[Page H3974]]

billion for the kind of R&D that will make sure that the assets are 
available that are required to do that sort of research that assures 
America's strength.
  I might mention 2 other areas in which the bill is making an effort 
to lean forward. I would point out the fact that most are aware today 
of the reality that we could face some serious challenges in our 
communications systems, especially the computer in the months and years 
and the decades ahead. We have begun within this bill by providing a 
$150 billion pool to begin to help us figure out what the questions are 
that need to be answered in the arena that we now describe as cyber 
war.
  I might further mention that one of the elements that was more 
controversial in last year's bill relates to America's future efforts 
in terms of having the best available tactical fighters. This bill 
provides for the funding that was part of an agreement regarding the F-
22 aircraft that took place last year. While the Air Force is going 
forward with the kind of testing that we feel is absolutely necessary 
to be sure that the F-22 is the airplane we hope it to be, we have laid 
the foundation with those commitments to testing while providing the 
funding, the full funding for 10 production aircraft that will keep 
them on a pathway to further tests of that aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very healthy appropriations bill that 
is some $19.5 billion beyond last year's appropriation. The total 
amount is $288.5 billion. Further, we should state for the Record that 
the bill is approximately $3.5 billion beyond the President's budget 
request. It is a bill that has broadly-based bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to bring before the membership today the 
Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. 
This bill, which received near-unanimous bipartisan support in our 
subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee, continues the efforts of 
Congress to ensure that our nation's military is ready for the 
challenges of the 21st Century. Those challenges are as daunting as any 
we faced during the Cold War, and I am gratified that my colleagues 
understand that our security and the defense of freedom must remain 
above partisanship.
  The bipartisan path we follow today toward strengthening our nation's 
forces was forged by my chairman, Bill Young, in his years as chairman 
of this subcommittee. Before that, the groundwork was being laid by our 
ranking member, Congressman John Murtha, when he chaired the 
subcommittee. Their wealth of knowledge and commitment to our military 
are precious assets to Congress. I would also like to commend the hard 
work of all of the members and staff of the Defense Subcommittee. This 
bill is truly a fruit of their combined labors.
  The Appropriations Committee submits to you today a Fiscal Year 2001 
Appropriations Bill for the Department of Defense that we believe will 
allow our armed forces to embark on a new millennium in military 
technology, deployment strategy and world view. It will allow us to 
demonstrate our commitment to our nation's defense by providing $288.5 
billion in new budget authority.
  We are hurtling into an age of warfare that will require heretofore 
unimaginable speed, complexity and flexibility for our fighting 
machines and the men and women who design, build and operate them. 
Imagine a battle where most of our fighter pilots never see their enemy 
before they are engaged. Imagine pinpoint attacks on enemy ground 
targets from 35,000 feet in the air or 100 miles away at sea. Imagine 
computer-guided flying machines that never put our personnel at risk. 
Imagine planning and executing a battle on foreign shores form computer 
stations in the Pentagon.
  This is no longer the stuff of science fiction films. Our armed 
forces faced many of these challenges in their engagement in Kosovo. 
And it is indicative of the rapidly changing climate the Congress and 
our military leaders must address for the real future.
  The bill we bring before you today strongly supports the need for the 
most forward-looking technology in our aircraft, ships, ground weapons 
and missile defense. We must press forward in developing this 
technology, looking not to today but to 2020, 2050 and beyond.
  The most crucial commitment we must address, however, is the one we 
make to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are the reason 
America is the remaining superpower, unrivaled in our ability to defend 
and support freedom anywhere in the world.
  The members of the Defense Subcommittee believe we must show our 
unequivocal support for our military men and women by providing them 
with the best pay and benefits, best working conditions, and best 
living conditions possible. Every member of Congress should take time 
in the coming year to visit military installations and experience the 
inspiring morale and commitment of our troops.
  What you will find is an enthusiasm and level of technical expertise 
that would be the envy of our nation's business leaders. We are 
depending on these young men and women to operate some of the most 
sophisticated machinery and complicated battle plans in the world. When 
they receive adequate training and support, they rise to that 
challenge.
  But you will also see a desperate need for barracks renovation and 
improved maintenance at our military installations. You will hear of a 
disturbing lack of spare parts, that combined with a high operating 
tempo has left much of our advanced equipment on the tarmac or in 
repair facilities indefinitely.
  In spite of these shortfalls, we can still count on our men and women 
in uniform to dedicate themselves to protecting their nation. We must 
dedicate ourselves to providing the support they need to do that well.
  To address the needs of our troops, the bill provides $2 billion more 
than in FY 2000 for active and reserve personnel pay and benefits. We 
fully fund a pay raise for the troops. We add $250 million to the 
budget request for enlistment bonuses, housing allowances and other 
personnel investments. We have also increased funding for military 
health care and medical research by $988 million over last year. A 
portion of these funds will implement the plan approved by the House in 
the authorization process to improve access to health care for service 
members, their dependents and the retired medical community.
  Operation and maintenance accounts receive $1.2 billion more than 
requested by the administration. This will continue help us tackle the 
critical shortages in facilities maintenance, field-level equipment 
maintenance and logistical support and spare parts. It also funds such 
basic needs as cold-weather clothing, body amor and shipboard living 
needs for sailors.
  While this spending bill provides numerous incentives for our 
military leaders to reach toward the future, I would like to highlight 
two areas that we believe are particularly urgent.
  The first is the Army Transformation, a much-needed overhaul of our 
basic ground forces. The subcommittee members enthusiastically support 
the Army Chief of Staff, General Ric Shinseki, in his vision to create 
new Army brigades, and eventually divisions, which he believes will be 
able to place a very strong, mobile force into a battle situation 
within 96 hours. The Chief has proposed to jump-start this process by 
standing up, in fiscal year 2001, two new medium combat brigades. Our 
spending bill would fully fund those brigades. And we strongly urge the 
Army to reform its internal structure to revitalize and modernize 
procurement processes. We must put an end to weapons systems that take 
30 years to develop.
  The other forward-looking element of the bill is a $150 million 
addition over the budget for what are popularly known as ``cyber-war'' 
systems. The recent international outbreak of the Love Bug virus is 
only the latest danger signal that anyone anywhere in the world is 
capable of compromising our computer systems. The military must be on 
the cutting edge of information technology and its uses, but we must 
also recognize that the growing use of this technology brings potential 
vulnerabilities.
  Finally, I would like to briefly address a subject many of you will 
remember from last year: Our tactical fighter program and the F-22. 
This year, we have funded the first 10 production models of this 
fighter, which has the potential to be one of our most fabulous assets. 
But our bill continues the requirement that critical Block 3.0 avionics 
software be tested in the aircraft before production begins, and also 
requires a report of the adequacy of testing overall.
  In conclusion, I believe this spending bill commits Congress to 
providing the support our military leaders need to defend our nation, 
and defend freedom around the world. This commitment must be continued 
and increased in future years, for while ensuring peace is expensive, 
the alternative is war, whose costs are unimaginable.
  At this point I would like to insert for the Record a brief summary 
of the funding recommendations in this bill.

[[Page H3975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.001



[[Page H3976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.002



[[Page H3977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T07JN00.003



[[Page H3978]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this House knows that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
are pros. They understand this defense budget, they know their stuff, 
and they know it in detail. They are truly legislative craftsmen.
  However, I want to get some things off my chest, nonetheless, about 
this bill and the context in which it is being presented. The President 
presented to the Congress a defense bill which had a hefty $16 billion, 
6 percent increase. It contained the President's recommendation for a 
military pay raise, it made sure that we hit the $60 billion target for 
procurement, and it was presented to the Congress in the context of 
other administration initiatives to also make needed investments in 
education, in health care, in science, and in environmental cleanup 
across the board.

                              {time}  1600

  This bill comes to us in a quite different context. This bill raises 
the President's request for the military budget by $4 billion, and it 
does so at the same time that it requires that we cut over the next 5 
years $125 billion out of domestic programs for education, health care, 
and the like. It also does so in the context of the majority party 
insistence that we pass, in piecemeal fashion, tax cuts largely aimed 
at the wealthiest people in our society, which will total over $700 
billion over that same time period.
  We cannot do all of those things and meet the obligations we have to 
this society. We are not going to be able to eliminate the debt that 
everyone promises we are going to eliminate if the majority party 
insists on tax cuts of those magnitude, especially aimed where they aim 
them. If they do insist on those tax cuts, then something else has to 
give, in my opinion.
  I want to simply point out one thing about this bill. This chart 
demonstrates what we spend versus what everybody else in the world 
spends on defense. We are now spending $266 billion, represented by 
that blue bar. NATO is spending $227 billion. The last time I looked, 
they were on our side.
  If we take a look at what ``they'' spend, our potential main 
opponents, Russia is spending $54 billion; China, $37 billion; Iran, $6 
billion; North Korea, $2 billion; Libya, $1 billion. That is not the 
picture of a country in trouble in terms of defense preparedness.
  Despite these gross differences, I would be willing to support this 
bill if it were presented in a balanced context, if it were not 
presented at the same time that the majority party is asking us to 
provide billions of dollars in excessive tax cuts, and in the context 
of what is happening on the other side of the budget, where we are 
forcing a huge squeeze on education, on health care, on job training 
and the rest.
  In that context, I do not believe this bill makes sufficiently tough 
choices in a number of areas, most especially with respect to the 
aircraft choices being made by the Pentagon.
  I have in the committee report listed my concerns, most especially my 
concerns about the F-22. We have been given three separate caution 
flags by agencies that we ought to pay attention to: the Pentagon's 
director of Operational Testing and Evaluations, the committee's own 
Surveys and Investigation staff, and the General Accounting Office, 
which said we should be producing no more than six of those aircraft, 
instead of the expanded number in the bill.
  I think that is just one example of the choices which this Congress 
is not making that it should be making if it is going to impose much 
deeper reductions and a much tighter squeeze on the rest of the budget. 
So if Members want my vote for a bill like this, they have to bring it 
to the floor in the context of a better balance between what we are 
doing to deal with our education problems, our health care problems, 
our national security problems, and most especially what we are doing 
on the tax side of the aisle.
  We could afford the tax cuts we are talking about if we were not 
trying to fund increases like this, maybe. But we certainly cannot 
afford them both. It is about time this Congress makes some of the 
tough choices in this bill that it is making in other bills, or else 
recognize that there is no room in the budget for the excess of tax 
cuts that we are bringing to the floor piece by piece.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
full committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished 
colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of this bill. This is 
a good bill. The subcommittee has worked really hard to fashion a bill 
that meets the needs as best they could with the funding available to 
them.
  I would like to compliment and congratulate the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), who has done such 
a magnificent job as chairman of the subcommittee, and his partner and 
our very dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the 
ranking member, who in his turn served as chairman of the subcommittee. 
They have done a good job.
  I rise today to discuss an important role that Congress plays in the 
whole business of national defense. I have reviewed the Constitution 
today, as I do periodically. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, 
which provides the authorities and responsibilities of the Congress, 
talks about providing for the common defense.
  It also says that Congress ``has the authority to raise and support 
the armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces.''
  I take that responsibility very seriously, as I know my colleagues in 
the House do, Mr. Chairman. But we have more of a responsibility than 
just sending troops into combat or declaring war. We have more of an 
obligation to those who serve in the military of our country not only 
to give them the best training that is second to none, the best 
equipment that we hope will be second to none, but we also have an 
obligation to house them, to clothe them, to feed them, to provide 
their health care, not only to those who serve in the uniform, but also 
their families.
  I want to rise today, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding the 
time to me, to discuss some issues that are in my opinion very 
important as they relate to military health care.
  As many of my colleagues know, during my long tenure as a Member of 
the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and 5 
years ago became its chairman, I was totally committed and an outspoken 
advocate for our military families and their health care.
  Today, as chairman of the full committee, I continue that commitment, 
because it is essential. It is an obligation that we have as Members of 
Congress to care for these troops and their families. That includes 
proper medical care.
  That support is evident by the fact that since fiscal year 1996, the 
Committee on Appropriations has recommended and Congress has approved 
$66 billion for the defense health program. That is an amount that is 
$3.5 billion more than the President requested for military health care 
for that same period. Of that $3.5 billion increase, about $2.5 billion 
was provided for urgent requirements of the Department of Defense.
  In other words, the Department's budgets for military health were 
grossly insufficient when they arrived in the Congress. If Congress had 
not provided these additional funds, the health care of military 
families and military retirees would have been severely affected.
  To give an idea of how much was needed year by year for the last few 
years, let me add this. In fiscal year 1997, Congress added $475 
million over the President's budget for military health care. In 1998, 
we added another $274 million as a budget amendment. In fiscal year 
1999, we added $200 million over the President's budget in our 
supplemental. In the supplemental for this year, 2000, we added $1.6 
billion. That provision is now in conference. Hopefully we will respond 
to that quickly.

[[Page H3979]]

  Needless to say, this support for military medicine and quality care 
continues under the outstanding leadership of the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). This bill today appropriates over half a 
billion dollars more than the administration requested for military 
medicine.
  I raise the issue because it is important to understand that besides 
just preparing them for wars and battles, that it is our responsibility 
to provide health care for those who serve in our military, whether it 
is at time of war, time of battle, or whether there are injuries in 
training. Whatever it might be, it is our responsibility. We provide 
for the hospitals and the clinics and the doctors and the nurses and 
the corpsmen and the specialists, all who serve our military men, 
women, and their families.
  I have been concerned about these extra monies that we have had to 
increase, but we have done it. I am just not satisfied that all of 
those monies are being used effectively. To the contrary, I think maybe 
there is too much bureaucracy. Maybe there is too much administrative 
staffing. There is something wrong, because my office and the office of 
the Committee on Appropriations have received numerous complaints.
  In one of our military hospitals today, as we sit here in this 
Chamber, lies a retired Marine colonel who received the Medal of Honor 
in Vietnam, a real hero. He had a serious operation a few days ago, and 
he laid in pain in his bed for almost a whole day when the pain machine 
that he was given did not work. These are machines that allows the 
patient to push a button and a measured amount of painkiller then will 
enter the body and help ease the pain. For nearly a day, after request 
after request, that Marine colonel, Medal of Honor recipient, laid in 
pain. That is just not right.
  Another case, a young soldier was shot during a training exercise. He 
was moved to one of our military hospitals. Early one morning he had 
stabbing pains with every breath that he took. Orders were given to do 
CAT scans or x-rays to find out what was causing this problem, but it 
was a Sunday, and the tests that were ordered Sunday morning had not 
been done even as late as late Sunday night. But thank God for the 
intervention of a doctor outside of that particular institution who 
went to that hospital and insisted that the test be done.
  Those tests resulted in the discovery that this young Marine had two 
pulmonary embolisms, either one of which could have broken loose at a 
moment's notice and killed him. That is not right. Something needs to 
be done.
  I had planned to offer an amendment today that would have dealt with 
this issue very, very effectively, but I have been in contact with a 
member of our Defense Department for whom I have tremendous respect and 
we have discussed this issue at length. He has promised that he will do 
everything that he possibly can to correct these situations wherever 
they might be.
  So I am not going to offer that amendment today, but I will reserve 
that amendment for a future date if necessary. Again, I want to remind 
my colleagues, it is our obligation. We are responsible under the 
Constitution for the men and women who serve in our uniform, and their 
health care is just part of it. We provide for the hospitals, we 
provide for the staff. It is our obligation. If we see something that 
is not working properly, it is our obligation to fix it. I make that 
commitment to my colleagues today, that I will be there on the front 
line to fix these problems wherever I find them.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee 
and I have discussed this whole subject area very extensively. The 
gentleman has brought to my personal attention some of the serious 
difficulties that actually exist out there in this hospital system.
  I want the chairman to know that our subcommittee is committed, 
following the time we get through with the conference, to bring our 
committee together to have public hearings regarding this matter, and 
to bring in the authorizers as well, to make sure that we get at the 
bottom of the very questions that are being raised. It is not going to 
be taken lightly by this subcommittee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the chairman for that, Mr. Chairman, 
and I appreciate that commitment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the subcommittee 
chairman's attention the Next Generation Small Loader program included 
in the bill. The bill cuts funding for the NGSL program by $12.6 
million. The United States Air Force estimates the number of loaders 
for FY 2001 would be reduced by 60 percent.
  I am concerned that the committee's adjustment was based on 
information that was outdated and incomplete. Considering that the 
current materials-handling fleet, which this new loader will 
supplement, is short by more than 100 units from the authorized number, 
and considering that more than half of the existing loaders are 
outdated and ready for retirement, I believe it is imperative that any 
adjustments made to this program be based on the latest and best 
information available.
  Mr. Chairman, would the chairman be willing to review this program 
again going into conference, and if the facts merit, work to restore 
funding as appropriate for this important program?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I would be happy to revisit this matter 
going into conference to ensure that the committee has all available 
information to make the best possible judgment on the appropriate 
funding level for this program.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chair.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) for a colloquy.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, I know how difficult the task was this year, given the amount 
of the President's request and the magnitude of the unfunded 
requirements list the service chiefs presented to us earlier this year. 
Many difficult choices have been made, and I appreciate very much the 
chairman's willingness to take the time today to address an issue here 
that is critical to our military readiness and important to the 
citizens of my district.
  This year the authorizing committee, both authorizing committees, 
included $50 million in additional funds for the M-113 upgrades, while 
no additional funds were included in either appropriation bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RILEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Riley), as one of the Members concerned with these 
things in the Committee on Armed Services, I know the gentleman from 
Alabama does understand how difficult this process has been.

                              {time}  1615

  We have worked hard to address the Chiefs' requirements, given 
current budget restraints. I appreciate the gentleman's particular 
concerns about this funding shortfall and the impact it will have on 
his constituents who work on the M113.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that there could be job losses 
next year if the current funding level in this bill is enacted, I ask 
the gentleman if he will agree to bring this issue up in conference.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, I am happy he brought this funding matter to our 
attention. We definitely will be discussing it in conference, and I 
look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler).

[[Page H3980]]

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) knows, I think this is an excellent bill that he has brought to 
the floor today, but there are three issues that I hope might receive 
additional attention in the context of conference.
  First, the sole domestic manufacturer of sonar domes has been working 
on an advanced submarine sonar dome that will result in a less 
expensive, more capable system. This is a program of great importance 
to the Navy and the Nation and was authorized by the House this year at 
$2 million.
  Second, I remain concerned that the training requirements of the Army 
National Guard did not receive adequate consideration in the 
President's budget request. A critical training device known as A-FIST 
XXI, which is the Guard's number one unfunded training system 
requirement and which the House authorized at $9 million this year, did 
not receive funding.
  Finally, I would note my interest in the S-3B Surveillance System 
Upgrade program which has been funded by Congress in the past and was 
authorized by the House this year at $12 million. SSU has leveraged 
existing technologies to yield highly successful tactical exercises 
that have drawn the praise of fleet commanders.
  Mr. Chairman, I would certainly appreciate the assurance of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that the committee will look at 
these programs carefully in the context of conference to consider 
whether additional attention and funding may be in order.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman, 
I cannot express deeply enough how strongly I appreciate her work with 
us by way of her participation on the authorizing committee. I am 
certainly happy to give her my assurance that we will look at these 
programs carefully as we go to conference.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 4576, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. This 
bill is a fair and balanced approach to address the military's many 
legitimate needs with the limited funds available. I especially 
appreciate the efforts to address health-care issues facing both our 
active duty and retired veterans. It is essential for our servicemen 
and women to have quality, accessible and affordable health care. Given 
the current economic prosperity in America, sustaining an all-voluntary 
military force has been challenging. Add to that a disgruntled 
population of retired veterans, many who have been an important part of 
our recruiting effort in the past, and sustaining appropriate personnel 
levels becomes nearly impossible. The House Armed Services Committee 
(HASC) recently began the process of addressing these difficult issues, 
in spite of the enormous costs associated with these problems. The 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee had the difficult task of 
fulfilling the HASC's commitment by finding the budgetary resources.
  Another critical issue that we continue to focus on is modernization 
of our military equipment. Modernization is difficult enough when the 
only question is replacing old equipment with similar new equipment. 
However, advances in technology and manufacturing are causing everyone 
in defense to revisit how we perform R&D and procurement in a manner 
that keeps pace with the advances in technology and ensures timely 
fielding and upgrading of equipment. As always, we must provide our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with modern equipment, ensuring 
that they continue to succeed on today's battlefield. I applaud the 
leadership you have provided as this committee determines funding 
levels needed to shape and define our future armed forces.
  While I fully support the objectives and provisions of this bill, I 
am disappointed in the committee's recommendation to terminate the 
Discoverer II program. I appreciate the expense involved to field a 
complete constellation of satellites. However, I believe the decision 
to terminate this program may be premature. The benefits of tracking 
ground movements from a satellite-based system are undeniable. For 
example, during the Kosovo operation, weather impeded or canceled many 
scheduled aircraft sorties, including those aircraft necessary to 
gather aerial intelligence. Receiving intelligence data from a space-
based asset that can provide coverage 24 hours a day, unconstrained by 
weather or political boundaries will be beneficial to warfighters and 
their planners, avoiding many of the problems we encountered in Kosovo. 
Advances in technology enable us to capture vast amounts of 
intelligence data--so much so that the infrastructure required to 
disseminate this increased amount of data has not kept pace. Fixing 
this processing problem at the expense of denying future intelligence 
gathering capabilities is not the answer. While I understand the 
committee's desire to ensure the viability of all our intelligence 
gathering and disseminating systems, I would urge it to keep available 
all options concerning future requirements and systems, like Discoverer 
II, that might fulfill those requirements.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support 
America's military by voting to support this bill.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, for almost a decade now, this nation's 
defense budgets have continued to fall victim to the Clinton 
administration's cutting ax. We have gone from a budget in 1992 that 
exceeded $300 billion to a budget that in the mid-90's fell perilously 
low. This year, thanks to the vigilance of the Defense Appropriations 
chairman and his subcommittee, Congress will reverse the downward and 
misguided trend in our nation's defense spending. I applaud the 
chairman for his leadership and support his call to renew our 
commitment to the men and women who selflessly serve in the defense of 
our country.
  One of the things I didn't fully realize before coming to Congress is 
the true crisis in readiness that has taken shape in our military. When 
you look at the big picture, the problem is easy to understand: Over 
the last 10 years, our service branches have been forced into far more 
missions while receiving less and less dollars. Consider this:
  In the last 10 years, we have more than doubled our number of 
deployments.
  From 1950-1990 the United States deployed its troops 10 times.
  However, since 1990, we have deployed our troops over 30 times.
  We have been doing this with shrinking forces.
  In 1990 the U.S. military had 18 Army divisions, 546 Navy battle 
force ships and 36 fighter wings.
  Today, we have only 10 Army divisions, 346 Navy battle force ships 
and 20 fighter wings.
  That isn't surprising given the fact that our national investment in 
our Armed Forces went down sharply.
  From 1986-1997, defense spending declined by $150 billion.
  This isn't right. Without true national security, we can't move 
forward and work for a stronger economy, better education or higher 
quality health care. If we continue to deprive the men and women who 
defend our country of the assets and resources they need to do their 
job, we will all ultimately pay the price.
  This year's defense appropriations bill continues the good work we 
began last year in what was called ``the year of the troops.'' I look 
forward to returning to my district and telling the young soldiers and 
airmen at Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force Base that our work last year was 
no fluke. That we are resolved to strengthen once again our Armed 
Forces and this year's appropriations represents another important step 
to ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources they need.
  I urge my colleagues not to forget a profound statement of President 
Calvin Coolidge, ``The nation which forgets its defenders will be 
itself forgotten.''
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4576, the Defense 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001. This bill spends $288.5 
billion for defense programs. However, this amount does not include the 
$8.6 billion already passed by the House in the Military Construction 
Appropriations bill (H.R. 4425), nor does it include the $13 billion 
expected to be allocated for defense needs in the upcoming Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill. The three measures provide $310 billion on 
defense needs alone. Monday, the Washington Post reported that the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff are preparing to request increases in military 
spending of more than $30 billion per year over the next 10 years 
starting in FY 2002. The U.S. Congress must not yield to the whims of 
the Joint Chiefs and the demands of military contractors when the 
American people have real needs that Government can provide.
  This is the wrong time to throw money at pork-barrel defense projects 
such as the national missile defense (NMD) system and the F-22 program. 
The U.S. is experiencing unprecedented economic growth and the federal 
budget is balanced. Now is the time that we should provide health 
insurance for the eleven million children without it, provide a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit for 39 million Medicare 
beneficiaries, and ensure solvency of the Social Security and Medicare 
systems for the millions of baby boomers in their near retirement 
years. Let's make no mistake about priorities--the Republican majority 
has done nothing to extend the solvency of Medicare or Social Security 
in the 106th Congress. Now they want to squander hundreds of billions 
of dollars on high-cost, unreliable weapons systems.
  According to recent analysis by the General Accounting Office, the F-
22 aircraft program

[[Page H3981]]

continues to encounter various problems with defects in the aircraft 
structure causing delays and fewer flight tests per month. In addition, 
the GAO analysis indicates that the Air Force has not been able to 
control F-22 costs. The GAO recommends that the F-22 low-rate 
production should be limited to approximately seven aircraft per year. 
Merry Christmas, Lockheed and Boeing--you get 10 unproven F-22s from 
Congress!
  The Department of Defense has spent $18 billion on the F-22 since the 
mid-1980's. The project is too expensive and simply not needed. The 
program was initiated in 1981 to meet the threat of next generation 
Soviet aircraft. However, that threat no longer exists. Last year's war 
in Kosovo illustrates why the U.S. does not need the F-22. The current 
fleet of F-15s and F-16s demonstrated U.S. dominance in the air in 
Kosovo. Proponents of the F-22 claim that the aircraft is far superior 
than the F-15 in air to air combat. This is yet to be determined, but 
given it is true, we never had air to air combat in Kosovo and we don't 
need anything superior. The Yugoslav Air Force never engaged the U.S. 
in air to air combat because they would have faced defeat much sooner. 
No nation in the world comes close to challenging U.S. air dominance. 
However, there are many countries that scoff at the U.S. for not 
providing health insurance to our children. Eliminating the 10 F-22s 
appropriated in today's bill will allow us to insure 1.6 million 
children currently without health insurance.
  Attention in recent months has focused on the military's readiness 
problems and difficulty recruiting and retaining quality people, yet 
today's appropriations bill continues to stress weapons over personnel 
and training. While funding for Operations and Maintenance, the so-
called ``readiness'' account, goes up by 5% and the personnel account 
rises 2%, funding for the purchase of new weapons goes up over 16%. The 
U.S. spends two-and-a-half times what Russia, China and all potential 
threat countries spend on their militaries combined. We are preparing 
for World War III against a phantom enemy that cannot rival U.S. 
military strength.
  We could save $40 billion per year if we keep our current generation 
of sophisticated weapons systems; cut nuclear weapons to no more than 
1,000 warheads; continue research and development programs on new 
technology rather than introduce it into the force; and cut back on 
deployments in Europe. This would enable my home state of California to 
provide health care for every uninsured child in the state and provide 
Head Start for 94,209 additional children. It would also give 
California $1.3 billion to rebuild our schools and enough to build 
18,506 affordable housing units.
  I encourage my colleagues to dissect our annual defense spending and 
expose the facade that the GOP is helping the men and women in uniform. 
The leadership is helping those who line their campaign pockets. There 
are too many domestic needs to make pork-barrel defense spending our 
number one spending priority. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
no on the Defense Appropriations bill before us today.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill. I am very disappointed with 
this bill. Let me say at the outset of this debate many of us are aware 
of the need to protect democracy at home and promote it abroad. 
However, the question here today is at what cost?
  Do we really need to spend $183 million for 60 Blackhawk helicopters 
while at the same time withhold $1.3 billion for much needed school 
renovation?
  Do we really need to spend $709 million to repair faulty Apache 
helicopters while at the same eliminate the elementary school 
counselors program? I am sure all of us are aware of the 13-year-old 
honor student accused of killing his English teacher simply because he 
was reprimanded for throwing water balloons.
  Do we really need to spend $285 million for 2,200 Hellfire missiles? 
What is a Hellfire Missile?
  Do we really need to spend $433 million for 12 Trident II ballistic 
missiles? While in the very next bill that we must vote on today will 
cut $26 million from reading instruction programs, $416 million from 
title 1 reading and math programs and $600 million from our Nation's 
Head Start programs.
  Mr. Chairman, building a strong army is not enough to promote 
democracy or protect our society. It is our duty here in Congress to 
build a society where no sick person will go unattended, no hungry 
person will go without food, no able bodied person will go without 
adequate employment and good schools will be provided for every 
American child.
  This bill is too expensive, unnecessary and I urge all Members to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4576, the 
Defense Appropriations for FY 2001. I wish to commend Chairman Lewis 
and Ranking Member Murtha for crafting a bill which provides the 
necessary tools for military readiness and a better quality of life for 
our men and women in the armed services.
  I believe, as the vast majority of Americans do, in a strong national 
defense. We live in an uncertain time and an unstable world. While the 
Soviet Union is no longer considered an enemy and no other nation has 
assumed the ``evil empire'' status, there are nations arming themselves 
and becoming real threats to our national security.
  The measure before us today will allow this nation to have the most 
technologically advanced armed services in the world. The funding 
levels contained in this bill will provide our troops with the superior 
weapons they need to prosecute and deter war as effectively as 
possible. However, there is a human face to this equation and that is 
the focus of my remarks today.
  Georgia's Second Congressional District is home to three military 
installations: Fort Benning, home of the 75th Ranger Regiment; Moody 
Air Force Base in Valdosta, home of the 347th Fighter Wing; and, the 
Marine Corps Logistics Base and Materiel Command in Albany. I have 
seen, first hand, the excellent work that our fighting men and women 
do, often under very difficult circumstances. Our responsibility is to 
make their jobs easier. We cannot expect to attract qualified recruits 
if poor pay and benefits, inadequate housing and increased ops tempo 
are the norm. I support this bill because it addresses both readiness 
and raises the quality of life for our armed forces.
  This measure provides a 3.7-percent increase for military personnel 
in FY2001. It appropriates $433 million for the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program to assist in the denuclearization and 
demilitarization of the states of the Former Soviet Union. This funding 
goes a long way in helping to disarm those would be rogue states that 
are currently buying nuclear material on the black market. The bill 
also funds drug interdiction activities of the U.S. military at $812 
million. And, in an attempt to be proactive to the evolving threat to 
computer security, the measure appropriates and extra $150 million for 
research an development in support of the Defense Department's 
information systems security program.
  Mr. Chairman, it is for these and many other reasons that I gladly 
support H.R. 4576 today and encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4576, the 
Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. This bill 
will provide $288 billion for defense programs which is sufficient to 
meet the needs of today's military.
  I would like to highlight an important project included in this bill 
that would provide $10 million for the Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Medical Services [DREAMS] program. This is the fourth installment on 
funding for DREAMS that would help to save lives and reduce health care 
costs. In 1997, Congress provided $8 million for DREAMS, in 1999, $10 
million for DREAMS, and in 2000, $10 million for DREAMS. These federal 
funds have been leveraged with State of Texas funding, financial 
support from the National Institutes of Health and the ANA and 
philanthropic sources.
  DREAMS is a joint Army research project with the University of Texas 
Houston Health Science Center and Texas A&M University System. The 
DREAMS project will demonstrate in both civilian and military terms how 
to attend to wounded soldiers from remote locations during emergency 
situations. The project will fund two broad areas, digital Emergency 
Medical Services [EMS] and advanced diagnostic and therapeutic 
technologies.
  The EMS program will use emergency helicopters to fly directly to 
injured persons and treat these individuals after a trauma injury. 
Using the fiber-optic traffic monitoring system already being used in 
Houston, the DREAMS project will help helicopters to reach their 
victims faster. The second part of this EMS program is to collect real-
time patient data and relate this information back to trauma physicians 
to make immediate diagnosis and recommended treatments.
  The advanced diagnostic and therapeutic technologies will help to 
develop techniques to identify chemical and biological threats to 
victims. In addition, DREAMS is developing mechanisms for the 
biological decontamination and detoxification of these chemical agents. 
The City of Houston is an ideal location for these tests because of 
that large number of petrochemical and industrial facilities located in 
our area.
  The diagnostic methods and therapies program will determine possible 
applications to treat patients during the ``golden hour'' following a 
traumatic injury. These methods will develop new technologies to 
diagnose inflammation, cancer, and necrosis utilizing infrared 
catheters. This program is also exploring new treatment to resuscitate 
victims by increasing blood flow that is common in many trauma 
patients. This project is also exploring how to

[[Page H3982]]

prevent cell death as a result of traumatic injury. The DREAMS project 
will yield new results and procedures to help patients become 
stabilized before sending them to trauma centers.

  I am also pleased that this legislation includes $6 billion for the 
Biology, Education, Screening, Chemoprevention, and Treatment [BESCT] 
lung cancer proposal at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center 
in Houston, Texas. This is the second installment on a five-year 
project to reduce lung cancer and save lives.
  The BESCT program would provide comprehensive services for lung 
cancer patients including smoking cessation, early diagnosis, 
inhibition of cancer development in active and former smokers, and 
improved treatment and survival for patients with active lung cancer. 
This ambitious program is necessary to save lives and reduce health 
care costs.
  Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States 
today, killing more than 60,000 individuals a year. Research for this 
disease is not receiving adequate funding in proportion to the number 
of lung cancer patients who are suffering from this disease.
  As you know, the Department of Defense during World War II, Korea, 
and Vietnam, encouraged smoking among our soldiers. I believe that the 
federal government should help fund research that will save the lives 
of these soldiers. The current five-year survival rate of lung cancer 
is less than 15 percent. Because many lung cancer victims do not 
usually live long enough to advocate the necessary funding to 
accelerate progress against this disease, I am pleased that the House 
Appropriations Committee has acted to fight for them.
  I am pleased that Congress has included these vitally important 
research projects and urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my support to the 
FY 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This legislation 
applies virtually all of the additional $4 billion above the 
President's request to unfunded requirements identified by the military 
service chiefs and defense agencies. Unfortunately, this bill cannot 
solve the fundamental problems facing the U.S. military with a single 
year's appropriations bill. It will take a substantiated effort over a 
number of years to bring our military forces to the level needed to 
maintain our national security.
  We in Congress must fund the military based on the fact that the 
first priority of the Federal Government is national defense. As we 
look at the defense budget and the U.S. military in general, we need to 
remember the quote attributed to George Washington, ``Those who love 
peace prepare for war'' is as true today as it ever been.
  Frankly, I sometimes worry that many people have forgotten the real 
mission of the military. I firmly believe the U.S. Armed Forces exist 
for only one reason--to win the Nation's wars when told to do so by the 
elected representatives of the American people. To accomplish this 
mission, we must ensure that our military remains focused on war 
fighting and readiness. We have done much in this bill to allow our 
Armed Forces to be prepared to fight not only today, but also tomorrow. 
First, we have given a well deserved increase in military pay of 3.7 
percent. Next, we included increasing funding for National Missile 
Defense development by $739 million over last year's bill; $4 billion 
for the Air Force's F-22 Fighter Program; and $1.8 billion for 
transforming the Army into a more mobile and technologically advanced 
force. Another provision of great significance to the nation is $355 
million appropriated for the Crusader program. The Crusader is a fully 
digitized system that revolutionizes artillery for the 21st century. 
Crusader has three times the effectiveness of Paladin (the system it 
will replace), with a 33 percent reduction in manpower for each system. 
It delivers precision low-cost munitions decisively and with very low 
chance of collateral damage, in all weather.
  Finally, we must keep the faith with our veterans and military 
retirees so that our present and future service members know that the 
American people, through their elected officials, can be trusted. 
Toward that end, this bill includes $12.1 billion for Defense Health 
Program, $543 more than requested by the President. This legislation 
has $280 million to implement healthcare enhancements such as removing 
barriers to an effective TRICARE system thereby generating significant 
savings that will be redirected to pay for future benefits, and 
restoring pharmacy access to all Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  I know some do not believe that a strong defense is necessary today. 
I believe just the opposite. We must strengthen the Armed Forces by 
increasing funding of defense and we must insure that our foreign 
policy makes sense.
  I strongly urge my fellow Members of Congress to support the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of H.R. 4576 and 
thank Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha, and the Defense 
Appropriations Committee for the great work in putting together this 
legislation. They are to be commended for expertly balancing our 
national security interests with very unforgiving budget constraints.
  Even though the Army, in my opinion, has shortsightedly threatened 
the superiority of our heavy forces by terminating the Heavy Assault 
Bridge program, the committee is wisely supporting the bridge and the 
most superior tank in the world, the M1A2 Abrams.
  The M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program [SEP] tank is a major 
component of the Army's heavy forces and will remain so through the 
year 2020. The committee very wisely is providing $512 million for the 
Abrams Upgrade Program. I am also pleased the committee provides $36 
million for the SEP System Enhancement Program and $36 million for M1 
Abrams tank modifications.
  The Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge [HAB] is a mobile bridge 
deployable in five minutes, retrievable in less than ten minutes, and 
can support 70-ton vehicles. Like the Grizzly Breacher, the President's 
budget terminated this program to pay for Army Transformation efforts, 
even though Congress has provided multi-year procurement authority and 
additional funds for HAB in recent years. It is the top unfunded 
modernization requirement of the Chief of Staff of the Army for fiscal 
year 2001. To restore this program, the committee rightly directs the 
Army to use $82 million in fiscal year 2000 funds to procure the 
Wolverine. An additional $15 million of unobligated FY00 Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army funds appropriated for the 
Grizzly program is transferred to procure additional Wolverines as 
well.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for FY 2001.
  The Defense Committee's decision to fully fund $3.96 billion for the 
production of 10 F-22 production planes, and to provide continued 
funding for advance procurement and research, development, technology 
and engineering, places us one major step closer to our goal of seeing 
the next generation of air superiority fighter into production.
  As the next generation air superiority fighter, the F-22 will replace 
our aging F-15 aircraft which was designed in the early 1970s. Defense 
experts stress the urgency in maintaining our capability to control the 
skies through air superiority. Many defense experts agree the F-22 
performs a vital--indeed, absolutely essential--role in maintaining air 
superiority in future conflicts. As witnessed in the recent strikes in 
Kosovo and the Persian Gulf, air superiority is the only effective way 
to protect our nation and our interests abroad. Without the complete 
development of stealth technology and advanced avionics features, we 
put our soldiers at risk.
  The F-22 is America's next generation air superiority fighter, and 
has been developed to counter any future threats posed by foreign 
advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). As we witnessed over the skies 
of Iraq, SAMs and other advanced fire-controlled radars pose a real, 
tangible threat to U.S. combat air fighters. The only defense against 
those systems is the F-22 program, which has the ability to operate 
against multiple targets and use advanced avionics. As foreign 
countries continue to develop and purchase increasingly advanced air 
defense systems, our nation must continue advancement of our own 
fighters to preserve future air superiority.
  The goal of the F-22 program is to maintain the dominance of 
aerodynamic stealth performance and will enable the Department of 
Defense to continue its air superiority. As the F-22 program continues 
to exceed every technical and programmatic challenge, the U.S. Air 
Force continues to give its strong, explicit support to the project's 
continuation.

  From the start, the F-22 has been designed for minimal maintenance 
and will provide a reliable aircraft which is far superior to any other 
aircraft today. Compared to the F-15, which requires an average of 23 
maintenance personnel, the F-22 will require only 15 personnel, which 
represents a substantial cost savings when calculated over the 20-to-30 
year life of an aircraft. Through the use of advanced technology, 
several benefits will be gained by developing a cost efficient design 
strategy, creating substantial savings, and improving operational 
flexibility throughout the life of this program.
  As other foreign countries begin to develop and acquire combat 
aircraft that will be superior to our current fighters, the F-22 
program is the only hope to beat the encroachment of advanced foreign 
arsenals. Countries such as Russia are developing advanced fighters for 
their foreign customers such as Syria, China, India, and others. It is 
certain advanced stealth fighter aircraft produced by other countries 
in the near future, will fall into the hands of rogue states such as 
Iraq, Iran and Libya.
  The F-15 began service over 25 years ago. When the F-22 becomes 
operational in FY06,

[[Page H3983]]

the F-15 will average nearly 30 years of service. The F-15's flight 
characteristics are well-known today, making it even more susceptible 
to the next generation of foreign missiles and fighters.
  The F-22 is the only opportunity our nation has to ensure America's 
military continues to control the sky in the 21st century. There is no 
other combat aircraft in service today that has similar capacity to 
successfully operate amid our growing future foreign threats.
  I urge you to support this defense initiative that builds our 
nation's future conflict capability while still maintaining our 
nation's air superiority. We must continue to guarantee air superiority 
through the continued support and funding of the F-22 program. There is 
no other American aircraft that can offer the insurance and protection 
our soldier's and their families desperately need.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, for military functions 
     administered by the Department of Defense, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

                        Military Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active 
     duty (except members of reserve components provided for 
     elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $22,242,457,000.

                        Military Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active 
     duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), 
     midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to 
     section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 
     note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense Military 
     Retirement Fund, $17,799,297,000.

                    Military Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on 
     active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for 
     elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of 
     Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), to 
     section 229(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), 
     and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $6,818,300,000.

                     Military Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, 
     interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station 
     travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational 
     movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between 
     permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on 
     active duty (except members of reserve components provided 
     for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments 
     pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 402 note), to section 229(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)), and to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $18,238,234,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of 
     title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the 
     Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $2,463,320,000.

                        Reserve Personnel, Navy

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy 
     Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $1,566,095,000.

                    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine 
     Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or while serving on active duty under 
     section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and 
     for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and 
     expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United 
     States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense 
     Military Retirement Fund, $440,886,000.

                      Reserve Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force 
     Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active 
     duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent 
     duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve 
     Officers' Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 
     16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to 
     the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, 
     $980,610,000.

                     National Guard Personnel, Army

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army 
     National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 
     12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States 
     Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of 
     title 10 or section 502(f ) of title 32, United States Code, 
     in connection with performing duty specified in section 
     12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $3,719,336,000.

                  National Guard Personnel, Air Force

       For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, 
     travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air 
     National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 
     of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, 
     or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 
     or section 502(f ) of title 32, United States Code, in 
     connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) 
     of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing 
     training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or 
     other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 
     10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of 
     Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,635,681,000.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of title I, through page 7, line 
14, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                    Operation and Maintenance, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; 
     and not to exceed $10,616,000 can be used for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the

[[Page H3984]]

     Secretary of the Army, and payments may be made on his 
     certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, 
     $19,386,843,000 and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer from the National Defense Stockpile 
     Transaction Fund: Provided, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, $6,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be transferred to ``National Park Service--
     Construction'' within 30 days of enactment of this Act, only 
     for necessary infrastructure repair improvements at Fort 
     Baker, under the management of the Golden Gate Recreation 
     Area: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in 
     this paragraph, not less than $355,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for conventional ammunition care and 
     maintenance.

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, 
     as authorized by law; and not to exceed $5,146,000 can be 
     used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be 
     expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the 
     Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of 
     necessity for confidential military purposes, $23,426,830,000 
     and, in addition, $50,000,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

                Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized 
     by law, $2,813,091,000.

                  Operation and Maintenance, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by 
     law; and not to exceed $7,878,000 can be used for emergencies 
     and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may 
     be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential 
     military purposes, $22,316,797,000 and, in addition, 
     $50,000,000, shall be derived by transfer from the National 
     Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds 
     available under this heading, $500,000 shall only be 
     available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to 
     Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority 
     aviation training.

                Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the 
     Department of Defense (other than the military departments), 
     as authorized by law, $11,803,743,000, of which not to exceed 
     $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund 
     account; and of which not to exceed $32,700,000 can be used 
     for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on 
     the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and 
     payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes: Provided, That of the amount 
     provided under this heading, $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, is available only for expenses relating to 
     certain classified activities, and may be transferred as 
     necessary by the Secretary of Defense to operation and 
     maintenance, procurement, and research, development, test and 
     evaluation appropriations accounts, to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period as the appropriations 
     to which transferred: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority provided under this heading is in addition to any 
     other transfer authority provided in this Act: Provided 
     further, That of the funds made available under this heading, 
     $15,000,000 shall be available only for retrofitting security 
     containers that are under the control of, or that are 
     accessible by, defense contractors.

                Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $1,596,418,000.

                Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities 
     and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and 
     transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of 
     services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, 
     $992,646,000.

            Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $145,959,000.

              Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     operation and maintenance, including training, organization, 
     and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of 
     facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; 
     procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and 
     communications, $1,921,659,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard

       For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the 
     Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment 
     and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, 
     operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National 
     Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as 
     authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army 
     National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders 
     while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard 
     Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army 
     National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, 
     modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and 
     equipment (including aircraft), $3,263,235,000.

             Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard

       For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, 
     including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses 
     in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and 
     other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and 
     administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of 
     facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of 
     aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized 
     by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to 
     the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and 
     equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks 
     under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; 
     travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as 
     authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active 
     Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while 
     inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau 
     regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, 
     National Guard Bureau, $3,480,375,000.

             Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency 
     Operations by United States military forces, $4,100,577,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to 
     military personnel accounts; operation and maintenance 
     accounts within this title; the Defense Health Program 
     appropriation; procurement accounts; research, development, 
     test and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: 
     Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged 
     with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the 
     same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: 
     Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part 
     of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not 
     necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may 
     be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere 
     in this Act.

          United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

       For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $8,574,000, of which 
     not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation 
     purposes.

                    Environmental Restoration, Army


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $389,932,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                    Environmental Restoration, Navy


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Navy, $294,038,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for

[[Page H3985]]

     the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

                  Environmental Restoration, Air Force


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Air Force, $376,300,000, to 
     remain available until transferred: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such 
     funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction 
     and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings 
     and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar 
     purposes, transfer the funds made available by this 
     appropriation to other appropriations made available to the 
     Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That upon a determination that all or part of the funds 
     transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the 
     purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred 
     back to this appropriation.

                Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of Defense, $23,412,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of 
     the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

         Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the Department of the Army, $196,499,000, to remain 
     available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required 
     for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of 
     hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at 
     sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer 
     the funds made available by this appropriation to other 
     appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, 
     to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes 
     and for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that 
     all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation 
     are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such 
     amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation.

             Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid

       For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, 
     Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense 
     (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 
     404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code), 
     $56,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002.

                  Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction

       For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, 
     including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for 
     facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure 
     transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other 
     weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the 
     proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-
     related technology and expertise; for programs relating to 
     the training and support of defense and military personnel 
     for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons 
     components and weapons technology and expertise, 
     $433,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003.

                 Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, resulting from 
     unfunded shortfalls in the repair and maintenance of real 
     property of the Department of Defense (including military 
     housing and barracks), $480,000,000, for the maintenance of 
     real property of the Department of Defense (including minor 
     construction and major maintenance and repair), which shall 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2002, as 
     follows:
       Army, $282,500,000;
       Navy, $70,000,000;
       Marine Corps, $47,000,000;
       Air Force, $70,000,000; and
       Defense-Wide, $10,500,000:

     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading for Defense-Wide 
     activities, the entire amount shall only be available for 
     grants by the Secretary of Defense to local educational 
     authorities which maintain primary and secondary educational 
     facilities located within Department of Defense 
     installations, and which are used primarily by Department of 
     Defense military and civilian dependents, for facility 
     repairs and improvements to such educational facilities: 
     Provided further, That such grants to local educational 
     authorities may be made for repairs and improvements to such 
     educational facilities as required to meet classroom size 
     requirements: Provided further, That the cumulative amount of 
     any grant or grants to any single local education authority 
     provided pursuant to the provisions under this heading shall 
     not exceed $1,500,000.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent the remainder of title II of the bill through page 
20, line 10 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                       Aircraft Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,547,082,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided, That of the $183,371,000 
     appropriated under this heading for the procurement of UH-60 
     helicopters, $78,520,000 shall be available only for the 
     procurement of 8 such aircraft to be provided to the Army 
     Reserve.

                       Missile Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, 
     ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories 
     therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,240,347,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

        Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including 
     ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $2,634,786,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $1,227,386,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

                        Other Procurement, Army

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked 
     combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 35 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 12 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per vehicle; 
     communications and electronic equipment; other support 
     equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; 
     specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of

[[Page H3986]]

     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the 
     foregoing purposes, $4,254,564,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003.

                       Aircraft Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, including the land 
     necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may 
     be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $8,179,564,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2003.

                       Weapons Procurement, Navy

       For construction, procurement, production, modification, 
     and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and 
     related support equipment including spare parts, and 
     accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, 
     including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and 
     procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and 
     Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, 
     $1,372,112,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

            Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $491,749,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

                   Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

       For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, 
     or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including 
     armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and 
     machine tools and installation thereof in public and private 
     plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned 
     equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime 
     components and designs for vessels to be constructed or 
     converted in the future; and expansion of public and private 
     plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and 
     interests therein, may be acquired, and construction 
     prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $12,266,919,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2005: Provided, That additional obligations may 
     be incurred after September 30, 2005, for engineering 
     services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work 
     that must be performed in the final stage of ship 
     construction: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided under this heading for the construction or 
     conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards 
     in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities 
     for the construction of major components of such vessel: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this 
     heading shall be used for the construction of any naval 
     vessel in foreign shipyards.

                        Other Procurement, Navy

       For procurement, production, and modernization of support 
     equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy 
     ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and 
     ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to 
     exceed 63 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, and 
     the purchase of one vehicle required for physical security of 
     personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to 
     passenger vehicles but not to exceed $200,000; expansion of 
     public and private plants, including the land necessary 
     therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; and procurement and installation of 
     equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and 
     private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-
     owned equipment layaway, $3,433,063,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2003.

                       Procurement, Marine Corps

       For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, 
     and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, 
     appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in 
     public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine 
     Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 33 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public 
     and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and 
     such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, 
     $1,229,605,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

                    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, lease, and modification of 
     aircraft and equipment, including armor and armament, 
     specialized ground handling equipment, and training devices, 
     spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; 
     expansion of public and private plants, Government-owned 
     equipment and installation thereof in such plants, erection 
     of structures, and acquisition of land, for the foregoing 
     purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be 
     acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to 
     approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses 
     necessary for the foregoing purposes including rents and 
     transportation of things, $10,064,032,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2003.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 28, line 
16 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment 
at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Are there any amendments to title III?


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. De Fazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 28, line 15, insert ``(reduced by $930,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment serves two purposes. We 
have heard and continue to hear a litany of concerns from our men and 
women serving in the military about their basic needs not being met. We 
still know some can receive and are eligible for food stamps. I talked 
earlier about a Marine's dad who had to buy him a waterproof case for 
his new digital radio as a communications specialist, because the 
Pentagon could not afford it. We have problems meeting sea duty pay. We 
have problems in readiness.
  This amendment will go to many of those concerns. It is quite modest 
in its scope, actually, and follows the recommendations of a number of 
professionals. It says that we should slow down the procurement of a 
plane that has not yet been successfully tested. We would cut from 10 
to six this fiscal year under consideration the procurement of the F-
22, a plane which has failed to meet any of the major benchmarks in its 
testing and advanced purchases from 16 to eight.
  Mr. Chairman, this would follow the recommendations of the General 
Accounting Office, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Tests and 
Evaluation and, in fact, the committee's own surveys and investigations 
staff recommendations.
  I met this morning with Colonel Riccioni. He was a principal in the 
development of the F-16, a very decorated fighter pilot. He said in his 
critique, which was absolutely devastating of the F-22, and perhaps it 
should be classified like the critiques of Star Wars have recently been 
by a prominent physicist, his are not classified. He said this plane 
was designed to be stealthy. It is not stealthy. It is bigger than an 
F-15. It is visible. It is visible at a longer distance. It is visible 
from look-down or look-up radar. It has a huge radar signature of its 
own.
  It is not stealthy on an infrared basis, and it fails all of those 
criteria. It does not have, nor does he believe they can prove, a 
supersonic cruise capability. It was the idea in the designing to fight 
deep into the Soviet Union against threats which the Soviet Union is 
not building.
  The avionics do not work. In fact, what he says will happen here is 
that if we go ahead with procurement of this plane, which will not meet 
the standards that were set out, that we will jeopardize our future 
combat capacity because we will produce so few of these planes and 
replace so many planes with them.
  The original plan was for 800 F-22s. Then it was 620. Then it was 
460. Then it was 339. Not because of our operational needs. We have 
always enjoyed numerical air superiority. If we cut down to 339, and I 
suspect we will end up maybe with 200 the way the prices

[[Page H3987]]

are running with this plane if it works, we are going to give up the 
idea of numerical superiority and bet on this plane which is totally 
unproven.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not even saying we should not build it. I am not 
saying we should not go forward. I am saying we should slow down until 
we meet the benchmarks and the tests. Take a billion dollars and take 
that billion dollars and put it into needs that were requested by the 
Pentagon that are not met in this bill. That makes sense to me. I think 
it would make sense to a lot of the troops on the ground.
  It may not make sense to some of the brass hats at the top of the 
Pentagon; and it certainly will not make sense to the contractor who is 
building this plane, at this point at such an extravagant cost overrun.
  So I would suggest strongly that my colleagues, if they support the 
recommendations of the Pentagon in the areas of recruiting, bonus 
payments for sailors on sea duty, basic allowance for subsistence, that 
means get the troops and their families off food stamps once and for 
all; if we are looking at the O&M request of the Marine Corps, the 
personnel request of the Marine Corps again for basic allowance; O&M 
requests for the Air Force for maintenance and base operations, 
recruiting and retention for the Air Force, basic allowance, get the 
young men and women in the Air Force off food stamps; get the young men 
and women in the Army off food stamps and look at O&M defense-wide for 
cooperative threat reduction and for overseas humanitarian disaster and 
civic aid. We have an extraordinary list of things we could fund if we 
just followed the advice of the experts and said do not rush into full 
production at accelerated production with a plane that has not even yet 
met its basic test requirements.
  That is what we are talking about here. This was a subject of concern 
last year. The committee, in fact last year in the House, the House 
bill did not include funding for this plane. They killed it. They went 
much further than I am going. They killed the plane because of these 
similar concerns.
  I am just saying take and transfer this nearly a billion dollars to 
these real identified readiness needs of our men and women on the 
ground. Slow this thing down. Do full testing. And then if it meets 
those tests, if it operates and can meet the criteria we set out at the 
beginning, which Colonel Riccioni and others say it will not and cannot 
do, then go ahead. But if it cannot, then maybe we should think later 
about canceling it and investing in other projects that are proposed, 
like the Joint Strike Fighter.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize we could have a lot of people speak about 
this, but we have debated this at great length in the committee. Last 
year we cut the money out because we felt the Air Force was going in 
the wrong direction. We felt they needed more testing. This year we 
have taken the cap off the testing. We are insisting they finish the 
testing. But we do think they are moving in the direction that we 
originally agreed to.
  I would hope we will not hear a lot of debate today so we could move 
forward with this bill and then just get right to the vote.
  But this is an important program. I think the gentleman may have 
overestimated the numbers. I am not sure we will ever get to the 
numbers that even he predicts in this airplane. I think it is a 
sophisticated airplane which deals with one specific program and am not 
sure, because of its cost, we will get any higher. But I can assure the 
gentleman we are making sure that this airplane is going to be tested 
before it flies. And we have been on the Air Force more than the 
contractor. The contractor has been more cooperative than the Air 
Force, so the Air Force is the one causing us the problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope we could get to a vote very quickly on 
this amendment and go forward with the bill.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) who has already 
stated that we went through this battle last year. We answered the 
questions that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has raised 
here with respect to the F-22.
  But I also want to point out the fact that, in the last two military 
conflicts that the United States of America has engaged in, we have 
proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that, when air superiority and air 
dominance is maintained by the United States, that the loss of life of 
our brave young men and women who serve in our military forces is 
minimized and, to a certain extent, is even eliminated altogether.
  As we move into the 21st century, we must have the F-22, a full 
complement of the F-22, in order to continue to maintain air 
superiority and air dominance. This plane is going to be tested. If we 
slow down production of it, we are going to increase the cost of this 
airplane. That is the wrong move to make. Not just from a budgetary 
perspective, but also from the perspective of trying to ensure that we 
eliminate or significantly decrease the possible loss of life of our 
young men and women who are called into combat to protect freedom and 
integrity of this country around the world.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the cost of this development program has doubled since 
1985 to $24 billion. Only 15 percent of the testing program has been 
accomplished since the engineering manufacturing development program 
began in 1991. The conference agreement last year on the F-22 prohibits 
a production decision until the so-called Block III software is flight 
tested in an actual F-22 aircraft. That testing is not even scheduled 
to occur until the fall of next year at the earliest.
  It should be noted that the Air Force has to conduct only a system 
flight test to meet the congressional requirements and to allow the 
program to enter initial production.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Wisconsin yield for 
a point of clarification?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman said the fall of next year, I believe. I 
checked with the staff, it is the fall of this year.
  Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, the fall of this year. The gentleman from 
Washington is correct.
  Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that, as I said in my earlier 
remarks, one has to understand this amendment in the context of the way 
the bill is being presented, not just the broad budget context, but 
what we are doing with respect to other tactical aircraft.
  We are expected to move forward on the Joint Strike program at a cost 
of possibly up to $200 billion. In addition to that, we have the F-18 
and we have got the F-22. As I said earlier in my remarks, there have 
been three cautionary flags raised that the Congress ought to pay 
attention to with respect to this program.
  First of all, the Pentagon's Director of Operational Testing 
Evaluation testified before Congress that, and I quote, ``basically not 
enough of the test program has been completed to know whether or not 
significant development problems remain to be corrected.''
  Secondly, our committee's own surveys and investigation staff 
reported to the committee in March that the decision to enter into the 
F-22 production in December is ``premature in light of fatigue and 
avionics testing, which is yet to be accomplished.'' It recommended no 
production funds until the year 2002.
  The General Accounting Office recently told the defense authorization 
and Committee on Appropriations, ``we believe low rate initial 
production should begin at no more than six aircraft and that aircraft 
quantity should not exceed six to eight aircraft per year until 
developmental and operational testing and evaluation are complete.''
  It recommended reducing the fiscal 2001 budget by $828 million, a 
reduction of four aircraft. It is pretty clear to me that three 
independent organizations have indicated there are major problems with 
this aircraft, and two of them have explicitly recommended that the F-
22 production not be funded at the level being proposed in the budget.

[[Page H3988]]

  I recognize this amendment is not going to pass and I congratulate 
the subcommittee for trying to take this issue on last year. I guess I 
do not blame them for backing off after they had gotten bloodied and 
had their heads knocked against the stone wall.
  But the fact is the decision last year to question this production 
was the correct decision. I wish the Congress would stick to it. I wish 
the House would stick to it. If we did, in the long-term, we would be 
doing a favor, both to the defense establishment to this country 
charged with the responsibility to defend the country and to the 
taxpayers who are, after all, going to pay for it all.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will yield for a personal inquiry, maybe the gentleman would like to 
join me in advocating bombers as a much more economical way to proceed 
as these expensive fighters.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the gentleman's conversion to 
support B-2 bombers. It is the first time I have ever known he has been 
for that program.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of the statements that 
have been made by the proponents of this amendment. First of all, when 
it was stated that the cost has doubled, when one takes all the 
research and development money, and one spreads that over 756 
airplanes, each of those airplanes cost a certain amount. If one cuts 
in half the buy of those airplanes to less than 336 today, all that 
research and development money goes over on a fewer number of airplanes 
driving up the cost of that airplane.
  We took that into account last year. I joined with the committee last 
year looking, because I was concerned about the cost of the F-22 and 
the upcoming electronics in it. I would tell the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I am not bloody. I stood for what I believed was 
right and fought for that. No lobbying, nothing swayed me in what I 
believed.
  I will tell the gentleman, if he has any idea what it is like to look 
at tracers coming across the canopy, if he has any idea what is like to 
see a sidewinder coming up one's tailpipe, if he has got any idea what 
it feels like to be coming down in a parachute over enemy territory, 
then he would support the F-22.
  I would tell my colleagues this, why have we not had the funds for 
the joint strike fighter and the F-18E/F? Because the White House has 
delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed, and amendments like this 
have delayed procurement of aircraft knowing that, in the out years, 
they said, oh, we will give it to you in the out years, but knowing 
when we come to the out years, we will not have the money to fund all 
the different systems that we need to support national security 
effectively.
  It makes me sick to hear, well, we want to take care of the food 
stamp military personnel. We want to take care of those poor military 
that are shipped around. But, yet, when it came to Somalia and Haiti, 
we told you that there would be a cost associated with that. $200 
billion out of the defense budget for 149 deployments.
  So we do not have the money for R&D. We do not have the money for 
procurement. There are unfunded requirements by the military because of 
the liberal foreign policy that does not give us the amount of money to 
support aircraft and equipment.
  I would tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) I flew the F-15 
alongside the F-22. The gentleman's information is wrong. It does have 
super cruise. I could not keep up with it in an F-15. Or General Ryan 
could not keep up with it in the F-16.
  The VO, which is the stealth capability, gives us the 
ability to close an enemy fighter and fire before he fires on us 
because his missiles are better today, his radar is better, and we 
cannot see through his jammer. The F-22 gives us that capability.
  I beg the gentleman, go down and look at the simulator with the 
actual electronic equipment. In a dog fight, it is also helpful to know 
where one's wingman is. It is also nice to know who he has locked up so 
that one can fire efficiently at the enemy and take him out before he 
takes us out.
  The F-22 does that; so does the joint strike fighter. The joint 
strike fighter is going to use the same technology that is being tested 
today in the F-22.
  The F-22, I am concerned about the cost of the F-22. We need to hold 
that down so that we can buy in greater numbers that aircraft. Because 
we need to look at the threat.
  Mr. Chairman, if our pilots fly against the SU-27 today, both in the 
intercept and in the dog fight, our pilots die 90 to 95 percent of the 
time. But our liberal and socialist friends would tell us the Cold War 
is over, there is no threat. Our kids are going to die, and it is 
amendments like this that have stopped our military from surviving and 
puts us in a situation where we have got 21 ships along pier that 
cannot be deployed because they are down for maintenance. Our kids are 
getting worn out, and we are flying 30-year-old equipment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me since he 
mentioned my name?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I wondered how long it would take the 
gentleman from California before he gets to his usual accusation that 
those who disagree with him are socialists or worse.
  I would simply say that the assertion that amendments like this have 
somehow killed people is absurd. This House has not adopted an 
amendment to cut back any major defense program in 20 years.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. Two classic 
examples. The helicopters that we lost in Kosovo, the pilots were not 
trained. They did not get trained in night goggles. They did not get 
trained in combat wielded aircraft. Captain O'Grady that was shot down 
in Bosnia was not even qualified in combat maneuvering, because we did 
not have the money because of all the 149 deployments that the 
gentleman supported.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what does that have to do with the F-22? 
Nothing.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for just a brief period of time to remind all of 
us that last year the former chairman and ranking member and the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) placed the F-22 under the 
most scrutiny of any procurement and testing in the defense 
authorization, in the defense budget, much less anything else.
  The reference was made they had hit a stone wall, and I guess that 
alluded to a lot of political pressure. But the truth of the matter is 
one who learned a little bit about this process last year, because I 
was new, and one that does have an interest because the production of 
this airplane is almost in my district and a lot of its workers live 
there, I watched the diligence that the former chairman and the ranking 
member and the chairman placed the airplane, the engineers, and the 
company, not to mention the military, under to see if it was worth the 
investment of this Congress. The answer was ultimately yes.
  The stone wall was not a stone wall of politics and lobbying, 
although that component always exists. It was the promise that that 
aircraft, its design, and its predictable avionics would deliver, which 
now, in initial testing, are being borne out.
  So I would ask all of us to remember that it was a year ago we placed 
this very program under the most scrutiny of any program in the DoD 
budget period, and it passed. It passed the scrutiny of two of the most 
distinguished gentlemen in this House. It passed the scrutiny of those 
who think America needs to be prepared to defend ourselves and our 
young men and women in the 21st century.
  I rise to oppose the amendment and to thank both these fine gentlemen 
in the committee for last year allowing that aircraft to pass the test 
which will deliver for our country in the years ahead.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H3989]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The F-22 will 
give us air superiority into the future for at least the next 30 years. 
I have been around here long enough to know that, yes, in every one of 
these programs, there are problems that have to be dealt with, whether 
it is the radar or wing bump or whatever it is. But we go through a 
development program for that purpose to make those corrections.
  Now, the reason air superiority is so important, if one looks at what 
happened in Iraq and then what happened in Yugoslavia, within a matter 
of hours, we were able to completely dominate the Earth. Remember the 
aircraft from Iraq went to Iran. They fled the country because they 
knew they would all be shot down.
  Once we have air superiority and once we can control the surface-to-
air missiles and their anti-aircraft guns, then we can bring in, not 
only our stealthy airplanes like the B-2 and the F-117, which are used 
to go after those fixed targets, but then we can bring in all of the 
nonstealthy planes, the F-16s, the F-15s, the F-18s Es and Fs and Cs 
and Ds, and the B-52 and the B-1s.

                              {time}  1645

  But the Enabler is our ability to gain air superiority rapidly; and 
that saves American lives, saves money, and that is what the F-22 is 
all about.
  I was pleased last year, and I supported our chairman and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), in reviewing this 
program; but I think we still need to have an unquestioned air 
superiority fighter for the future. As General Ryan says over and over 
again, ``We do not want a fair fight.''
  I believe that once we get through the development that this plane 
will live up to expectations. We are not going to buy as many of them 
as some people would like to buy, because of affordability reasons; but 
we will have enough of them to ensure that in the next 30 years we will 
have unquestioned superiority in this area, which is crucial to winning 
wars early, decisively, saving money and saving American lives.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves that the Committee now rise and present the 
     bill to the House with the recommendation that the enacting 
     clause be stricken out.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would not have done this but for the words 
uttered by the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California who just spoke attacked 
those who were supporting this amendment as being ``leftists and 
socialists and the like.'' I would like to ask him whether he believes 
that the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation, 
whether he is a leftist or a socialist. I would like to ask him whether 
he believes the committee's own staff on surveys and investigation are 
a collection of leftists and socialists. I would ask him if he believes 
the General Accounting Office is a collection of leftists and 
socialists.
  I would simply point out the gentleman himself, in the subcommittee 
last year, when we marked up this bill, supported the proposal to slow 
down the production of this aircraft until some of these questions 
could be offered and said that what was happening on that day was ``a 
good thing,'' and I am quoting him directly.
  I have a great deal of respect for the service the gentleman has 
provided this country, in the military and in this institution; but 
that does not give him a right to question the views or motives of 
those who disagree with him by calling them leftists or socialists. 
Every person here on this floor is a good American and we believe we 
are doing our duty when we have the ``temerity'' to raise at least a 
question or two before we spend almost $290 billion of the taxpayers' 
money.
  The question is not whether we want this country defended or not; the 
question is whether we want this country defended in the most effective 
manner. And if we cannot have an honest discussion of that question 
without calling into question people's patriotism or motives, then that 
says a whole lot more about the gentleman who made those charges than 
it says about us.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) 
rise in opposition to the motion?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion, and 
I would say that the liberal left is known to fight against national 
security and defense for greater socialized spending. The gentlemen 
that support this amendment are members of the Progressive Caucus in 
which----
  Mr. OBEY. I am not.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me finish. The author of the amendment is.
  Mr. OBEY. The statement was ``the gentlemen who support.''
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I stand corrected. And in that they are listed under 
the Democrat Socialists of America that want to cut defense by 50 
percent.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not at this moment.
  Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman is making a factual inaccuracy.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I think we are going to get into a point of personal 
privilege very soon if the gentleman continues with his bizarre and 
inaccurate accusations because he cannot operate a computer properly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) controls the time.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the computer program the Democrat Socialists of 
America have their own Web page, and on that Web page are listed the 
Progressive Caucus. That is a fact. And I have stated that the Democrat 
Socialists of America----
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Is the gentleman familiar with the first amendment? 
Anybody can list anything. I am going to be asking for a point of 
personal privilege if the gentleman continues to insult me in the most 
inaccurate manner and make inaccurate statements.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) controls 
the time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. He does not have the time to make inaccurate statements, 
and I will be asking to have his words taken down if he continues in 
this vein.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The words that I state are factual. The Progressive 
Caucus is listed under the Democrat Socialists of America, their Web 
page.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman is inaccurate. They are listed as a 
reference by another group. Any group, I am sure that the Nazis of 
America can list people in this House if they want. Anybody can make 
such lists. It has no affiliation. If the gentleman is alleging an 
affiliation, he is absolutely wrong, inaccurate.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) must seek time 
later in the debate.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Some people cannot stand for the truth, and they 
would like to shout it down.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand that the words be taken down.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the words objected to.

                              {time}  1700

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) insist on 
his demand?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the transcript, which uses the 
word ``some'' people.
  Obviously, I feel strongly the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) was directly referencing another Member of the House, me. 
Perhaps he was not.
  If he is not, then I will remove the objection at this point in time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) withdraws his 
demand.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is recognized.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is well known that people have a 
right to either support national security or they do not. That does not 
make them a socialist.
  A difference of opinion does not make them categorized by a political 
spectrum. But over a period of time, those that oppose national 
security, in my opinion, have hurt the ability of our

[[Page H3990]]

troops to fight and wage a conflict that our President and this Nation 
offers.
  This particular amendment does not make one a socialist. This 
particular amendment does not mean that one wants to hurt defense. But 
over a period of time, if historically a person opposes the advancement 
of defense, that is their right. But I have the right, also, to 
disagree with that. And in this case, I strongly disagree.
  It was my own self that opposed the F-22 even last year. If the 
gentleman would say that because I opposed the amendment last year I 
was a socialist, I would agree, too. That is not the case. But it is 
the case that I would make that our troops are hurting. They have been 
exposed to 149 deployments. Over $200 billion has come out of the 
defense bill. The White House has cut defense in the past. And all of 
these accumulated have caused a lack of training, older machines, poor 
retention, and the things that we are trying to address in this bill. 
And at the same time, there is a very definite threat out there.
  Those were the points I was attempting to make.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) withdraw 
the preferential motion?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the motion is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, there is sort of a contradictory vein here raised by 
the previous gentleman. He expresses concern about readiness, training, 
basic tools, and things that our men and women in uniform need.
  In fact, this amendment would follow the recommendations of the 
Government Accounting Office, the Pentagon, the Investigations 
Committee of the Armed Services, and slow down procurement of a plane 
that has yet to meet any significant portion of its testing benchmarks, 
the same concerns expressed last year. And the GAO says, in fact, 
things have gotten dramatically worse since December of last year, the 
concerns raised by the committee. That is the GAO saying that. That is 
not me. Things have gotten dramatically worse.
  I am saying it would be prudent before we begin to purchase for 
production planes that have not yet been proven, planes that are going 
to cost nearly $200 million a copy, when, as the gentleman says, and I 
agree with him, we are not meeting the basic needs of our troops, 
whether it be in the Air Force, which he is particularly concerned 
with, or the Navy, or the Army, or the Marines, like the young man 
whose father I met who was issued a garbage bag as a waterproof cover 
for his $12,000 new super-duper digital radio.
  I think he should have the digital radio. We need encrypted 
communications in the field so they would not have to use cell phones 
like they have in the last couple of conflicts. That is great. But the 
Pentagon cannot find the wherewithal to get a waterproof cover for his 
radio and his dad has to go buy him one at G.I. Joe's. There is 
something wrong.
  There is something wrong when Hal the Computer at the Pentagon is 
ordering parts that are in a 100-year supply for wartime and it is 
ordering more. It is ordering parts for weapons that have been retired 
at outrageous prices. That steals from the men and women in the field 
and their basic needs, and it steals from every American and all their 
needs.
  The management is broken. That is the statement of the chairman of 
the Committee on the Budget on that side of the aisle, that they cannot 
find things, like the $960 million that they mistakenly sent to 
contractors, which they voluntarily sent back. I think that is 
wonderful. But we do not know how much money was mistakenly sent to 
contractors who did not send it back. And we have accounts still of 
outrageously overpriced items. That steals from the men and women in 
the field.
  And to say the response is more, more, more, as opposed to better 
management, is a mistake. And that is the position I have consistently 
taken since I have come to this House of Representatives. I want the 
strongest, most efficient defense this country can buy so we do not 
steal from the men and women in the field and we do not steal from all 
the other needs in this country and more and more shoveled after bad 
management in an attempt not to punish the troops in the field who are 
being punished, as the gentleman himself pointed out, because they are 
not getting the training they need which we could fulfill if this 
amendment passed because we would transfer a billion dollars from a 
premature acquisition of a weapon that is not yet proven which has 
significant problems according to a number of very highly reputed 
sources.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BARR of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this bill and its provisions for 
funding of the next phase of the F-22 development is supported by the 
Department of Defense, by the House Committee on Armed Services, the 
House Committee on Appropriations, and by the distinguished membership 
of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on 
Appropriations.
  This amendment to cut the spending for the F-22 program is opposed by 
the Department of Defense, by the House Committee on Armed Services, by 
the House Committee on Appropriations, and the subcommittee chaired by 
the distinguished gentleman from California.
  That fact should tell us something; and what it tells us is my 
position, as well: Oppose this amendment, which is a gutting amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, equipment, no matter how good, does not guarantee 
victory on the battlefield. But bad equipment, no matter how competent 
the training of the individuals who use it, no matter how highly 
motivated is the motivation of those who use it, will guarantee defeat.
  The F-22 has already proved itself, even in this stage of 
development, as the most superb fighter ever conceived by the mind of 
man. The technology that has already been proven, even in these early 
stages of its development, are utterly awesome.
  We need to show our fighting men and women and we need to show the 
rest of the world that America remains committed to providing the world 
cutting edge technology. That cutting edge technology, which when 
combined with the superb training and the high motivation of our men 
and women, has always, and will with the F-22, guarantee air 
superiority and, therefore, victory and minimize losses on the field.
  Is the program perfect? Probably not. Are there problems? Obviously 
there are. But the scrutiny, as my colleagues from Georgia have already 
indicated, under which this particular program has been placed, and 
rightfully so, by this Congress and by the administration are handling 
those problems in a straightforward, efficient manner. Every one of 
them has been overcome. I am confident that every problem that arises 
in the future will be overcome.
  Is this program expensive? Yes, it is. Is any technological advance 
expensive? Yes, it is. Is that a reason not to move forward? No, it is 
not.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this gutting amendment, to 
move forward with this piece of legislation with the funding for the 
next phase of the development of the F-22 aircraft. Our fighting men 
and women need it. Our country needs it. The world needs it. And they 
are watching.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), for offering this amendment. I think what the issue that we 
are debating about is priorities.
  I believe that every Member in the House wants to see the United 
States have a very strong national defense. But we want to make sure 
that that national defense is cost effective, because there are other 
needs in this country.
  No Member of the Congress ever wants to see a service person killed 
in action. And we want to protect them

[[Page H3991]]

the best way that we can. But similarly, I would hope that no Member of 
the Congress wants to see an elderly person die because they cannot 
afford prescription drugs, wants to see a child end up in jail rather 
than college because that child is not getting adequate elementary 
education, wants to see an American veteran sleep out on the street 
because the VA is underfunded, wants to see a veteran of World War II 
not get the health care they need in a VA hospital. I do not think any 
Member wants to see that happen.
  But we have to make choices. And some of us say, enough is enough. 
When we talk about increasing military spending by $22 billion and we 
talk about greatly outspending all of our enemies combined and then we 
add NATO to it and another $200 billion, how much do we need?
  We have middle class families in this country who cannot afford to 
send their kids to college. Should we not be addressing that? We are 
talking about not having enough money for Medicare. Several years ago 
this institution, against my vote, cut Medicare by $200 billion; and 
the result is massive dislocation in our hospitals, our nursing homes, 
and in our home health care agencies.
  Those are the choices that we have to make. Talk about those people. 
Do my colleagues want to see elderly people not get the health care 
that they need? That is part of this equation. And this is serious 
discussion.
  We cannot have it all, not unless we balloon the deficit and go back 
to where we were. So I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), for raising serious questions about how we spend our 
money in the military.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the DeFazio 
amendment.
  The F-22 is essential to providing U.S. air superiority in future 
conflicts. Testing and development is ongoing, and the program 
continues to meet or exceed design goals for this stage of its 
development.
  Since World War II, not one of our U.S. land forces has been killed 
by an enemy tactical fighter. And as our recent history clearly 
demonstrates, U.S. and NATO policy places an ever greater reliance on 
U.S. air superiority as a means to reduce casualties and project U.S. 
power.
  Unfortunately, I respectfully submit that the information that my 
colleagues are being provided by the opposition is inaccurate and 
misleading. Here are the facts:
  F-22 flight testing is proceeding extremely well and avionics 
development is well ahead of schedule, a first for a major aircraft 
development program.

                              {time}  1715

  The F-22 is technically sound, and the contractor is controlling 
costs and remaining under the congressionally mandated cost cap.
  It has been said the F-22 will cost three times as much as an F-15. 
This is incorrect. Adjusted for fiscal year 2000 dollars, the flyaway 
cost of an F-22 is $83.6 million. An F-15 is approximately $70 million. 
Approaching the end of the production run, an F-22 will cost only $61 
million. No fighter program in history will have flown as many flight 
test hours by the time the decision is made to proceed to low-rate 
production. This is the slowest ramp-up rate in the history of tactical 
aviation. No fighter in aviation history will have produced fewer 
fighters in low-rate initial production. The fact is reducing these 
production numbers will cause massive inefficiencies, will distress 
small second- and third-tier suppliers and will cause a breach in the 
congressionally mandated production cost cap, having little impact on 
the reduction of any technical risks.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess much of the world knows that last year our 
subcommittee went about what many thought to be impossible, that is, we 
came together in a forum that was entirely nonpartisan, beginning to 
attempt to address the question of future tactical fighter capability 
for the country. At question was the reality that we had three aircraft 
lines moving forward in terms of research and development. We had 
potential production costs that were almost endless. Yet our objective 
out there by 2020 and 2050 was to make sure that America had the best 
possible tactical aircraft available for our men and women who defend 
freedom in the world.
  As we raised this question about the F-22, our point was to say this 
appears to be an aircraft that can meet our needs in the decades ahead. 
But, indeed, if we commit to that line before we know that it really 
works, we could commit ourselves to a procurement line that is 
horrendously expensive; and we could find ourselves on a pathway not 
similar to that which was the B-2 not so long ago.
  So the committee dared to ask, should we insist upon testing, actual 
flight testing of this aircraft before we went forward with that long-
term procurement? The committee made some very difficult choices and 
began a debate in the Pentagon that was a very, very healthy debate. As 
of this moment, the Congress in this bill has provided for the advance 
procurement funding that was our agreement last year. The gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I agreed in the process that if the 
testing that we required, that pattern was followed, that we in turn 
would commit to the funding of 10 production aircraft. That agreement 
that we are going forward with here today is a reflection of both, I 
think I can speak for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and 
myself, that we are keeping our word in terms of that commitment.
  Let me assure my colleagues that under our bill, none of the funds 
provided for the 10 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 may be obligated until 
these tough testing requirements are fully satisfied. It is absolutely 
necessary that we follow this pathway because if we are going to make 
the expenditure to fully buy out this aircraft as it is now planned, it 
is a very, very big expenditure indeed. With that, let me suggest as of 
this moment, the F-22 is doing very, very well; but it has some very 
tough testing ahead of it. We look to that with great interest and will 
continue to ask the kinds of professional questions that is our 
oversight responsibility.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  American air superiority has reigned for over 40 years allowing our 
ground forces to conduct operations unmolested by enemy air attacks. To 
continue that protection, the United States needs a next-generation 
fighter to maintain our technological edge in combat. Air dominance 
does not mean we have more fighters than the enemy. It means, we have 
the fighters, the training, and the technology to overcome any hostile 
threat.
  Russian built Mig 29s and Su 27s can provide the enemy rough parity 
in the air, and in some instances, may be able to outperform current 
U.S. fighters. In addition, our fighters will face increasingly 
advanced and lethal air defense systems.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, the cost of losing our air superiority in the 
future will vastly outweigh the cost of producing the aircraft to 
maintain it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 514, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Missile Procurement, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, and modification of 
     missiles, spacecraft, rockets, and related equipment, 
     including spare parts and accessories therefor, ground 
     handling equipment, and training devices; expansion of public 
     and private plants, Government-owned equipment and 
     installation thereof in such plants, erection of structures, 
     and acquisition of land, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing 
     purposes including rents and transportation of things, 
     $2,893,529,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

[[Page H3992]]

                  Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force

       For construction, procurement, production, and modification 
     of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized 
     equipment and training devices; expansion of public and 
     private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by 
     section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land 
     necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, 
     and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant 
     and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and 
     other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, 
     $638,808,000, to remain available for obligation until 
     September 30, 2003.

                      Other Procurement, Air Force

       For procurement and modification of equipment (including 
     ground guidance and electronic control equipment, and ground 
     electronic and communication equipment), and supplies, 
     materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise provided 
     for; the purchase of not to exceed 173 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of one 
     vehicle required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $230,000; lease of passenger motor 
     vehicles; and expansion of public and private plants, 
     Government-owned equipment and installation thereof in such 
     plants, erection of structures, and acquisition of land, for 
     the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, 
     may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon, prior 
     to approval of title; reserve plant and Government and 
     contractor-owned equipment layaway, $7,778,997,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2003.

                       Procurement, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments) necessary 
     for procurement, production, and modification of equipment, 
     supplies, materials, and spare parts therefor, not otherwise 
     provided for; the purchase of not to exceed 115 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only; the purchase of 10 
     vehicles required for physical security of personnel, 
     notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger 
     vehicles but not to exceed $250,000 per vehicle; expansion of 
     public and private plants, equipment, and installation 
     thereof in such plants, erection of structures, and 
     acquisition of land for the foregoing purposes, and such 
     lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and 
     construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; 
     reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment 
     layaway, $2,303,136,000, to remain available for obligation 
     until September 30, 2003.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Page 31, line 7, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $74,530,000)''.
       Page 35, lines 10 and 11, insert after each dollar amount 
     the following: ``(increased by $29,000,000)''.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I seek to amend the bill by removing 
funding for procurement of the National Missile Defense and increasing 
funding for the military's TRICARE senior pharmacy program, 
prescription drugs for senior retirees. The Department indicates the 
program is seriously underfunded despite Congress' expressed desire to 
fund it. This is not the time for us to be spending money on actual 
procurement. Already we have substantial appropriations for research 
and development of NMD. This amendment would not affect those funds. 
Research and development would continue.
  But to start down the path of spending on procurement is premature 
and inappropriate. Any decision to embark on such a plan should only 
come after serious, informed national debate about the effect of such a 
decision on a multiple of important national interests. Foremost should 
be a determination if we really desire to alter our historic reliance 
first on the theory of mutually assured destruction now, coupled with 
serious and somewhat successful efforts at nuclear nonproliferation. 
Are we fully prepared to face the likely consequences of that decision 
without first considering its wisdom?
  Here are some of the other considerations that should be fully 
deliberated, debated, and determined before we leave the R&D phase and 
start procurement: Are we overreacting to the threat that has been 
identified? Have we adequately considered that the costs and 
development together with the United States withdrawal from the ABM 
treaty might be more dangerous than any potential rogue state threat?
  Our largest nuclear arsenal threat is in Russia which fears that the 
National Missile Defense is a precursor to a larger system directed at 
them. Withdrawal from the ABM would essentially end the strategic arms 
reduction process which ought to be our real goal. Russia would feel 
forced to design its force to assure penetration of future National 
Missile Defense by retaining its MIRV land-based ICBMs, already banned 
under START II. China could be expected to accelerate its strategic 
modernization program, since even the first phase limited NMD could 
defend against Chinese missiles and survive a preemptive strike. If 
China accelerated, what would we expect India and then Pakistan to do? 
Acting so precipitously to violate the ABM or to lead to withdrawal 
from it would be a serious blow to United States credibility as the 
leader in efforts to control nuclear weapons and to strengthen the 
nuclear nonproliferation regime.
  Our allies and our friends as well as our potential allies and 
friends see NMD as unnecessary and provocative. We should proceed only 
with caution. Have we fully analyzed and accepted the cost of building 
the National Missile Defense? The first phase is estimated to cost $20 
to $30 billion. All three phases in the current plan will probably cost 
two times that much. History shows that far less demanding high 
technology systems have gone well beyond original predictions, so we 
can expect the numbers to double. Commencing procurement before we have 
a true demonstration of readiness will encourage and whet the appetite 
of the true NMD believers, and they will press for a more comprehensive 
system a la Star Wars, costing some $100 to $200 billion.
  Have we truly satisfied ourselves that the proposed system is 
sufficiently analyzed and demonstrated to be ready? Is it unworkable? 
Before turning the arms policy of this country inside out, this topic 
warrants a discussion about whether the system will actually work and 
whether or not it is now at a stage where there is reasonable assurance 
that it will, in fact, work. The development and testing of NMD are 
simply not mature enough for the United States to make a confident 
deployment decision this year. We should not be directing our resources 
for procurement until that level of confidence is obtained. The key 
problem will be to get the defense to work against an enemy who is 
trying to foil the system, and any attacker can do so with technology 
much simpler than that needed for the defense system itself.
  We have all seen the papers from experts clearly depicting at least 
three of the many countermeasures that could defeat any such system. 
The Pentagon has divided the missile problem into two parts, getting 
the system to work without realistic countermeasures and getting the 
system to work with realistic countermeasures. It is our job to insist 
that we not commit procurement funds year after year until we are 
technically ready to meet both parts of that equation. This summer's 
tests are not the answer. They lack realistic countermeasures. Starting 
to commit funds for procurement now is, as one expert says, like 
deciding to build a bridge to the Moon. Instead of assessing 
feasibility of the full project before moving forward, we are deciding 
instead to start building the on-ramps because that is the part we 
actually know how to do.
  Air Force Lieutenant General Ron Kadish, commander of the Pentagon's 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization admits the lack of operational 
tests for the complex system of radars, interceptor missiles, and high-
speed computers is anomalous for the Defense Department.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tierney was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. He said that it would be sometime in the 2004 time frame 
before all elements of the missile defense system could be tested 
together and then we can make a decision on whether to fully put it on 
full alert. He said that we are going to be working on simulations and 
hypothetical data.
  So when do we begin to learn? As Ernest Fitzgerald, Air Force 
financial analyst used to tell us, there are only two phases of a 
weapons program: too early to tell and too late to stop.

[[Page H3993]]

  Mr. Chairman, this is the time for us to stop on the procurement and 
proceed with the R&D. We have other needs. One of those is the TRICARE 
senior pharmacy program while the R&D continues.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. As 
the gentleman knows, this is long, long lead money. This is money the 
President requested. The President will make a decision this fall. I 
predict his decision will probably be to put it off until the next 
President. But the point is this is not the time to cut out that money. 
If the President makes a decision, whichever way the test goes we will 
have ample opportunity when we are in conference to eliminate this 
money. But this is money that has to be spent early on in order to 
continue the program, in order to allow the orderly decision by the 
President this fall in order to decide one way or the other. The money, 
though, will not be spent until sometime way into the end of next year. 
This is premature to make this cut. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney 
amendment. I think it is a wise amendment because the idea of limiting 
money for procurement on a system that we already have preliminary 
information about cannot possibly work is a service to the taxpayers, 
and I certainly want to support such an amendment.
  There are many who say right now in the scientific community that the 
system simply cannot work, that it is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. 
Now, let us say that there is a warhead coming in from this system. 
Right now as it is being developed, and that as it is coming in, the 
missile is launched to intercept it, and the way we hope it works is 
that, in an ideal world, the missile touches the warhead and destroys 
it. That is what this is all about. However, what has actually happened 
according to the New York Times, a test was taken and the warhead 
simulation goes up, the missile intercept goes at it; but what happens 
is it actually missed the warhead and hits a decoy. Now, if it hits a 
decoy, what happens to the warhead? The warhead continues on towards 
its target and good-bye whatever city it is headed towards.
  The problem according to the technology that is being discussed right 
now, which is why the Tierney amendment on procurement is so good, is 
that the technology does not exist to tell the difference between a 
warhead or a decoy. So the missiles will go up, and the chances are 
they are not going to do the job of intercepting.
  Now, there is a further complication to this and that is that on the 
one time that a test was said to be successful, there are creditable 
reports which again have been reported publicly by the New York Times 
which suggest that so-called successful test actually was achieved 
through refiguring the test results and in effect jimmying the test 
results, tricking them up, if you will, fraudulently putting the test 
results together and then passing that off as a successful test. That, 
by the way, has been communicated to the White House.

                              {time}  1730

  We ought to be concerned about whether or not a system works or 
whether it can work.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for yielding. I think, as the 
gentleman knows, it is just possible that reporters even of an esteemed 
newspaper like the New York Times do not have access to all of the 
material that might be available that is pertinent to this discussion. 
I think the gentleman further knows that every Member of the House does 
have the opportunity to go to the intelligence room, to read the 
material that is there, that is a clear evaluation of that which has 
been suggested by a number of sources, some of which are very, very 
poorly developed sources.
  I would urge my colleague to take advantage of both your 
responsibility, but also your opportunity to go to the intelligence 
room and read that material for literally the protection of America's 
involvement, and so I would appreciate my colleague considering that.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and I respect the 
gentleman's suggestions. As a matter of fact, I have been following 
this for 15 years. And the United States taxpayers have paid $60 
billion over that 15 years, and we do not have a system that works.
  Now, think about that. Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer has paid over 
$60 billion. Here, it is warheads up, missile comes up, shoo, $60 
billion. How far can this keep going before it becomes a farce? I think 
we are already at that point. That is why I support the amendment of 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. Chairman, I followed this for 15 years. This is not Buck Rogers, 
folks. This is real tax dollars going for a system that does not work, 
and now there is claims of fraud on the only test that was said to have 
worked. I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 
raises a good point about cutting procurement. I think that the issue 
of destabilization of our relations with China and Russia ought to be 
of concern. I think that we could conclude that national security is 
being diminished here; that it would diminish global stability; that it 
is technologically unproven; that the threat is exaggerated; and that 
it would undermine arms agreement.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word and hopefully the program.
  Mr. Chairman, I, like many Members here, have became a student of the 
eminent gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Murtha), the ranking Democrat 
and once a future chairman I hope of this subcommittee; and he always 
does a wonderful job. And I am particularly impressed because he has 
managed to classify all amendments that would cut defense spending into 
two categories: some are premature and others come too late.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) has in my time here 
successfully managed to consign every amendment to either too soon or 
too late. We never quite hit the moment. Indeed, if there is anything 
less likely than that ballistic missile system that is going to hit a 
missile, it is that it will hit the right time, according to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha.)
  I do not think either is very likely. They could not comment that 
failure in both cases is very expensive. If we do not meet the 
gentleman's timetable, there goes a few billion. If we do not hit the 
missile, there goes a few more billion, sometimes in the same billion.
  Now one of the arguments for not adopting this amendment to move the 
spending is that the money it seeks to spend will not be spent. The 
fact that money will not be spent until very late in the year and maybe 
never because a new President will come in and make a decision, it is 
hardly a reason to do it.
  We have paid a lot of lip service to TRICARE. Indeed, any veteran who 
has lip problems is probably in great shape, any Member of the 
military, because we have done a lot for the lip area; but we have not 
done a lot for some of the other health areas. Previously, I did not 
get a chance to respond, the gentleman from Indiana said, well, you 
know, we are under a tough situation now, because the bear, the Soviet 
Union, has been replaced by the vipers. Well, I challenge that history.
  If we listen to that statement, there is an assertion that we used to 
have the Soviet Union, and then when it disappeared, a new threat came 
up, North Korea, Libya, Iran, Iraq. It is not my impression that any of 
those countries sprang into being in 1991.
  We used to have the bear and the vipers, to use that metaphor. Now we 
know longer have the bear; we have the vipers. And as I look at this, I 
think the business of many of my colleagues in many of the defense 
spending a very profitable business has had their vision clouded. They 
cannot adjust to the fact that the Cold War is over; and the fact is 
that, yes, there are countries out there run by people who are 
unstable, who are evil, who wish us harm; but their capacity to do us 
harm is much less.
  Now, let us take the situation which we are told we confront here 
that North Korea might decide to launch a missile against us. My own 
view is that the people who run North Korea are immoral, but not 
totally suicidal; for any nation as weakly armed as any of the vipers 
to attack the United States

[[Page H3994]]

consciously is to expect total devastation.
  We are not talking here about mutually assured destruction; that was 
the U.S. and the Soviet Union. We are talking now about very poor 
countries, none of which could do more than provoke great retaliation 
against the United States.
  I want us to have the capacity to continue to deter that, but 
spending ultimately hundreds of billions of dollars on a 
technologically very unlikely scheme to try to prevent North Korea from 
attacking America when there are a number of other ways in which we can 
prevent North Korea from attacking America is a mistake.
  We are told the next President is going to decide it. Let us then 
deal with it at that point. But I will tell my colleagues what will 
help because premature and too late will come forward. Now, we will be 
told, as we have been, that it is premature to strike the money. By the 
time that the next President gets around to it, we will be told it is 
too late, because we will have already spent the money and after all 
you do not want to spend the money for no good purpose, unless you are 
in the Pentagon, which you will do occasionally.
  We have a tight budget. We have unmet needs in this country. Let's 
say this, I may differ from some of my colleagues, if someone wanted to 
give me this ballistic missile defense system for free, I would accept 
it. The Chinese would not like it, some others will not like it, but I 
will accept it. Paying, however, tens of billions of dollars at a time 
when we are denying ourselves so many important necessary programs 
domestically makes no sense. It makes no sense, in particular, to begin 
to commit now to a vast amount of money to deter North Korea from 
attacking the United States; that is what we are talking about.
  We are talking about deterring North Korea from attacking the United 
States. I believe we have far superior, more cost-effective methods of 
preventing North Korea from attacking the United States. Committing 
ourselves to this ballistic missile defense system, and that is what we 
will be doing, the rhetoric now will be this is very tentative, but 
tentative will become a decision already made when we attach it later.
  By the way, it is only when we are dealing with the defense budget 
that we can talk about spending a few hundred million or a couple of 
billion tentatively. Tentativeness of the Pentagon is, of course, the 
entire budget of many important programs.
  I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney). It is a very thoughtful amendment. My colleagues say we are 
not getting really ready to make a decision; let us put it into health 
care where we need it, and let us once try to hit the mean between 
premature and too late.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do want to say 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that I think this is a much closer call on 
the viability of this program.
  General Kadish, who is the person who runs this office, says very 
clearly that this is a high-risk proposition. And we have not done 
enough testing yet to really make a deployment decision.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I have been 
looking into this in great detail. And, frankly, I am a bit concerned 
about the time schedule here for a decision. Apparently, we are going 
to have an additional test sometime this summer; and after that, the 
President in August is going to make a decision about whether we go 
forward with deployment, or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) has suggested, he may decide that we do not have enough 
information and that the criteria that was laid out last year in the 
bill that talks about costs, risk and what this means to all of our 
allies and what does it mean to the Russians.
  I mean, there is a real question here, I believe, about, you know, 
how much this is going to add to our defense, and whether it is going 
to set off a chain reaction with the Chinese wanting to increase their 
weapons, then India, Pakistan. This has got tremendous ramifications 
that need to be considered.
  Frankly, the President was trying to work out an agreement with Mr. 
Putin in his recent trip to the Soviet Union, and he was unsuccessful 
in getting a limited amendment to the ABM agreement so that we could do 
our hundred interceptors, but not abrogate the treaty. Now, the problem 
is we have got money in the military construction bill to start on the 
X ban radar site in Alaska.
  In order to start, if we are going to abrogate the treaty or whatever 
we are going to do with the treaty, we have to notify the Russians in 
November of this year that we are going to do something that goes 
outside the agreement. Now, some people have suggested maybe there is a 
way to finesse that, and that really starting this construction is not 
really an abrogation, but this gets into very legalistic 
determinations.
  So I think the thing to do here is that we should make a point, all 
of us, with this administration, just as we said on the F-22, Mr. 
Chairman, that we need more testing. We need to look at the question of 
can this thing handle the decoys and can it handle these other threats 
that are presented.
  I must say, I have always been a strong believer in our triad, our 
strategic deterrent; and although I am rarely persuaded by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on these matters, I do believe 
there is a strong case that anybody would be acting suicidally and 
insanely to try to launch one or two weapons at the United States.
  I do believe my own judgment is deterrence will continue to work for 
a reasonable period of time into the future. It is going to take us at 
least 5 years before we have this system anyway, so let us do it right. 
Let us get the testing; let us make sure we have got this thing done. 
We have already spent $60 billion. We are going to spend a lot more; 
probably we are going to do this. So let us take the time to do it 
right.
  I am still going to stay with the committee on this particular 
amendment, but I did want to say this today because I think the 
gentleman has a very thoughtful amendment and has approached this in a 
very constructive way.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his comments, and I thank the gentleman for all time that 
we spent discussing this and expressing his views. The concern I have, 
obviously, is the fact that we seem once again when it comes to a 
military procurement to be spending the money to start building 
something before all of the appropriate testing is done and before we 
know that we are realistically going to be able to perform the act.
  I think too often we have had insufficient and unrealistic testing, 
and as the GAO has said, along with overstated performance claims and 
understated cost reports. And I think this procurement since it is not 
anticipated as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said to be 
really spent this fiscal year or at least not until the very end of it, 
why not take this opportunity to not start down this path where we are 
putting the cart before the horse, put the money where it is really 
needed in the TRICARE, where we know that is an expense we are going to 
have, and allow the research and development to get us to that point, 
if it ever does, where we can say that now both ends, both the idea of 
getting the missile up to work without deception and one that works 
with deception in place, that would be the time to move forward. 
Otherwise, I think we are recreating a scenario that we saw with Star 
Wars since 1984, it was mentioned, all this time later, $50 billion-
plus later, we find ourselves still without anything tangible for it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do agree with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that this is a high-risk 
venture. Even the proponents of it recognize that, but I think we need 
to keep moving this thing. I think what we need to see does the next 
test work and can the President do anything diplomatically. If not, I 
hope, frankly,

[[Page H3995]]

that he pushes this off until the next Presidency. I think it would be 
much better for the next President to make this decision.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Dicks was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that there are no plans to 
test the capability of this system to deal with decoys even scheduled 
until the year 2005, as has been reported in the press?
  Mr. DICKS. No, no, they have tested it already against decoys. They 
used a balloon. I hope this is not classified. Is this classified?
  MR. LEWIS of California. Be careful.
  Mr. DICKS. Okay. I cannot get into any classified information.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I do not want to get into anything classified.
  Mr. DICKS. I strike those words. We have tested it against some 
decoys.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Not the major tests?
  Mr. DICKS. It is not against a high-up?
  Mr. DOGGETT. The major test is scheduled for 2005 according to 
published reports in the press within the last month.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks) that we not get into this.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I do not understand 
how anybody can object to meeting a real need with health care and not 
putting up money for beginning procurement of a system that is not yet 
known, it is not a known quantity; it has not had, as far as we know, 
any successful test.
  Now, it is true they claim to have had a successful test, but an 
employee of the contractor filed suit saying, in fact, they had faked 
the tests and the data. An expert on this sort of missile technology, 
Ted Postal at MIT, obtained the data, analyzed it, and wrote a letter 
and said, in fact, she was right, they had faked up the data, it did 
not work, it could not discriminate among decoys. This is all in the 
public realm. The first response of the Pentagon and the White House 
was that Mr. Postal was absolutely wrong, he was working with the wrong 
data set, his analysis was bad, and they would prove him wrong. But 
before they proved him wrong, they classified his critique and they now 
are not trying to prove him wrong, so I guess his critique was right.
  In fact, the data was faked out by the contractor and, in fact, the 
system does not work; after $60 billion, it still does not work, a 
couple more billion this year, and now let us move to procurement. Let 
us vitiate the only viable arms control we have ever had in terms of 
the agreements we have reached with the former Soviet Union and vitiate 
the ABM Treaty and start a new arms race with China and what is left of 
the Soviet Union, Russia and whoever else can produce these things.
  Mr. Chairman, this is madness. This is madness. It is almost as mad 
as the thought that the dictator of North Korea is going to build a 
missile, if he could, that could possibly wobble its way over to the 
United States and hit us with one missile, and then if he had that 
thing, he would shoot it, which would be detected 30 seconds after 
launch, and the retaliation would turn his country into glass. I do not 
think he is going to shoot that missile.
  There are other ways that a dictator or terrorist can threaten our 
security, and it is not with a missile that can be detected. And, if 
they were not going to use a missile, then it would be someone who is a 
little more advanced who would shoot underneath the system. It cannot 
work against cruise missiles which can carry nuclear warheads; it 
cannot work against depressed submarine-launched missiles, depressed 
trajectory missiles. Everyone admits that. No one is saying they are 
trying to design a system to do that, so we already know. They can use 
countermeasures, they can bring in ICBMs. If they do not want to use 
ICBMs, they can use a much cheaper cruise missile, they can use a much 
cheaper submarine missile, they can go under it, but I do not even 
think that is a real threat.
  Mr. Chairman, I am on the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation. We have a real threat. Today, anybody can steam a tramp 
steamer under a bizarre foreign flag, Libya or some other country that 
does not exist that has a phoney registry, into any port in this Nation 
without being checked. Well, that might present a real threat to the 
security of this country, and I am not going to go on very much more 
about that, but that is something we ought to be thinking about.
  We are not dealing with the real threats here. We are dealing with a 
program that was cynically designed to put expenditures in three-
quarters of the congressional districts of this country to provide some 
profits to some defense contractors and some employment to some 
scientists that cannot ever successfully defend our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop wasting the money. If we want to go 
ahead and continue to waste the money on testing, do not lock us into 
procurement, do not vitiate the ABM Treaty, and do not lock us into 
procurement on a system that has yet to have a successful, honest test.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member for their leadership on this issue and my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan manner.
  Let us get some facts straight, first of all. The gentleman raised a 
point about the need to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Let us 
make the case and let us put the facts where they are, if the gentleman 
will listen to me. We are spending $11 billion this year, $11 billion 
on weapons of mass destruction and the consequence management to deal 
with those threats, $11 billion. To say that we are not doing anything 
is poppy cock.
  The second point the gentleman said is that there is no need to 
defend against missiles. Well, let us face the facts, I say to my 
colleagues. The weapon of choice today is a missile. When Saddam 
Hussein wanted to reign terror on the Jewish folks in Israel, he did 
not choose a truck bomb, he did not choose to put a ship up in the 
harbor, he fired the Scud missiles that he got from North Korea and 
Russia into Israel; and we could not defend against it. When those two 
dozen young Americans, half of them from my friend's district came back 
home in body bags 9 years ago because they were killed in the largest 
loss of life in the last 10 years, it was not because of a truck bomb, 
it was because Saddam Hussein chose to try to neutralize America by 
firing a Scud missile that we could not defend against, into a 
barracks, while young men and women from our friend's district, half of 
them, from Greensburg, Pennsylvania, were massacred.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a disastrous amendment. We cannot 
deploy a missile defense system next year. That is all rhetoric, and 
all of our colleagues who attended the 150 classified briefings and 
closed hearings know that over the past 6 years. We cannot deploy under 
the President's planning system until 2005.
  But, Mr. Chairman, there are certain things we have to do now to be 
ready to make that decision. The money that is in this bill for 
national missile defense is for radar, it is for preparing a site, it 
is for integration of systems. We cannot wait until the very end to do 
those things.
  So if we pass this amendment, we kill the program. Let us be honest 
about it. We all want successful intercepts. My colleague said we have 
not had some successful intercepts. Well, let me just again correct the 
Record and let me point out what, in fact, we have done since 1999 in 
March. We have had six successful intercepts. We had, using hit-to-kill 
technology, one with our NND program, two with THAAD, our Army program, 
and three with PAC 3. In fact, the Israelis have had similar successful 
intercepts with the ARROW program.

[[Page H3996]]

  Mr. Chairman, we are making progress. Have we solved all of the 
problems? No. But it is a challenge that the scientists who are dealing 
with these issues feel that we can meet.
  The gentleman says it is a pork barrel program. I do not have any 
missile defense contractors in my district. I do not have any. I do not 
have any favorite programs. I am willing to let the administration 
decide what is the best option. Some of my colleagues want sea based, 
some want land based, and some want space based. I am willing to let 
the administration make those decisions. This amendment ruins all of 
those options.
  We have worked hard in a bipartisan way to get to where we are today. 
Democrats and Republicans have joined together for what is best for 
this country. This Sunday, I will leave for Russia, for Moscow with 
Secretary Cohen at his invitation. I am going to go to Moscow and miss 
votes because I think it is important, as I did before our bill came up 
last March, to brief the Russians on why we are doing what we are 
doing. We are not trying to back Russia into a corner, and the 
gentleman knows that. We have a concerted effort to work with the 
Russians. And when I go to Moscow with Secretary Cohen on Monday and 
Tuesday and Wednesday, I will sit there with the members of the Duma, 
with General Sergeyev, the Minister of Defense in Russia and we will 
sit there with the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Russia. And we will 
tell them that the threat is not Russia, but the threat is from the 
rogue states of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and North Korea.
  When the North Koreans test launched the Taepo Dong I 3-stage missile 
on August the 31st of 1998 over Japan's territory, the CIA acknowledged 
that that missile can now hit the U.S.; and we have no defense against 
that. If this amendment is passed, we will not be able to keep a time 
frame in place to move toward a 2005 deployment date. This is a 
wrecking amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, my 
good Democrat friends like my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), all of those 
who have come together on this program; the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Pickett), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes), all of them; the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie), all of my colleagues who have worked hard, to continue to 
support the program that my gentleman's President wants from his party, 
and I acknowledge that he is our leader, and that is a program to move 
forward to a deployment date in the year 2005. Passing this amendment 
stops that process. Passing this amendment does severe damage.
  My friend would say well, we want to make sure the program works. 
Well, we do too, and that is why in the last bill we punished the 
Lockheed Corporation because they were not successfully testing a THAAD 
program. We put in $10 million hits every time they were unsuccessful.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Weldon) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, when we had a problem with 
the THAAD program, the Members of Congress in both committees, the 
Committee on Appropriations and the authorization committee, from both 
sides came together and they said, we do not want to fund programs that 
do not work; we do not want companies making big bucks and not being 
held accountable. So what did we do?
  My friend and my leader up there, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spence), working with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and working with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), told the Lockheed Martin 
Company, if you do not get your act together and straighten out the 
quality control issues in the THAAD program, we are going to punish 
you. We have put language in the defense bill that said, every 
unsuccessful intercept would cost them $10 million out of their 
corporate pockets, out of their profits, and that allowed then Lockheed 
to get their program together and their act together and the THAAD 
program has now had three successful intercepts in a row.
  So when my colleague points out that we all want successful tests, he 
is right. I would just urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to overwhelmingly reject this amendment, support the request of 
President Clinton, support the request of Secretary Cohen, and allow 
this program to move to the next step. If we do that together, in the 
end, we will have a viable program that will provide the protection for 
America that will prevent similar situations like we had 9 years ago 
when those Americans came home in body bags because we could not defend 
a low-class missile from hitting and killing them while they were 
asleep in their barracks.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Tierney amendment and thank him 
for introducing it and engaging in this debate.
  Today, we are debating a defense bill that includes billions of 
dollars for a national missile defense system that is profoundly 
flawed. Now, I had the privilege to work with my predecessor, 
Congressman Ron Dellums for many years, and I remember and many of us 
remember his vigilance, his dedication and his careful analysis and 
profound arguments against star wars. Well, here we are again.
  In the 1980s, critics of star wars rightly argued that it would cost 
billions, restart the nuclear arms race and ultimately not work. 
National missile defense is star wars with a new name, and all of the 
old problems. This program will cost billions of dollars at a time when 
we have failed to solve deep and far-reaching social problems here at 
home. We will be putting billions of dollars into an unproven military 
system when we have some 275,000 homeless veterans living on the 
streets of our cities and 44 million uninsured Americans with no health 
care.
  This year's appropriation will be followed by billions more if we go 
down this road. We will be putting billions of dollars into a system in 
the name of national defense that will actually create greater 
international instability and accelerate nuclear proliferation. 
National missile defense, or Star Wars II, undermines the antiballistic 
missile treaty with Russia and, in all likelihood, it will probably 
convince the Chinese to expand their nuclear arsenal. National missile 
defense escalates the international arms race and escalates and 
accelerates nuclear proliferation, and it will not protect us from the 
most likely nuclear threat. In all probability, a nuclear assault will 
not come as an ICBM but as a suitcase bomb that Star Wars systems will 
never see and will never shoot down.
  Finally, we will be putting billions of dollars into a system that 
expert after expert has told us will not work, even against attacks 
from ICBMs.

                              {time}  1800

  For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American 
Physical Society have both pointed out that in addition to moral 
questions, in addition to geopolitical questions, in addition to 
economic questions, national missile defense systems will not work. 
These physicists tell us that MMD can be fooled by countermeasures that 
can be produced by any country that is capable of building a nuclear 
bomb in the first place.
  Understand, I am not opposed to ensuring our national security. What 
I am opposed to is this national missile defense system, Star Wars II. 
Nor am I alone in making this distinction. The United States has failed 
to respond to the new realities of the post-Cold War.
  Let me give a quote which I recently discovered: ``It is as if 
President Bill Clinton's military was structured to go to war with 
President Ronald Reagan's, rather than that of Iraq or North Korea.''
  This quote comes from an organization, Business Leaders for Sensible 
Priorities, a group that includes retired brigadier generals, rear 
admirals, and some of the Nation's foremost businessmen and women. It 
is leading the way in calling for sensible, rational, and necessary 
budget cuts.

[[Page H3997]]

  This organization was commissioned by President Ronald Reagan's 
Assistant Secretary of Defense to analyze today's military budget. In 
their report, a Cold War Budget Without a Cold War, they convincingly 
argued that the proposed ballistic missile spending and the defense 
budget as a whole are excessive and out of sync with actual security 
needs.
  The 20th century was really stamped and we are still dealing with the 
imprint, I would say, of the Cold War. But it is our responsibility 
really to forge safer and sounder and saner policies in the 21st 
century. National missile defense is really not the way to do that. 
Rather, we should do what this amendment does. We should ensure that 
there are adequate funds to ensure that our retirees, for example, have 
access to medicines and to pharmaceuticals which they so deserve.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in opposition 
to the fantasy that is properly called ``the Star Wars Missile Defense 
System.'' I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courage in 
advancing this amendment.
  It is not too early for the Congress to debate this important issue. 
Indeed, it is quickly becoming too late to have a meaningful debate 
about a national missile defense system. The United States has already 
spent over $100 billion dollars, on Star Wars. Now we are told that for 
a mere $60 billion more, according to the Republican Congressional 
Budget Office, we can have a ``limited missile defense system.''
  Of course, the many advocates of Star Wars, who say that a mere $60 
billion system would be too limited, recommend spending two or three 
times that amount. They mistakenly search for absolute security by 
absolutely draining the taxpayer for a very questionable venture.
  Without the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney), this debate is limited to choosing between bad and worse, 
between an ultra expensive program and a larger, more outlandishly and 
even more expensive program.
  There are multiple problems with Star Wars.
  First, Star Wars does not work. The supporters are really saying, 
``do not let good science get in the way of good politics;'' ``Deploy 
first and then see if it works later.''
  Hitting a bullet with a bullet is a significant, technical challenge. 
The advocates of this plan promise that it will shield the entire 
country when, in fact, it cannot dependably destroy even one incoming 
missile. Nor can this system adequately detect the difference between 
missiles and decoys.
  The second problem with Star Wars is that it does not adequately deal 
with what is a very real threat from rogue nations and terrorist 
groups. An enemy that wants to detonate a weapon of mass destruction 
does not need to develop an intercontinental missile system. They can 
rely on a smart bomb, which can little more than a suitcase and a 
fanatic. A human being with a nuclear or biological weapon can do great 
damage. But this defense at $60, $120, perhaps $200 billion offers 
absolutely no ability to defend against that kind of threat.
  The third and perhaps most important problem is that Star Wars is 
counterproductive. It actually jeopardizes our security.
  In Asia, Star Wars even the possibility of deployment is already 
encouraging the Chinese, to produce even more missiles and to plan for 
MIRVing existing missiles with multiple warheads. A much larger Chinese 
nuclear force will be the natural result of the deployment of even a 
so-called ``limited'' system.
  As China expands its nuclear capability, India will feel threatened. 
As India expands its nuclear capability, Pakistan will feel threatened. 
In short, Star Wars will create the very reality, the very threat that 
it seeks to avoid.
  In Europe, we send forth a message of division. All of our major 
allies for whom this ``limited'' deployment offers absolutely no 
protection are left to fend for themselves. That is one of the reasons 
that they have consistently objected to even a limited, ill-advised 
Star Wars system.
  With the foolish decision that was made in this Capitol last year to 
reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the refusal to ratify 
other arms control agreements, a decision to deploy now sends a Cold 
War message to Russia when we should be seizing an historic opportunity 
to dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this planet.
  Deploying Star Wars, whether on a limited, complete, or in between 
basis, will fuel a world arms race that will make this Earth a much 
more dangerous place for all of our families. It substitutes political 
arrogance for good sense and good science. In short, Star Wars means 
that American families will pay more taxes for much less security. I 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at a very, very critical time in America's 
history. There is little doubt that in the past, as Ronald Reagan 
raised the question of a strategic defense initiative and a thing 
dubbed, by some, Star Wars, that one of the fall-outs of all of that 
discussion is that media across the country would make a mockery of the 
suggestion that we might be challenged by way of a missile threat.
  Over time, the public came to the point of believing that we actually 
had a missile defense system. They actually, in sizeable percentages, 
think we have this in place. The reality is that these are very hard 
things that we are about. The business of hitting a missile with a 
missile or a bullet with a bullet is very difficult stuff.
  But we have technology moving forward that offers huge potential in 
terms of America's capability to defend itself from an errant missile 
attack, from a rogue Nation reacting in a fashion that would make no 
sense. Nonetheless, this President, William Jefferson Clinton, has 
asked us to put in this budget a dollar amount for long lead 
procurement, for development, laying the foundation for us to have the 
sensors and other equipment in place to measure whether this kind of 
defense system actually has potential to protect our people. He is not 
doing that lightly.
  At the same time, the President has just finished a personal round of 
discussions with Mr. Putin. We all know that President Clinton is a 
very persuasive fellow, especially when he is one on one, and as of 
this moment, Mr. Putin is reconsidering the role of a shield in terms 
of Russia's interests as well as our interests. They are not rigid on 
this matter, and in no small part because I believe this President is 
very persuasive.
  All of the experts that I have had the privilege of spending a lot of 
time with in recent years suggest to me that perhaps America has no 
near peer in the world for maybe as long as 10 years. I believe that 
that is likely the case. Over time there is a chance that China may 
come online and that India indeed might develop a competitive spirit in 
Asia.
  Laying the foundation for that, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there 
lies the strongest argument for this $288.5 billion bill, is to set the 
stage for America to be ready to defend our country if we need to long-
term.
  Our actual purpose is not that. Our purpose is to set the stage that 
causes those leaders in Asia to know that America is so good and so 
able to defend herself that there must be other avenues to making it to 
a successful path in this shrinking world. What we hope is that the 
future leaders of China and India, indeed, will look around and say, 
wait a minute, why should we waste our resources following that pathway 
when the marketplace itself will work? Indeed, what we are about here 
is seeking to provide leadership for peace.
  We talked about costs a while ago. Some of the costs that were 
discussed would suggest that we should not put a lot of money in R&D to 
make sure we are the best of the best in the future. The F-22, for 
example, will cost in just a short time ahead some $61 billion as we go 
out to make sure this tactical fighter system will work. Peace and 
building for peace is not cheap, Mr. Chairman.
  This bill reflects the only real reason to have a national 
government; that is, to make sure that we are prepared to

[[Page H3998]]

fight if we need to, but most importantly, to pursue those pathways to 
peace.
  I must conclude my remarks by suggesting to all my colleagues that 
peace indeed is very, very expensive, and the most serious of our 
responsibilities as a national government. But we cannot begin to 
calculate the cost of war, Mr. Chairman. What America's leadership is 
about is to lay a foundation that will almost guarantee that leaders of 
common sense in the future will not want to follow a pathway that 
follows confrontation and war.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment. The 
national missile defense as proposed would not be effective. We have 
heard that over and over again today. It would be costly to deploy and 
easily circumvented.
  The proposed missile defense system probably would not work as 
designed, and wishing so will not overcome the physics. I speak with 
some background in the area. It could be confused with decoys. It could 
be bypassed with suitcase bombs and pick-up trucks and sea-launched 
missiles.
  It would be not just billions of dollars down the drain. It is not 
just a diversion of precious resources that could be used for TRICARE 
or other such things. But we are told that this is going to provide a 
defense for us. No, it is worse than a waste. Simple strategic analysis 
tells us that a provocative yet permeable defense system is 
destabilizing and actually leads to reduced security.
  In fact, the more effective the system turned out to be, the worse an 
idea it would be, because of the increase in instability and the damage 
done to our efforts to reduce weapons around the world.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a weapons system in search of a cooperative 
enemy. Sure, it is a shield. We have heard about shields of the knights 
of yore. But where do the knights use those shields? Not around the 
house. They uses them in battle. They use them in battle because they 
can thrust and parry from behind that shield.
  We say, no, no, this is just a defensive shield. Those other 
countries do not need to be concerned what we are doing behind our 
shield. Well, only a cooperative enemy would believe us. Only a 
cooperative enemy would not try to use technically easily accessible 
decoys to defeat the system.
  Therefore, I think we should defeat the Star Wars, Star Wars II, Star 
Wars Lite, Star Wars again program and use those resources for other, 
more humanitarian, much saner uses, and in the process, increase our 
security.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that 
Russia, which he has alluded to, has an operational ABM system, which 
he said is not necessary, and they have upgraded it three times? Is the 
gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. HOLT. I am aware of the 1968 ABM treaty.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am not talking about treaty, but an ABM 
system that protects 75 percent of the Russian people surrounding 
Moscow, upgraded three times. Is the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. HOLT. I am aware that there is a system. It does not protect 75 
percent of the Russian people.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, 
has the gentleman ever come to one of our 145 briefings on the issue? I 
have not seen him at one.
  Mr. HOLT. I have had classified briefings on the subject.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Personal briefings. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. HOLT. I do know something about the subject having studied and 
taught physics over many years.
  In the vacuum above the Earth's atmosphere, it is almost trivial to 
set up decoys that would spoof such a system.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Is the gentleman aware that we had a test 
occur October 2, 1999, where we launched an interceptor from Kwajalein 
that carried a 120-pound EXOatmospheric kill vehicle that intercepted a 
reentry vehicle and distinguished it from a decoy, distinguished it 
from a decoy successfully at 16,000 miles per hour 140 miles above the 
Pacific Ocean?
  Is the gentleman aware of the test?
  Mr. HOLT. I believe, if I am not mistaken, that was the test where 
the intercept vehicle tracked the decoy for a while.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. The thing is, it successfully 
distinguished the decoy from the reentry vehicle, hit it, and knocked 
it out, which is exactly the challenge we are pursuing. The gentleman 
just said we cannot do that. We have done it. If the gentleman would 
contact his own administration, he would find the facts.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that test. I do not find it 
convincing and I certainly do not find the many failures that preceded 
and followed that convincing.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the point just is there was a statement 
made earlier that passing of this amendment would kill the program. I 
think that is a bit of an exaggeration on that. I cannot imagine for a 
second that if this amendment passed, that next year we would not see 
these numbers back in here and another attempt to put it in.
  This amendment, according to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), this money may not be spent this fiscal year and likely will 
not be spent this year. So surely that is not going to kill it.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to talk about what this is. It is an amendment 
to reduce the procurement money to keep the R&D. And clearly, the 
research shows that it cannot work.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by Representative 
Tierney and myself is quite simple. It would strike $74.5 million from 
the ``Defense-Wide Procurement'' funds in this defense appropriations 
act and return $29 million to the Defense Health Program. The only 
program that it would reduce is the National Missile Defense System.
  Sixteen years ago we started this debate on a national missile 
defense system. Back then we had fanciful names for the components of 
the proposed missile defense system. We had ``brilliant pebbles'' to 
blind our senses with the wonders of our technological imagination. Of 
course, you had to have rocks in your head to believe it. This system 
was so imaginative we even named it ``Star Wars''. This umbrella of 
hydrogen-bomb-pumped lasers and kinetic kill vehicles was supposed to 
protect us against a full-scale Soviet nuclear missile attack.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, there was a reason the name was based on 
Hollywood--the system was--and is--pure fiction. With time--and lots of 
money spent--only the names have changed. Today we are talking about 
procuring hardware for upgrades to early warning radars and X-band 
radars. Hardly the exotic names of the past. But the system is no less 
fanciful, just less effective.
  No longer are we trying to protect against thousands of warheads. Now 
we hope to shoot down just ten or twenty. It seems the more money we 
spend, the less we plan to hit. With $60 billion in past research and 
development and another $60 billion in planned investment, we may be 
able to protect our country against 30 missiles.
  Even after all this investment the technology still has a long way to 
go. In the simple tests we conducted, the system has not performed 
well. In one test the interceptor failed to hit the dummy target. In 
the other test, there was a hit, but only because the interceptor found 
the decoy, not the warhead. So today we're talking about procuring 
equipment for a system that still doesn't work, that has cost $60 
billion and will cost at least another $30 billion. Most importantly, 
the Administration hasn't even made the decision to go forward with 
this latest summer rerun of ``Star Wars''.
  Now there is one thing this system will definitely do. You see we are 
being asked to procure parts for a national missile defense system that 
might defend our country against a ballistic missile attack from a 
nation such as North Korea or Iran but will promote nuclear 
proliferation in Russia, China and other non-nuclear states eyeing the 
advisability of jumping the nuclear fence. In this case, it will be the 
vertical proliferation that characterized the arms build-up of the 80s.
  Russia, we know, opposes any unilateral deployment of a National 
Missile Defense system that would violate the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty. If we go ahead and deploy unilaterally, the Russians have 
promised to withdraw from the arms control agreements that finally put 
a ceiling on the rising nuclear arms skyscrapers and started to take 
them down floor by floor.

[[Page H3999]]

Eliminating this system of treaties would have severe consequences for 
the safety and security of the United States. It could re-ignite the 
arms build-up that we have worked so hard to stop.
  The opposition of China to a missile defense system could be an even 
bigger problem. Only two weeks ago this body voted to grant permanent 
normal trade relations with China, to increase and improve their 
economy. Are we going to spark a new arms spiral to make sure that 
their new economy is consumed by new weapons?
  China has indicated that they will likely respond to a National 
Missile Defense system with an increase in missiles. On May 12, in the 
Washington Times, Sha Zukang, director of arms control and disarmament 
at the Chinese Foreign Ministry indicated, ``The proposed U.S. National 
Missile Defense could neutralize China's . . . arsenal and already has 
prompted Russia and China to begin discussions on ways to overcome 
it.''
  How does this supposed ``defense'' system increase our security, if 
it leads to an offensive response from nations with proven nuclear 
ballistic missile systems? Remember, the greatest threat to U.S. 
security is still the mammoth nuclear arsenals in Russia and China. 
These are real rockets capable of real destruction not the maybe 
missiles of North Korea.
  The American people understand this. In a recent poll conducted by 
the Pew Research Center For the People and The Press and the Pew 
Charitable Trust, when asked how they felt about missile defense if it 
jeopardizes arms reduction talks with Russia, 55% of respondents 
opposed missile defense and only 35% support it. The people have 
spoken, now it is time for this Congress to listen.
  I urge members to support this amendment and halt the initial 
procurement for the national missile defense system.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Defense Production Act Purchases

       For activities by the Department of Defense pursuant to 
     sections 108, 301, 302, and 303 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2078, 2091, 2092, and 2093), 
     $3,000,000 only for microwave power tubes and to remain 
     available until expended.

                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $6,025,057,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002.

            Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy

        For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $9,222,927,000, to remain available 
     for obligation until September 30, 2002: Provided, That funds 
     appropriated in this paragraph which are available for the V-
     22 may be used to meet unique requirements of the Special 
     Operation Forces.

         Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force

       For expenses necessary for basic and applied scientific 
     research, development, test and evaluation, including 
     maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and operation of 
     facilities and equipment, $13,760,689,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 2002: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used to develop an 
     ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter other than those 
     developed under the Joint Ejection Seat Progam.

        Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide

       For expenses of activities and agencies of the Department 
     of Defense (other than the military departments), necessary 
     for basic and applied scientific research, development, test 
     and evaluation; advanced research projects as may be 
     designated and determined by the Secretary of Defense, 
     pursuant to law; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease, and 
     operation of facilities and equipment, $10,918,997,000, to 
     remain available for obligation until September 30, 2002.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 33, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $174,024,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 35, lines 10 and 11, insert ``(increased by 
     $174,024,000)'' after the dollar amount.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce spending for 
research, development and testing for the National Missile Defense 
System by 10 percent, about the same amount of the increase made by the 
committee for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization over the 
budget request. It would increase the budget for the Defense Health 
Program by the same amount.
  This bill includes a provision for $1.8 billion for a boondoggle 
called the National Missile Defense System. First, the system is a 
fraud on the taxpayer and a danger to arms reduction.
  Second, the technology is not feasible, not testable, and therefore 
not reliable.
  Third, it does not protect against real threats.
  Fourth, it will destabilize our relations with our allies worldwide 
and will spark a new and expanded armed race.
  Fifth, it violates years of work towards disarmament and 
nonproliferation.
  And sixth, its sole purpose seems to be to line the pockets of 
military contractors.
  Let me deal with a few of the many reasons why this whole idea is 
wrong. As many of my colleagues know, the National Missile Defense 
System depends on the system's ability to discriminate between the 
target warhead of an incoming missile and decoys. But according to the 
New York Times, the system failed those tests.
  Quote from the Times: ``The Pentagon hailed the first intercept try 
as a success, but later conceded that the interceptor had initially 
drifted off course and picked out a decoy balloon rather than a 
warhead.'' That is because according to the Times, the system cannot 
tell the difference between warheads and decoys.
  Experiments with the National Defense System have revealed that the 
system is ``inherently unable to make the distinction,'' and that is 
between the target warhead and decoys. The New York Times characterized 
the MIT scientists as saying that the signals from the ``mock warheads 
and decoys fluctuated in a varied and totally unpredictable way, 
revealing no feature that could be used to distinguish one object from 
the other.'' Indeed, The New York Times reported that ``the test showed 
that warheads and decoys are so similar that sensors might never be 
able to tell them apart.''
  So in other words, Mr. Chairman, the National Missile Defense does 
not work and cannot work because it inherently cannot tell the 
difference between warheads and decoys.
  While the National Missile Defense is a technological failure and a 
fraud, it could potentially succeed in setting the stage for a 
worldwide arms race and dismantle past arms treaties. The NMD violates 
the central principle of the ABM Treaty, which is a ban on the 
deployment of strategic missile defenses. It will undermine the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty. It will negate the Anti-Ballistic Missile 
Treaty.
  It will frustrate SALT II and SALT III. It will lead directly to 
proliferation by the nuclear nations. It will lead toward transitions 
toward nuclear arms for the nonnuclear nations. It will make the world 
less safe. It will lead to impoverishment of people of many nations as 
budgets are refashioned for nuclear arms expenditures.
  That the United States would be willing to risk a showdown with 
Russia or China and the rest of the world over the unlikely possibility 
that North Korea may one day have a missile which can touch the 
continental United States argues for talks with North Korea, not the 
beginning of a new worldwide arms race.
  President Clinton has recently returned from Russia and Europe in an 
effort to convince our allies that a U.S. Star Wars system is in their 
best interest, but many say this is simply not true. Many officials in 
the intelligence and scientific community have said otherwise. 
According to an article in the L.A. Times, high-ranking intelligence 
officials are set to offer a report that states deploying a Star Wars 
system could result in destabilizing events worldwide. I think this is 
significant, when the President's advisors

[[Page H4000]]

and the intelligence community are saying that it could result in 
instability and insecurity worldwide.
  The Times indicates that the report is expected to state, and I 
agree, that such a deployment may result in a buildup of nuclear 
missiles worldwide and the spread of missile technology.
  Mr. Chairman, we spent over $60 billion as a Nation on this failed 
system since 1985. Why spend another $60 billion? This system does not 
work. Here we are 15 years later, a scientist conducting a review says 
he could prove it does not work. Worst, claims have been made that the 
tests were fraudulently interpreted, which means that not only is there 
a question of fraud on the taxpayers, but a fraud on our national 
defense.
  Scientists have sent letters to the White House regarding the fraud. 
The New York Times has printed articles about claims of fraud. After 
the articles were published, the Department of Defense slapped a 
``classified'' label on the letter, so I cannot read that letter. I 
cannot read about the claims of fraud to this Congress, even though the 
claims have already been reported on by national newspapers of record, 
even though documented claims of fraud have been made by reputable 
scientists on a matter currently before this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Kucinich was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, on a matter currently before this House 
where we are ready to appropriate nearly $2 billion for an antimissile 
system which does not work. We have a classification label slapped onto 
this to cover up what? Fraud?
  Not only has the system already cost $60 billion. At this very 
moment, this House and the taxpayers are going to fork over another $2 
billion now and another $58 million later?
  The American taxpayers and this Congress have a right to know about 
claims of fraud, about claims of a tricked-up test result, about 
whether those tests have been rigged to defraud the American taxpayer. 
The House has a right to know. The taxpayers have a right to know. Why 
the secrecy about claims of fraud on the taxpayer?
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are for this antimissile system, it is 
their obligation to find out if it works and if there is fraud.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I do, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of 
the Congressional Budget Act, as amended.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond. This amendment 
is merely perfecting the number on an unauthorized account by 
increasing it. This is within the rule, because it merely perfects a 
number. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill 
and prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill. 
Therefore, an appropriations bill put in breach by the rule is allowed 
to remain.
  Mr. Chairman, I will read that again. An appropriations bill put in 
breach by the rule is allowed to remain, so amendments that increase 
are permitted.
  Clause 2(f) of rule XXI states that when we are reaching ahead to 
increase a program, the CBO must determine budget authority and outlay 
neutrality. This amendment has been scored by the CBO and has the CBO-
determined budget authority and outlay neutrality. This amendment is 
within the rules of this House. I have the CBO table for the record.
  On the note of that according to CBO, if one looks at the entire 
effect of this amendment, it is outlay neutral. In the end, there is no 
outlay effect. But for each individual year, there may be an outlay 
effect.
  I would ask a question of the Parliamentarian, and that is if an 
amendment has an effect on outlays per year but does not change the 
overall end effect of the bill, is it outlay neutral?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not entertain the question to the 
Parliamentarian. The gentleman may continue discussing the point of 
order.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would state then my insistence that 
this amendment is in order. That if the Parliamentarian had reviewed 
it, or did review it, he would see that the amendment has an effect on 
outlays per year, but does not change the overall end effect of the 
bill. It is outlay neutral.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. 
The gentleman from California makes a point of order under section 
302(f) of the Budget Act which constrains budget authority.
  The amendment provides no net new budget authority. That it may not 
be neutral on outlays is of no moment under section 302(f) of the 
Budget Act. The point of order is overruled.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word. I am not going to take the full 5 minutes, but this is another 
amendment that is in my opinion a mischievous amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had 145, 150 classified hearings, open 
hearings, and briefings. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned that there 
were some secrets. I have never seen the gentleman, my good friend and 
colleague, at any briefing in 150 of them over 6 years. Not one on 
missile defense. I have chaired them all. I have not seen him at one.
  Now, that does not mean he is not a good Member, because he is a 
friend of mine. But if he wants to have access to classified 
information, he can have all the classified information he wants. If he 
wants a letter that is classified, we will get it for him. If he wants 
to have a classified briefing, as we did on the House floor last year, 
he can get it. All of that information is available.
  Mr. Chairman, in the committee, Members of both parties have 
attended. All of those briefings were attended by Members of both 
parties. It was not like the Republicans only did a briefing without 
the minority. The minority has been in the lead on some of these 
investigations.
  To say that somehow that we are trying to keep something secret, or 
that one scientist out of perhaps a couple hundred thousand has the 
answer, I think is a little shortsighted and naive.
  In terms of what this amendment would do, the gentleman takes the 
money out of the research accounts. We have already cut the research 
accounts in the military budget by 25 percent over the past 8 years. 
There has been a 25 percent reduction. I want to remind my colleague, 
the bulk of the money that we have cut in terms of R&D goes to 
universities. The 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 account lines of the Defense budget 
are all R&D in the science and technology account lines. They go to all 
of our universities. They go to Harvard, and they go for basic research 
in basic technology areas, in the composites area, in physics.
  The other thing I would say to the gentleman from Ohio, my colleague 
and my friend, is that he mentioned the research on missile defense. I 
would cite at least six examples that I have in front of me that I 
jotted down off the top of my head of technology that is used for 
medical purposes that would not have been developed except it was spun 
off from technology being used to develop missile defense capabilities.
  One of those technologies developed through an SBIR program allows us 
now to understand the problems of nearsightedness. Using technology 
that was developed for our missile defense system now helps people be 
treated that have nearsightedness problems. There are many 
breakthroughs that have occurred from the spin-offs of these 
technologies that would be cut by this, besides the original intent of 
this, which is to allow us to fully fund a robust R&D program.

                              {time}  1830

  I agree with the gentleman. We do not want to waste money. I do not 
want to waste money. He understands, and he and I both know that. I do 
not want to do anything to create a provocation with the Russians. My 
friend and colleague knows that. We went to

[[Page H4001]]

Vienna together. We sat across the table from the Russian leadership 
for 2 days.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to state my affection for 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my respect for his 
sagacity, his knowledge of these issues. I think this is an important 
debate. I think that those of us who, for the last 15 years, have been 
watching this who perhaps have not had the opportunity to attend any of 
the gentleman's meetings can still develop a point of view based on 
information that we receive independently that can achieve a level of 
debate which this House is entering into.
  Of course my main point is what we know right now. We have a lot of 
information that suggests there is serious questions as to whether the 
system works or not which is even before we get into the feasibility of 
it on a national defense basis.
  But I want to reiterate my great respect for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and my appreciation for his commitment to 
the defense of our country.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would just say in 
closing, I will invite the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to attend 
any session he wants. I will arrange for a full-scale briefing with 
every leader in this program in his office at a classified level to 
answer any question the gentleman has.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support real steps to protect the American 
public from nuclear holocaust such as the de-alerting of nuclear 
weapons, the START process, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 
And the most significant obstacle to meaningful nuclear arms control 
right now is the National Missile Defense program, the sequel to 
President Reagan's Star Wars fantasy.
  The administration has told us that the decision on whether to deploy 
Star Wars II will be based on four criteria: the technical progress of 
the system, the cost, an assessment of the threat, and the impact of 
deployment on existing treaties, and arms control efforts. I believe in 
each of these areas, the evidence clearly leads to a decision to reject 
deployment.
  With respect to the impact of deployment on arms control, the 
proposed missile defense clearly violates the ABM treaty which is the 
foundation of real arms control efforts, including the START 
reductions. Deployment will also violate the spirit, if not the letter 
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, particularly Article VI.
  Even our closest allies in Europe have voiced opposition to 
deployment. A February 15 article in the International Herald Tribune 
reported that ``European governments without exception oppose the U.S. 
anti-missile project.''
  With respect to the real or perceived threat, the threat of a limited 
missile attack from a rogue state is overstated. The CIA's own analysis 
is revealing. They reported that ``U.S. territory is probably more 
likely to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction by nonmissile 
delivery means than by missiles, primarily because nonmissile delivery 
means are less costly and more reliable and accurate.''
  The last point is very important because Star Wars II advocates must 
ignore reality and assume two things. First, that the threat of massive 
retaliation by the United States is no longer a valid deterrent. 
Second, that a country with the advanced technical capability to build 
a weapon of mass destruction and the missile technology to deliver it 
will not be able to figure out how to sneak a bomb into the United 
States on a boat.
  With respect to the cost, since President Reagan announced his 
strategic defense initiative, we have spent more than $60 billion on 
researching technical means of hitting a bullet with a bullet. The 
current estimate for deployment is another $60 billion, bringing the 
total cost to the program at least $120 billion.
  While such a staggering sum is undoubtedly of considerable interest 
to the weapons industry, it is also, in the final sense, a theft from 
programs designed to meet human needs. In fact, if we decide to pursue 
this program, in the end, it will cost every American family $1,760.56. 
This is welfare for some of the wealthiest corporations in the country 
paid for by working Americans.
  With respect to technological assessment, the most recent independent 
analysis, a study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and 
MIT found that the hit-to-kill technology of NMD can be easily fooled 
by countermeasures using existing technology.
  An independent panel headed by retired Air Force General Larry Welch 
said that the deployment decision should not be made until 2003, after 
testing how the various components of the system work together. The 
panel characterized Congress' push for early deployment as a rush to 
failure.
  I believe the jury is regarding each of these criteria. To date, 
proven arms control efforts have eliminated thousands of Russian 
nuclear weapons aimed at American cities, saving the taxpayers billions 
of dollars. Conversely, despite the billions wasted on development, NMD 
has not eliminated a single missile, and it never really will.
  Mr. Chairman, there are active and robust government and 
nongovernment programs in place that are doing more to reduce the 
threats from rogue states or terrorists right now than Star Wars ever 
will. They include efforts by USAID, USIA, the State Department, 
National Endowment for Democracy, the Asia Foundation. U.S. NGOs, 
including the Carter Center, universities, unions, faith-based 
organizations, research and policy institutions are among the most 
active in the world in promoting democracy and goodwill.
  Ultimately the security of America is not served by a neo-
isolationist fortress America type of foreign policy. If we truly seek 
to promote democracy and enhance the security of all Americans, we 
should divert some of the billions that we waste on programs like this 
and instead invest it on agencies and organizations that are capable of 
doing the job.
  I urge a yes vote on the Kucinich amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise to support this amendment.
  Sooner or later, this Congress will come to grips on what really 
defines our national security and realize that it is not billions and 
billions of dollars to build a national defense system that will not 
work. A national defense system or Star Wars II will create greater 
instability and accelerate nuclear proliferation.
  As I mentioned earlier, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the 
American Physical Society have both pointed out that, in addition to 
economic questions, in addition to geo-political questions, and in 
addition to moral questions, it just will not work.
  Our national security needs really should be defined by how our 
budget priorities guarantee the security of our children and our 
families. Two hundred seventy-five thousand homeless veterans do not go 
to bed at night secure. Forty-four million Americans with no health 
insurance do not go to bed at night secure. Children who have no future 
because we have not invested in their education do not go to bed at 
night secure.
  During the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, we listened to my predecessor 
Congressman Ron Dellums set forth a clear analysis and profound 
arguments in opposition to an escalating military budget and to Star 
Wars and to raise our awareness to the fact that a strong and secure 
America is not based upon how many missiles we build but rather upon 
how secure Americans are from within our own borders.
  It was true then. It is true now. Spending billions and billions of 
dollars on a national missile defense system that will not work takes 
us in the wrong direction.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to the defense bill. Like my 
colleague, I have grave concerns about this bill's funding commitment 
for ballistic missile defense programs.

[[Page H4002]]

  But before I tell my colleagues what my reservations are, I have to 
make an observance. This observance is that we could take the 
investment we make in the ballistic missile defense program, and that 
alone would be a great down payment in waging peace. We do not even 
talk about that on this floor.
  What if we invested an equal amount of time debating how we can get 
to peace, we the United States and the rest of the global community? 
That would be a real investment, Mr. Chairman. That would be an 
investment in our national security.
  Now, about this anti-missile system program. Let us face it, this 
program is not anti-missile. It is anti-woman, anti-children, and anti-
family. It takes valuable resources from urgent civilian needs that 
also affect national security.
  Instead of investing in a national missile defense program, we should 
be spending our scarce financial resources in our real domestic needs, 
like our children's education, our seniors and their health care, our 
families and their security, and a debate on waging peace.
  Our current nuclear arsenal costs about $35 billion annually. It is 
approximately 13 times the budget for the National Cancer Institute. It 
is also 120 times the amount spent annually on domestic violence, on 
battered women's shelters, and on runaway youths.
  Mr. Chairman, if the past is prologue, prior poor management and 
oversight of nuclear weapons programs have cost hundreds of billions of 
dollars that contributed little or nothing to defense and deterrence. I 
wonder what the American tax payers are going to get from this 
investment.
  Since 1940, the United States has spent $5.8 trillion on nuclear 
weapons programs, more than any single program except Social Security. 
The U.S. has already spent more than $100 billion on missile defenses 
with very little to show, if anything. So why would we continue to 
throw good money after bad?
  For example, the U.S. spent over $21 billion on the safeguard anti-
ballistic missile system that was ultimately cancelled because high 
operational costs eclipsed the limited defense benefits. We also wasted 
$12.5 billion on the development of the B-1A bomber that was cancelled, 
and $12.5 billion for four B-1A bomber planes, two of which crashed.
  Also, the nuclear aircraft propulsion program cost taxpayers $7 
billion, only to be cancelled due to poor management, technical 
problems, and the lack of a clear mission. Finally, the Midgetman, 
small ICBM, cost taxpayers over $5.5 billion, only to be cancelled due 
to a lack of need and the end of the Cold War.
  Considering this poor track record, it is outrageous that funding for 
ballistic missile defense programs is still being debated. Even more so 
considering several Pentagon officials studying the NMD proposal have 
expressed reservation that it is unnecessary and it would be 
ineffective.
  The last reason for my concern, Mr. Chairman, about the national 
missile defense program is its grave implications for current arms 
control agreements. In order for this administration to proceed with a 
national missile defense, the anti-ballistic missile treaty may have to 
be modified.
  For the past several decades, this treaty has been the cornerstone of 
efforts to contain, reduce, and abolish nuclear weapons. We should all 
be concerned about funding a program that requires any thought of 
abandoning our prior commitments to nuclear disarmament agreements.
  Mr. Chairman, I have come to the well of this House to comment on our 
misplaced priorities as far as nuclear weapons programs are concerned. 
I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for offering this 
amendment that will free up funds in unneeded nuclear weapons funding.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     independent activities of the Director, Operational Test and 
     Evaluation in the direction and supervision of operational 
     test and evaluation, including initial operational test and 
     evaluation which is conducted prior to, and in support of, 
     production decisions; joint operational testing and 
     evaluation; policy and guidance for the Department's overall 
     test and evaluation functions; test and evaluation 
     infrastructure investment and oversight; specialized 
     assessment capabilities; and administrative expenses in 
     connection therewith, $242,560,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002.

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     Defense Working Capital Funds

       For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $916,276,000: 
     Provided, That during fiscal year 2001, funds in the Defense 
     Working Capital Funds may be used for the purchase of not to 
     exceed 330 passenger carrying motor vehicles for replacement 
     only for the Defense Security Service.

                     National Defense Sealift Fund

       For National Defense Sealift Fund programs, projects, and 
     activities, and for expenses of the National Defense Reserve 
     Fleet, as established by section 11 of the Merchant Ship 
     Sales Act of 1946 (50 U.S.C. App. 1744), $400,658,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That none of the 
     funds provided in this paragraph shall be used to award a new 
     contract that provides for the acquisition of any of the 
     following major components unless such components are 
     manufactured in the United States: auxiliary equipment, 
     including pumps, for all shipboard services; propulsion 
     system components (that is; engines, reduction gears, and 
     propellers); shipboard cranes; and spreaders for shipboard 
     cranes: Provided further, That the exercise of an option in a 
     contract awarded through the obligation of previously 
     appropriated funds shall not be considered to be the award of 
     a new contract: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for such procurement may 
     waive the restrictions in the first proviso on a case-by-case 
     basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that adequate domestic supplies are not available to meet 
     Department of Defense requirements on a timely basis and that 
     such an acquisition must be made in order to acquire 
     capability for national security purposes.

                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and 
     health care programs of the Department of Defense, as 
     authorized by law, $12,143,029,000, of which $11,525,143,000 
     shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to 
     exceed 2 percent shall remain available until September 30, 
     2002; of which $290,006,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003, shall be for 
     Procurement; of which $327,880,000, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2002, shall be for Research, 
     development, test and evaluation, and of which $10,000,000 
     shall be available for HIV prevention educational activities 
     undertaken in connection with U.S. military training, 
     exercises, and humanitarian assistance activities conducted 
     in African nations.

            Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the 
     destruction of the United States stockpile of lethal chemical 
     agents and munitions in accordance with the provisions of 
     section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 
     1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other 
     chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical 
     weapon stockpile, $927,100,000, of which $607,200,000 shall 
     be for Operation and maintenance to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002, $105,700,000 shall be for Procurement to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003, and $214,200,000 
     shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation to 
     remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of 
     the funds available under this heading, $1,000,000 shall be 
     available until expended each year only for a Johnston Atoll 
     off-island leave program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretaries concerned shall, pursuant to uniform regulations, 
     prescribe travel and transportation allowances for travel by 
     participants in the off-island leave program.

         Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for transfer to appropriations 
     available to the Department of Defense for military personnel 
     of the reserve components serving under the provisions of 
     title 10 and title 32, United States Code; for Operation and 
     maintenance; for Procurement; and for Research, development, 
     test and evaluation, $812,200,000: Provided, That the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for 
     obligation for the same time period and for the same purpose 
     as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, 
     That the transfer authority provided under this heading is in 
     addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere 
     in this Act.

[[Page H4003]]

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For expenses and activities of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $147,545,000, of which 
     $144,245,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which 
     not to exceed $700,000 is available for emergencies and 
     extraordinary expenses to be expended on the approval or 
     authority of the Inspector General, and payments may be made 
     on the Inspector General's certificate of necessity for 
     confidential military purposes; and of which $3,300,000 to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003, shall be for 
     Procurement.

                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

   Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund

       For payment to the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement 
     and Disability System Fund, to maintain proper funding level 
     for continuing the operation of the Central Intelligence 
     Agency Retirement and Disability System, $216,000,000.

               Intelligence Community Management Account


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Intelligence Community 
     Management Account, $224,181,000, of which $22,577,000 for 
     the Advanced Research and Development Committee shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading, $33,100,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Justice for the National 
     Drug Intelligence Center to support the Department of 
     Defense's counter-drug intelligence responsibilities, and of 
     the said amount, $1,500,000 for Procurement shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2003, and $1,000,000 for 
     Research, development, test and evaluation shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2002.

Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental 
                            Restoration Fund

       For payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, 
     and Environmental Restoration Fund, as authorized by law, 
     $25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                 National Security Education Trust Fund

       For the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, 
     $6,950,000, to be derived from the National Security 
     Education Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8001. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 8002. During the current fiscal year, provisions of 
     law prohibiting the payment of compensation to, or employment 
     of, any person not a citizen of the United States shall not 
     apply to personnel of the Department of Defense: Provided, 
     That salary increases granted to direct and indirect hire 
     foreign national employees of the Department of Defense 
     funded by this Act shall not be at a rate in excess of the 
     percentage increase authorized by law for civilian employees 
     of the Department of Defense whose pay is computed under the 
     provisions of section 5332 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     at a rate in excess of the percentage increase provided by 
     the appropriate host nation to its own employees, whichever 
     is higher: Provided further, That this section shall not 
     apply to Department of Defense foreign service national 
     employees serving at United States diplomatic missions whose 
     pay is set by the Department of State under the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980: Provided further, That the limitations 
     of this provision shall not apply to foreign national 
     employees of the Department of Defense in the Republic of 
     Turkey.
       Sec. 8003. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year, unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 8004. No more than 20 percent of the appropriations in 
     this Act which are limited for obligation during the current 
     fiscal year shall be obligated during the last 2 months of 
     the fiscal year: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to obligations for support of active duty training of reserve 
     components or summer camp training of the Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense 
     that such action is necessary in the national interest, he 
     may, with the approval of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, transfer not to exceed $2,000,000,000 of working 
     capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made 
     available in this Act to the Department of Defense for 
     military functions (except military construction) between 
     such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to 
     be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and 
     for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to 
     which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer 
     may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on 
     unforeseen military requirements, than those for which 
     originally appropriated and in no case where the item for 
     which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify 
     the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this 
     authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to prepare or present a request to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for 
     higher priority items, based on unforeseen military 
     requirements, than those for which originally appropriated 
     and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is 
     requested has been denied by the Congress.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8006. During the current fiscal year, cash balances in 
     working capital funds of the Department of Defense 
     established pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United 
     States Code, may be maintained in only such amounts as are 
     necessary at any time for cash disbursements to be made from 
     such funds: Provided, That transfers may be made between such 
     funds: Provided further, That transfers may be made between 
     working capital funds and the ``Foreign Currency 
     Fluctuations, Defense'' appropriation and the ``Operation and 
     Maintenance'' appropriation accounts in such amounts as may 
     be determined by the Secretary of Defense, with the approval 
     of the Office of Management and Budget, except that such 
     transfers may not be made unless the Secretary of Defense has 
     notified the Congress of the proposed transfer. Except in 
     amounts equal to the amounts appropriated to working capital 
     funds in this Act, no obligations may be made against a 
     working capital fund to procure or increase the value of war 
     reserve material inventory, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     has notified the Congress prior to any such obligation.
       Sec. 8007. Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used 
     to initiate a special access program without prior 
     notification 30 calendar days in session in advance to the 
     congressional defense committees.
       Sec. 8008. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate: (1) a multiyear contract that employs 
     economic order quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 
     in any 1 year of the contract or that includes an unfunded 
     contingent liability in excess of $20,000,000; or (2) a 
     contract for advance procurement leading to a multiyear 
     contract that employs economic order quantity procurement in 
     excess of $20,000,000 in any 1 year, unless the congressional 
     defense committees have been notified at least 30 days in 
     advance of the proposed contract award: Provided, That no 
     part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be 
     available to initiate a multiyear contract for which the 
     economic order quantity advance procurement is not funded at 
     least to the limits of the Government's liability: Provided 
     further, That no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to initiate multiyear procurement 
     contracts for any systems or component thereof if the value 
     of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000 unless 
     specifically provided in this Act: Provided further, That no 
     multiyear procurement contract can be terminated without 10-
     day prior notification to the congressional defense 
     committees: Provided further, That the execution of multiyear 
     authority shall require the use of a present value analysis 
     to determine lowest cost compared to an annual procurement.
       Funds appropriated in title III of this Act may be used for 
     multiyear procurement contracts as follows:
       M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle; DDG-51 destroyer; and UH-60/
     CH-60 aircraft.
       Sec. 8009. Within the funds appropriated for the operation 
     and maintenance of the Armed Forces, funds are hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 401 of title 10, United 
     States Code, for humanitarian and civic assistance costs 
     under chapter 20 of title 10, United States Code. Such funds 
     may also be obligated for humanitarian and civic assistance 
     costs incidental to authorized operations and pursuant to 
     authority granted in section 401 of chapter 20 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and these obligations shall be reported 
     to the Congress on September 30 of each year: Provided, That 
     funds available for operation and maintenance shall be 
     available for providing humanitarian and similar assistance 
     by using Civic Action Teams in the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands and freely associated states of Micronesia, 
     pursuant to the Compact of Free Association as authorized by 
     Public Law 99-239: Provided further, That upon a 
     determination by the Secretary of the Army that such action 
     is beneficial for graduate medical education programs 
     conducted at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii, the 
     Secretary of the Army may authorize the provision of medical 
     services at such facilities and transportation to such 
     facilities, on a nonreimbursable basis, for civilian patients 
     from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
     Micronesia, Palau, and Guam.
       Sec. 8010. (a) During fiscal year 2001, the civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense may not be managed on 
     the basis of any end-strength, and the management of such 
     personnel during that fiscal year shall not be subject to any 
     constraint or limitation (known as an end-strength) on the 
     number of such personnel who may be employed on the last day 
     of such fiscal year.
       (b) The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2002 Department of 
     Defense budget request shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress as if subsections (a) and (b) of this provision were 
     effective with regard to fiscal year 2002.

[[Page H4004]]

       (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to apply to 
     military (civilian) technicians.
       Sec. 8011. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds made available by this Act shall be used by the 
     Department of Defense to exceed, outside the 50 United 
     States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, 
     125,000 civilian workyears: Provided, That workyears shall be 
     applied as defined in the Federal Personnel Manual: Provided 
     further, That workyears expended in dependent student hiring 
     programs for disadvantaged youths shall not be included in 
     this workyear limitation.
       Sec. 8012. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to 
     influence congressional action on any legislation or 
     appropriation matters pending before the Congress.
       Sec. 8013. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     shall be used to make contributions to the Department of 
     Defense Education Benefits Fund pursuant to section 2006(g) 
     of title 10, United States Code, representing the normal cost 
     for future benefits under section 3015(d) of title 38, United 
     States Code, for any member of the armed services who, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, enlists in the 
     armed services for a period of active duty of less than 3 
     years, nor shall any amounts representing the normal cost of 
     such future benefits be transferred from the Fund by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs pursuant to section 2006(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code; nor shall the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pay 
     such benefits to any such member: Provided, That these 
     limitations shall not apply to members in combat arms skills 
     or to members who enlist in the armed services on or after 
     July 1, 1989, under a program continued or established by the 
     Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 1991 to test the cost-
     effective use of special recruiting incentives involving not 
     more than 19 noncombat arms skills approved in advance by the 
     Secretary of Defense: Provided further, That this subsection 
     applies only to active components of the Army.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available for the basic pay and allowances of any member of 
     the Army participating as a full-time student and receiving 
     benefits paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the 
     Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund when time spent 
     as a full-time student is credited toward completion of a 
     service commitment: Provided, That this subsection shall not 
     apply to those members who have reenlisted with this option 
     prior to October 1, 1987: Provided further, That this 
     subsection applies only to active components of the Army.
       Sec. 8014. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to convert to contractor performance an activity 
     or function of the Department of Defense that, on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, is performed by more 
     than 10 Department of Defense civilian employees until a most 
     efficient and cost-effective organization analysis is 
     completed on such activity or function and certification of 
     the analysis is made to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate: Provided, That 
     this section and subsections (a), (b), and (c) of 10 U.S.C. 
     2461 shall not apply to a commercial or industrial type 
     function of the Department of Defense that: (1) is included 
     on the procurement list established pursuant to section 2 of 
     the Act of June 25, 1938 (41 U.S.C. 47), popularly referred 
     to as the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; (2) is planned to be 
     converted to performance by a qualified nonprofit agency for 
     the blind or by a qualified nonprofit agency for other 
     severely handicapped individuals in accordance with that Act; 
     or (3) is planned to be converted to performance by a 
     qualified firm under 51 percent Native American ownership.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8015. Funds appropriated in title III of this Act for 
     the Department of Defense Pilot Mentor-Protege Program may be 
     transferred to any other appropriation contained in this Act 
     solely for the purpose of implementing a Mentor-Protege 
     Program developmental assistance agreement pursuant to 
     section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2301 note), 
     as amended, under the authority of this provision or any 
     other transfer authority contained in this Act.
       Sec. 8016. None of the funds in this Act may be available 
     for the purchase by the Department of Defense (and its 
     departments and agencies) of welded shipboard anchor and 
     mooring chain 4 inches in diameter and under unless the 
     anchor and mooring chain are manufactured in the United 
     States from components which are substantially manufactured 
     in the United States: Provided, That for the purpose of this 
     section manufactured will include cutting, heat treating, 
     quality control, testing of chain and welding (including the 
     forging and shot blasting process): Provided further, That 
     for the purpose of this section substantially all of the 
     components of anchor and mooring chain shall be considered to 
     be produced or manufactured in the United States if the 
     aggregate cost of the components produced or manufactured in 
     the United States exceeds the aggregate cost of the 
     components produced or manufactured outside the United 
     States: Provided further, That when adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis, the Secretary of the service 
     responsible for the procurement may waive this restriction on 
     a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that such an acquisition must be 
     made in order to acquire capability for national security 
     purposes.
       Sec. 8017. None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
     Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) or Tricare shall be available 
     for the reimbursement of any health care provider for 
     inpatient mental health service for care received when a 
     patient is referred to a provider of inpatient mental health 
     care or residential treatment care by a medical or health 
     care professional having an economic interest in the facility 
     to which the patient is referred: Provided, That this 
     limitation does not apply in the case of inpatient mental 
     health services provided under the program for persons with 
     disabilities under subsection (d) of section 1079 of title 
     10, United States Code, provided as partial hospital care, or 
     provided pursuant to a waiver authorized by the Secretary of 
     Defense because of medical or psychological circumstances of 
     the patient that are confirmed by a health professional who 
     is not a Federal employee after a review, pursuant to rules 
     prescribed by the Secretary, which takes into account the 
     appropriate level of care for the patient, the intensity of 
     services required by the patient, and the availability of 
     that care.
       Sec. 8018. Funds available in this Act may be used to 
     provide transportation for the next-of-kin of individuals who 
     have been prisoners of war or missing in action from the 
     Vietnam era to an annual meeting in the United States, under 
     such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
       Sec. 8019. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may, 
     by executive agreement, establish with host nation 
     governments in NATO member states a separate account into 
     which such residual value amounts negotiated in the return of 
     United States military installations in NATO member states 
     may be deposited, in the currency of the host nation, in lieu 
     of direct monetary transfers to the United States Treasury: 
     Provided, That such credits may be utilized only for the 
     construction of facilities to support United States military 
     forces in that host nation, or such real property maintenance 
     and base operating costs that are currently executed through 
     monetary transfers to such host nations: Provided further, 
     That the Department of Defense's budget submission for fiscal 
     year 2002 shall identify such sums anticipated in residual 
     value settlements, and identify such construction, real 
     property maintenance or base operating costs that shall be 
     funded by the host nation through such credits: Provided 
     further, That all military construction projects to be 
     executed from such accounts must be previously approved in a 
     prior Act of Congress: Provided further, That each such 
     executive agreement with a NATO member host nation shall be 
     reported to the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate 30 days prior to the conclusion and endorsement of any 
     such agreement established under this provision.
       Sec. 8020. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 
     Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, 
     .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols.
       Sec. 8021. No more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated 
     or made available in this Act shall be used during a single 
     fiscal year for any single relocation of an organization, 
     unit, activity or function of the Department of Defense into 
     or within the National Capital Region: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the congressional 
     defense committees that such a relocation is required in the 
     best interest of the Government.
       Sec. 8022. In addition to the funds provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, $8,000,000 is appropriated only for incentive 
     payments authorized by section 504 of the Indian Financing 
     Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544): Provided, That contractors 
     participating in the test program established by section 854 
     of Public Law 101-189 (15 U.S.C. 637 note) shall be eligible 
     for the program established by section 504 of the Indian 
     Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1544).
       Sec. 8023. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise available for any Federal agency, 
     the Congress, the judicial branch, or the District of 
     Columbia may be used for the pay, allowances, and benefits of 
     an employee as defined by section 2105 of title 5, United 
     States Code, or an individual employed by the government of 
     the District of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, 
     who--
       (1) is a member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, 
     as described in section 10101 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or the National Guard, as described in section 101 of 
     title 32, United States Code;
       (2) performs, for the purpose of providing military aid to 
     enforce the law or providing assistance to civil authorities 
     in the protection or saving of life or property or prevention 
     of injury--
       (A) Federal service under sections 331, 332, 333, or 12406 
     of title 10, United States Code, or other provision of law, 
     as applicable; or
       (B) full-time military service for his or her State, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a 
     territory of the United States; and

[[Page H4005]]

       (3) requests and is granted--
       (A) leave under the authority of this section; or
       (B) annual leave, which may be granted without regard to 
     the provisions of sections 5519 and 6323(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, if such employee is otherwise entitled to 
     such annual leave:

     Provided, That any employee who requests leave under 
     subsection (3)(A) for service described in subsection (2) of 
     this section is entitled to such leave, subject to the 
     provisions of this section and of the last sentence of 
     section 6323(b) of title 5, United States Code, and such 
     leave shall be considered leave under section 6323(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 8024. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available to perform any cost study pursuant to the 
     provisions of OMB Circular A-76 if the study being performed 
     exceeds a period of 24 months after initiation of such study 
     with respect to a single function activity or 48 months after 
     initiation of such study for a multi-function activity.
       Sec. 8025. Funds appropriated by this Act for the American 
     Forces Information Service shall not be used for any national 
     or international political or psychological activities.
       Sec. 8026. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     regulation, the Secretary of Defense may adjust wage rates 
     for civilian employees hired for certain health care 
     occupations as authorized for the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs by section 7455 of title 38, United States Code.
       Sec. 8027. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to reduce or disestablish the 
     operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 
     Air Force Reserve, if such action would reduce the WC-130 
     Weather Reconnaissance mission below the levels funded in 
     this Act.
       Sec. 8028. (a) Of the funds for the procurement of supplies 
     or services appropriated by this Act, qualified nonprofit 
     agencies for the blind or other severely handicapped shall be 
     afforded the maximum practicable opportunity to participate 
     as subcontractors and suppliers in the performance of 
     contracts let by the Department of Defense.
       (b) During the current fiscal year, a business concern 
     which has negotiated with a military service or defense 
     agency a subcontracting plan for the participation by small 
     business concerns pursuant to section 8(d) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) shall be given credit toward 
     meeting that subcontracting goal for any purchases made from 
     qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped.
       (c) For the purpose of this section, the phrase ``qualified 
     nonprofit agency for the blind or other severely 
     handicapped'' means a nonprofit agency for the blind or other 
     severely handicapped that has been approved by the Committee 
     for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely 
     Handicapped under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
     48).
       Sec. 8029. During the current fiscal year, net receipts 
     pursuant to collections from third party payers pursuant to 
     section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     available to the local facility of the uniformed services 
     responsible for the collections and shall be over and above 
     the facility's direct budget amount.
       Sec. 8030. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense is authorized to incur obligations of not to 
     exceed $350,000,000 for purposes specified in section 
     2350j(c) of title 10, United States Code, in anticipation of 
     receipt of contributions, only from the Government of Kuwait, 
     under that section: Provided, That upon receipt, such 
     contributions from the Government of Kuwait shall be credited 
     to the appropriations or fund which incurred such 
     obligations.
       Sec. 8031. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     are available to establish a new Department of Defense 
     (department) federally funded research and development center 
     (FFRDC), either as a new entity, or as a separate entity 
     administrated by an organization managing another FFRDC, or 
     as a nonprofit membership corporation consisting of a 
     consortium of other FFRDCs and other non-profit entities.
       (b) No member of a Board of Directors, Trustees, Overseers, 
     Advisory Group, Special Issues Panel, Visiting Committee, or 
     any similar entity of a defense FFRDC, and no paid consultant 
     to any defense FFRDC, except when acting in a technical 
     advisory capacity, may be compensated for his or her services 
     as a member of such entity, or as a paid consultant by more 
     than one FFRDC in a fiscal year: Provided, That a member of 
     any such entity referred to previously in this subsection 
     shall be allowed travel expenses and per diem as authorized 
     under the Federal Joint Travel Regulations, when engaged in 
     the performance of membership duties.
       (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds available to the department from any source during 
     fiscal year 2001 may be used by a defense FFRDC, through a 
     fee or other payment mechanism, for construction of new 
     buildings, for payment of cost sharing for projects funded by 
     Government grants, for absorption of contract overruns, or 
     for certain charitable contributions, not to include employee 
     participation in community service and/or development.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     funds available to the department during fiscal year 2001, 
     not more than 6,227 staff years of technical effort (staff 
     years) may be funded for defense FFRDCs: Provided, That of 
     the specific amount referred to previously in this 
     subsection, not more than 1,009 staff years may be funded for 
     the defense studies and analysis FFRDCs.
       (e) The Secretary of Defense shall, with the submission of 
     the department's fiscal year 2002 budget request, submit a 
     report presenting the specific amounts of staff years of 
     technical effort to be allocated for each defense FFRDC 
     during that fiscal year.
       Sec. 8032. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act shall be used to procure carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate for use in any Government-owned facility or 
     property under the control of the Department of Defense which 
     were not melted and rolled in the United States or Canada: 
     Provided, That these procurement restrictions shall apply to 
     any and all Federal Supply Class 9515, American Society of 
     Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Iron and Steel 
     Institute (AISI) specifications of carbon, alloy or armor 
     steel plate: Provided further, That the Secretary of the 
     military department responsible for the procurement may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes: Provided further, That these restrictions 
     shall not apply to contracts which are in being as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 8033. For the purposes of this Act, the term 
     ``congressional defense committees'' means the Armed Services 
     Committee of the House of Representatives, the Armed Services 
     Committee of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Defense of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Sec. 8034. During the current fiscal year, the Department 
     of Defense may acquire the modification, depot maintenance 
     and repair of aircraft, vehicles and vessels as well as the 
     production of components and other Defense-related articles, 
     through competition between Department of Defense depot 
     maintenance activities and private firms: Provided, That the 
     Senior Acquisition Executive of the military department or 
     defense agency concerned, with power of delegation, shall 
     certify that successful bids include comparable estimates of 
     all direct and indirect costs for both public and private 
     bids: Provided further, That Office of Management and Budget 
     Circular A-76 shall not apply to competitions conducted under 
     this section.
       Sec. 8035. (a)(1) If the Secretary of Defense, after 
     consultation with the United States Trade Representative, 
     determines that a foreign country which is party to an 
     agreement described in paragraph (2) has violated the terms 
     of the agreement by discriminating against certain types of 
     products produced in the United States that are covered by 
     the agreement, the Secretary of Defense shall rescind the 
     Secretary's blanket waiver of the Buy American Act with 
     respect to such types of products produced in that foreign 
     country.
       (2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) is any 
     reciprocal defense procurement memorandum of understanding, 
     between the United States and a foreign country pursuant to 
     which the Secretary of Defense has prospectively waived the 
     Buy American Act for certain products in that country.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a 
     report on the amount of Department of Defense purchases from 
     foreign entities in fiscal year 2001. Such report shall 
     separately indicate the dollar value of items for which the 
     Buy American Act was waived pursuant to any agreement 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Trade Agreement Act of 
     1979 (19 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.), or any international agreement 
     to which the United States is a party.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Buy American 
     Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office Departments 
     for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.).
       Sec. 8036. Appropriations contained in this Act that remain 
     available at the end of the current fiscal year as a result 
     of energy cost savings realized by the Department of Defense 
     shall remain available for obligation for the next fiscal 
     year to the extent, and for the purposes, provided in section 
     2865 of title 10, United States Code.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8037. Amounts deposited during the current fiscal year 
     to the special account established under 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2) 
     and to the special account established under 10 U.S.C. 
     2667(d)(1) are appropriated and shall be available until 
     transferred by the Secretary of Defense to current applicable 
     appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense under 
     the terms and conditions specified by 40 U.S.C. 485(h)(2)(A) 
     and (B) and 10 U.S.C. 2667(d)(1)(B), to be merged with and to 
     be available for the same time period and the same purposes 
     as the appropriation to which transferred.
       Sec. 8038. The President shall include with each budget for 
     a fiscal year submitted to the Congress under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code, materials that shall identify 
     clearly and separately the amounts requested in the budget 
     for appropriation for

[[Page H4006]]

     that fiscal year for salaries and expenses related to 
     administrative activities of the Department of Defense, the 
     military departments, and the defense agencies.
       Sec. 8039. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' may be obligated for the Young Marines 
     program.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8040. During the current fiscal year, amounts 
     contained in the Department of Defense Overseas Military 
     Facility Investment Recovery Account established by section 
     2921(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) shall be available 
     until expended for the payments specified by section 
     2921(c)(2) of that Act: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for expenditure under this section may be 
     transferred or obligated until 30 days after the Secretary of 
     Defense submits a report which details the balance available 
     in the Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery 
     Account, all projected income into the account during fiscal 
     years 2001 and 2002, and the specific expenditures to be made 
     using funds transferred from this account during fiscal year 
     2001.
       Sec. 8041. Of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, not more than $119,200,000 shall be 
     available for payment of the operating costs of NATO 
     Headquarters: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may 
     waive this section for Department of Defense support provided 
     to NATO forces in and around the former Yugoslavia.
       Sec. 8042. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     which are available to the Department of Defense for 
     operation and maintenance may be used to purchase items 
     having an investment item unit cost of not more than 
     $100,000.
       Sec. 8043. (a) During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     appropriations or funds available to the Department of 
     Defense Working Capital Funds shall be used for the purchase 
     of an investment item for the purpose of acquiring a new 
     inventory item for sale or anticipated sale during the 
     current fiscal year or a subsequent fiscal year to customers 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds if such an 
     item would not have been chargeable to the Department of 
     Defense Business Operations Fund during fiscal year 1994 and 
     if the purchase of such an investment item would be 
     chargeable during the current fiscal year to appropriations 
     made to the Department of Defense for procurement.
       (b) The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department 
     of Defense as well as all justification material and other 
     documentation supporting the fiscal year 2002 Department of 
     Defense budget shall be prepared and submitted to the 
     Congress on the basis that any equipment which was classified 
     as an end item and funded in a procurement appropriation 
     contained in this Act shall be budgeted for in a proposed 
     fiscal year 2002 procurement appropriation and not in the 
     supply management business area or any other area or category 
     of the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds.
       Sec. 8044. None of the funds appropriated by this Act for 
     programs of the Central Intelligence Agency shall remain 
     available for obligation beyond the current fiscal year, 
     except for funds appropriated for the Reserve for 
     Contingencies, which shall remain available until September 
     30, 2002: Provided, That funds appropriated, transferred, or 
     otherwise credited to the Central Intelligence Agency Central 
     Services Working Capital Fund during this or any prior or 
     subsequent fiscal year shall remain available until expended.
       Sec. 8045. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds made available in this Act for the Defense Intelligence 
     Agency may be used for the design, development, and 
     deployment of General Defense Intelligence Program 
     intelligence communications and intelligence information 
     systems for the Services, the Unified and Specified Commands, 
     and the component commands.
       Sec. 8046. Of the funds appropriated by the Department of 
     Defense under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', not less than $8,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the mitigation of environmental impacts, 
     including training and technical assistance to tribes, 
     related administrative support, the gathering of information, 
     documenting of environmental damage, and developing a system 
     for prioritization of mitigation and cost to complete 
     estimates for mitigation, on Indian lands resulting from 
     Department of Defense activities.
       Sec. 8047. Amounts collected for the use of the facilities 
     of the National Science Center for Communications and 
     Electronics during the current fiscal year pursuant to 
     section 1459(g) of the Department of Defense Authorization 
     Act, 1986, and deposited to the special account established 
     under subsection 1459(g)(2) of that Act are appropriated and 
     shall be available until expended for the operation and 
     maintenance of the Center as provided for in subsection 
     1459(g)(2).
       Sec. 8048. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to fill the commander's position at any military 
     medical facility with a health care professional unless the 
     prospective candidate can demonstrate professional 
     administrative skills.
       Sec. 8049. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     may be expended by an entity of the Department of Defense 
     unless the entity, in expending the funds, complies with the 
     Buy American Act. For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' means title III of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act making appropriations for the Treasury and Post Office 
     Departments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, and for 
     other purposes'', approved March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a et 
     seq.).
       (b) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person 
     has been convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in America, the 
     Secretary shall determine, in accordance with section 2410f 
     of title 10, United States Code, whether the person should be 
     debarred from contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (c) In the case of any equipment or products purchased with 
     appropriations provided under this Act, it is the sense of 
     the Congress that any entity of the Department of Defense, in 
     expending the appropriation, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products, provided that American-made equipment 
     and products are cost-competitive, quality-competitive, and 
     available in a timely fashion.
       Sec. 8050. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be available for a contract for studies, analysis, or 
     consulting services entered into without competition on the 
     basis of an unsolicited proposal unless the head of the 
     activity responsible for the procurement determines--
       (1) as a result of thorough technical evaluation, only one 
     source is found fully qualified to perform the proposed work;
       (2) the purpose of the contract is to explore an 
     unsolicited proposal which offers significant scientific or 
     technological promise, represents the product of original 
     thinking, and was submitted in confidence by one source; or
       (3) the purpose of the contract is to take advantage of 
     unique and significant industrial accomplishment by a 
     specific concern, or to insure that a new product or idea of 
     a specific concern is given financial support:

     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to contracts 
     in an amount of less than $25,000, contracts related to 
     improvements of equipment that is in development or 
     production, or contracts as to which a civilian official of 
     the Department of Defense, who has been confirmed by the 
     Senate, determines that the award of such contract is in the 
     interest of the national defense.
       Sec. 8051. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), none of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used--
       (1) to establish a field operating agency; or
       (2) to pay the basic pay of a member of the Armed Forces or 
     civilian employee of the department who is transferred or 
     reassigned from a headquarters activity if the member or 
     employee's place of duty remains at the location of that 
     headquarters.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense or Secretary of a military 
     department may waive the limitations in subsection (a), on a 
     case-by-case basis, if the Secretary determines, and 
     certifies to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that the granting of the waiver 
     will reduce the personnel requirements or the financial 
     requirements of the department.
       (c) This section does not apply to field operating agencies 
     funded within the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
       Sec. 8052. Funds appropriated by this Act and in Public Law 
     105-277, or made available by the transfer of funds in this 
     Act and in Public Law 105-277 for intelligence activities are 
     deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress for 
     purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal year 2001 until the enactment 
     of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
       Sec. 8053. Notwithstanding section 303 of Public Law 96-487 
     or any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Navy is 
     authorized to lease real and personal property at Naval Air 
     Facility, Adak, Alaska, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2667(f ), for 
     commercial, industrial or other purposes: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
     the Navy may remove hazardous materials from facilities, 
     buildings, and structures at Adak, Alaska, and may demolish 
     or otherwise dispose of such facilities, buildings, and 
     structures.


                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 8054. Of the funds provided in Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts, the following funds are hereby rescinded 
     as of the date of enactment of this Act, or October 1, 2000, 
     whichever is later, from the following accounts in the 
     specified amounts:
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Army, 2000/2002'', $7,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army, 2000/2002'', $6,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     2000/2002'', $7,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Ammunition, Army, 2000/2002'', $5,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2000/2002'', $16,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 2000/2002'', 
     $32,700,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2000/2002'', $5,500,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2000/2002'', $6,400,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2000/
     2001'', $19,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2000/2001'', $42,000,000; and
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 
     2000/2001'', $33,900,000:

     Provided, That these reductions shall be applied 
     proportionally to each budget activity,

[[Page H4007]]

     activity group and subactivity group and each program, 
     project and activity within each appropriation account: 
     Provided further, That the following additional amounts are 
     hereby rescinded as of the date of enactment of this Act, or 
     October 1, 2000, whichever is later, from the following 
     accounts in the specified amounts:
       ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1998/2002'', SSN-21 
     attack submarine program, $74,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 1999/2001'', $3,000,000;
       ``Weapons Procurement, Navy, 1999/2001'', $22,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, 1999/2001'', 
     $12,300,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 1999/2001'', $20,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 1999/2001'', $8,000,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Army, 2000/2002'', $150,000,000;
       ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army, 
     2000/2002'', $60,000,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Army, 2000/2002'', $29,000,000;
       ``Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2000/2002'', $6,500,000;
       ``Missile Procurement, Air Force, 2000/2002'', $6,192,000;
       ``Other Procurement, Air Force, 2000/2002'', $20,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2000/
     2001'', $52,000,000;
       ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 
     2000/2001'', $30,000,000; and
       ``Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund'', 
     $17,000,000.
       Sec. 8055. None of the funds available in this Act may be 
     used to reduce the authorized positions for military 
     (civilian) technicians of the Army National Guard, the Air 
     National Guard, Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve for the 
     purpose of applying any administratively imposed civilian 
     personnel ceiling, freeze, or reduction on military 
     (civilian) technicians, unless such reductions are a direct 
     result of a reduction in military force structure.
       Sec. 8056. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea 
     unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
       Sec. 8057. During the current fiscal year, funds 
     appropriated in this Act are available to compensate members 
     of the National Guard for duty performed pursuant to a plan 
     submitted by a Governor of a State and approved by the 
     Secretary of Defense under section 112 of title 32, United 
     States Code: Provided, That during the performance of such 
     duty, the members of the National Guard shall be under State 
     command and control: Provided further, That such duty shall 
     be treated as full-time National Guard duty for purposes of 
     sections 12602(a)(2) and (b)(2) of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8058. Funds appropriated in this Act for operation and 
     maintenance of the Military Departments, Combatant Commands 
     and Defense Agencies shall be available for reimbursement of 
     pay, allowances and other expenses which would otherwise be 
     incurred against appropriations for the National Guard and 
     Reserve when members of the National Guard and Reserve 
     provide intelligence or counterintelligence support to 
     Combatant Commands, Defense Agencies and Joint Intelligence 
     Activities, including the activities and programs included 
     within the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP), the 
     Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), and the Tactical 
     Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) aggregate: 
     Provided, That nothing in this section authorizes deviation 
     from established Reserve and National Guard personnel and 
     training procedures.
       Sec. 8059. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds appropriated in this Act may be used to reduce the 
     civilian medical and medical support personnel assigned to 
     military treatment facilities below the September 30, 2000 
     level: Provided, That the Service Surgeons General may waive 
     this section by certifying to the congressional defense 
     committees that the beneficiary population is declining in 
     some catchment areas and civilian strength reductions may be 
     consistent with responsible resource stewardship and 
     capitation-based budgeting.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8060. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be transferred to or obligated from the Pentagon Reservation 
     Maintenance Revolving Fund, unless the Secretary of Defense 
     certifies that the total cost for the planning, design, 
     construction and installation of equipment for the renovation 
     of the Pentagon Reservation will not exceed $1,222,000,000.
       Sec. 8061. (a) None of the funds available to the 
     Department of Defense for any fiscal year for drug 
     interdiction or counter-drug activities may be transferred to 
     any other department or agency of the United States except as 
     specifically provided in an appropriations law.
       (b) None of the funds available to the Central Intelligence 
     Agency for any fiscal year for drug interdiction and counter-
     drug activities may be transferred to any other department or 
     agency of the United States except as specifically provided 
     in an appropriations law.


                          (TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8062. Appropriations available in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings 
     may, during their period of availability, be transferred to 
     other appropriations or funds of the Department of Defense 
     for projects related to increasing energy and water 
     efficiency, to be merged with and to be available for the 
     same general purposes, and for the same time period, as the 
     appropriation or fund to which transferred.
       Sec. 8063. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of ball and roller bearings other 
     than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic 
     origin: Provided, That the Secretary of the military 
     department responsible for such procurement may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in writing 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes.
       Sec. 8064. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to American Samoa, and 
     funds available to the Department of Defense shall be made 
     available to provide transportation of medical supplies and 
     equipment, on a nonreimbursable basis, to the Indian Health 
     Service when it is in conjunction with a civil-military 
     project.
       Sec. 8065. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     purchase any supercomputer which is not manufactured in the 
     United States, unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to 
     the congressional defense committees that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes that is not available from United States 
     manufacturers.
       Sec. 8066. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Naval shipyards of the United States shall be eligible to 
     participate in any manufacturing extension program financed 
     by funds appropriated in this or any other Act.
       Sec. 8067. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     contract awarded by the Department of Defense during the 
     current fiscal year for construction or service performed in 
     whole or in part in a State (as defined in section 381(d) of 
     title 10, United States Code) which is not contiguous with 
     another State and has an unemployment rate in excess of the 
     national average rate of unemployment as determined by the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall include a provision requiring the 
     contractor to employ, for the purpose of performing that 
     portion of the contract in such State that is not contiguous 
     with another State, individuals who are residents of such 
     State and who, in the case of any craft or trade, possess or 
     would be able to acquire promptly the necessary skills: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     requirements of this section, on a case-by-case basis, in the 
     interest of national security.
       Sec. 8068. During the current fiscal year, the Army shall 
     use the former George Air Force Base as the airhead for the 
     National Training Center at Fort Irwin: Provided, That none 
     of the funds in this Act shall be obligated or expended to 
     transport Army personnel into Edwards Air Force Base for 
     training rotations at the National Training Center.
       Sec. 8069. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the congressional defense 
     committees, the Committee on International Relations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate setting forth all costs (including 
     incremental costs) incurred by the Department of Defense 
     during the preceding quarter in implementing or supporting 
     resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, including 
     any such resolution calling for international sanctions, 
     international peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian 
     missions undertaken by the Department of Defense. The 
     quarterly report shall include an aggregate of all such 
     Department of Defense costs by operation or mission.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       Sec. 8070. (a) Limitation on Transfer of Defense Articles 
     and Services.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     none of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the current fiscal year may be obligated or expended to 
     transfer to another nation or an international organization 
     any defense articles or services (other than intelligence 
     services) for use in the activities described in subsection 
     (b) unless the congressional defense committees, the 
     Committee on International Relations of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate are notified 15 days in advance of such transfer.
       (b) Covered Activities.--This section applies to--
       (1) any international peacekeeping or peace-enforcement 
     operation under the authority of chapter VI or chapter VII of 
     the United Nations Charter under the authority

[[Page H4008]]

     of a United Nations Security Council resolution; and
       (2) any other international peacekeeping, peace-
     enforcement, or humanitarian assistance operation.
       (c) Required Notice.--A notice under subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the equipment, supplies, or services 
     to be transferred.
       (2) A statement of the value of the equipment, supplies, or 
     services to be transferred.
       (3) In the case of a proposed transfer of equipment or 
     supplies--
       (A) a statement of whether the inventory requirements of 
     all elements of the Armed Forces (including the reserve 
     components) for the type of equipment or supplies to be 
     transferred have been met; and
       (B) a statement of whether the items proposed to be 
     transferred will have to be replaced and, if so, how the 
     President proposes to provide funds for such replacement.
       Sec. 8071. To the extent authorized by subchapter VI of 
     chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Defense may issue loan guarantees in support of United States 
     defense exports not otherwise provided for: Provided, That 
     the total contingent liability of the United States for 
     guarantees issued under the authority of this section may not 
     exceed $15,000,000,000: Provided further, That the exposure 
     fees charged and collected by the Secretary for each 
     guarantee shall be paid by the country involved and shall not 
     be financed as part of a loan guaranteed by the United 
     States: Provided further, That the Secretary shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations, Armed 
     Services, and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and 
     International Relations in the House of Representatives on 
     the implementation of this program: Provided further, That 
     amounts charged for administrative fees and deposited to the 
     special account provided for under section 2540c(d) of title 
     10, shall be available for paying the costs of administrative 
     expenses of the Department of Defense that are attributable 
     to the loan guarantee program under subchapter VI of chapter 
     148 of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 8072. None of the funds available to the Department of 
     Defense under this Act shall be obligated or expended to pay 
     a contractor under a contract with the Department of Defense 
     for costs of any amount paid by the contractor to an employee 
     when--
       (1) such costs are for a bonus or otherwise in excess of 
     the normal salary paid by the contractor to the employee; and
       (2) such bonus is part of restructuring costs associated 
     with a business combination.
       Sec. 8073. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act may be used to transport or 
     provide for the transportation of chemical munitions or 
     agents to the Johnston Atoll for the purpose of storing or 
     demilitarizing such munitions or agents.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any obsolete World War II chemical munition or agent of the 
     United States found in the World War II Pacific Theater of 
     Operations.
       (c) The President may suspend the application of subsection 
     (a) during a period of war in which the United States is a 
     party.
       Sec. 8074. None of the funds provided in title II of this 
     Act for ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' may be 
     obligated or expended to finance housing for any individual 
     who was a member of the military forces of the Soviet Union 
     or for any individual who is or was a member of the military 
     forces of the Russian Federation.


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. 8075. During the current fiscal year, no more than 
     $10,000,000 of appropriations made in this Act under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' may be 
     transferred to appropriations available for the pay of 
     military personnel, to be merged with, and to be available 
     for the same time period as the appropriations to which 
     transferred, to be used in support of such personnel in 
     connection with support and services for eligible 
     organizations and activities outside the Department of 
     Defense pursuant to section 2012 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       Sec. 8076. For purposes of section 1553(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any subdivision of appropriations made in 
     this Act under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' shall be considered to be for the same purpose as any 
     subdivision under the heading ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
     Navy'' appropriations in any prior year, and the 1 percent 
     limitation shall apply to the total amount of the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 8077. During the current fiscal year, in the case of 
     an appropriation account of the Department of Defense for 
     which the period of availability for obligation has expired 
     or which has closed under the provisions of section 1552 of 
     title 31, United States Code, and which has a negative 
     unliquidated or unexpended balance, an obligation or an 
     adjustment of an obligation may be charged to any current 
     appropriation account for the same purpose as the expired or 
     closed account if--
       (1) the obligation would have been properly chargeable 
     (except as to amount) to the expired or closed account before 
     the end of the period of availability or closing of that 
     account;
       (2) the obligation is not otherwise properly chargeable to 
     any current appropriation account of the Department of 
     Defense; and
       (3) in the case of an expired account, the obligation is 
     not chargeable to a current appropriation of the Department 
     of Defense under the provisions of section 1405(b)(8) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
     Public Law 101-510, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1551 note): 
     Provided, That in the case of an expired account, if 
     subsequent review or investigation discloses that there was 
     not in fact a negative unliquidated or unexpended balance in 
     the account, any charge to a current account under the 
     authority of this section shall be reversed and recorded 
     against the expired account: Provided further, That the total 
     amount charged to a current appropriation under this section 
     may not exceed an amount equal to 1 percent of the total 
     appropriation for that account.
       Sec. 8078. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees by 
     February 1, 2001, a detailed report identifying, by amount 
     and by separate budget activity, activity group, subactivity 
     group, line item, program element, program, project, 
     subproject, and activity, any activity for which the fiscal 
     year 2002 budget request was reduced because the Congress 
     appropriated funds above the President's budget request for 
     that specific activity for fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 8079. Funds appropriated in title II of this Act and 
     for the Defense Health Program in title VI of this Act for 
     supervision and administration costs for facilities 
     maintenance and repair, minor construction, or design 
     projects may be obligated at the time the reimbursable order 
     is accepted by the performing activity: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, supervision and administration 
     costs includes all in-house Government cost.
       Sec. 8080. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive reimbursement of the cost of conferences, 
     seminars, courses of instruction, or similar educational 
     activities of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies 
     for military officers and civilian officials of foreign 
     nations if the Secretary determines that attendance by such 
     personnel, without reimbursement, is in the national security 
     interest of the United States: Provided, That costs for which 
     reimbursement is waived pursuant to this section shall be 
     paid from appropriations available for the Asia-Pacific 
     Center.
       Sec. 8081. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Chief of the National Guard Bureau may permit the use of 
     equipment of the National Guard Distance Learning Project by 
     any person or entity on a space-available, reimbursable 
     basis. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau shall establish 
     the amount of reimbursement for such use on a case-by-case 
     basis.
       (b) Amounts collected under subsection (a) shall be 
     credited to funds available for the National Guard Distance 
     Learning Project and be available to defray the costs 
     associated with the use of equipment of the project under 
     that subsection. Such funds shall be available for such 
     purposes without fiscal year limitation.
       Sec. 8082. Using funds available by this Act or any other 
     Act, the Secretary of the Air Force, pursuant to a 
     determination under section 2690 of title 10, United States 
     Code, may implement cost-effective agreements for required 
     heating facility modernization in the Kaiserslautern Military 
     Community in the Federal Republic of Germany: Provided, That 
     in the City of Kaiserslautern such agreements will include 
     the use of United States anthracite as the base load energy 
     for municipal district heat to the United States Defense 
     installations: Provided further, That at Landstuhl Army 
     Regional Medical Center and Ramstein Air Base, furnished heat 
     may be obtained from private, regional or municipal services, 
     if provisions are included for the consideration of United 
     States coal as an energy source.
       Sec. 8083. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3902, during the 
     current fiscal year, interest penalties may be paid by the 
     Department of Defense from funds financing the operation of 
     the military department or defense agency with which the 
     invoice or contract payment is associated.
       Sec. 8084. None of the funds appropriated in title IV of 
     this Act may be used to procure end-items for delivery to 
     military forces for operational training, operational use or 
     inventory requirements: Provided, That this restriction does 
     not apply to end-items used in development, prototyping, and 
     test activities preceding and leading to acceptance for 
     operational use: Provided further, That this restriction does 
     not apply to programs funded within the National Foreign 
     Intelligence Program: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-case basis by 
     certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate that it is in the 
     national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8085. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $800,000,000 to reflect working capital fund cash balance 
     and rate stabilization adjustments, to be distributed as 
     follows:
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $40,794,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $271,856,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $5,006,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $294,209,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $10,864,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve'', $31,669,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve'', 
     $563,000;

[[Page H4009]]

       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve'', 
     $43,974,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'', 
     $15,572,000; and
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard'', 
     $85,493,000.
       Sec. 8086. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced 
     tactical fighter to any foreign government.
       Sec. 8087. (a) The Secretary of Defense may, on a case-by-
     case basis, waive with respect to a foreign country each 
     limitation on the procurement of defense items from foreign 
     sources provided in law if the Secretary determines that the 
     application of the limitation with respect to that country 
     would invalidate cooperative programs entered into between 
     the Department of Defense and the foreign country, or would 
     invalidate reciprocal trade agreements for the procurement of 
     defense items entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the country does not discriminate 
     against the same or similar defense items produced in the 
     United States for that country.
       (b) Subsection (a) applies with respect to--
       (1) contracts and subcontracts entered into on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) options for the procurement of items that are exercised 
     after such date under contracts that are entered into before 
     such date if the option prices are adjusted for any reason 
     other than the application of a waiver granted under 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Subsection (a) does not apply to a limitation regarding 
     construction of public vessels, ball and roller bearings, 
     food, and clothing or textile materials as defined by section 
     11 (chapters 50-65) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule and 
     products classified under headings 4010, 4202, 4203, 6401 
     through 6406, 6505, 7019, 7218 through 7229, 7304.41 through 
     7304.49, 7306.40, 7502 through 7508, 8105, 8108, 8109, 8211, 
     8215, and 9404.
       (d) Section 8093(d) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79; 113 Stat. 1253), 
     is amended by inserting ``design, manufacture, or'' after 
     ``obligated or expended for''.
       Sec. 8088. Funds made available to the Civil Air Patrol in 
     this Act under the heading ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-
     Drug Activities, Defense'' may be used for the Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation's counterdrug program, including its 
     demand reduction program involving youth programs, as well as 
     operational and training drug reconnaissance missions for 
     Federal, State, and local government agencies; for 
     administrative costs, including the hiring of Civil Air 
     Patrol Corporation employees; for travel and per diem 
     expenses of Civil Air Patrol Corporation personnel in support 
     of those missions; and for equipment needed for mission 
     support or performance: Provided, That of these funds, 
     $300,000 shall be made available to establish and operate a 
     distance learning program: Provided further, That the 
     Department of the Air Force should waive reimbursement from 
     the Federal, State, and local government agencies for the use 
     of these funds.
       Sec. 8089. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     TRICARE managed care support contracts in effect, or in final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 2000, may be 
     extended for two years: Provided, That any such extension may 
     only take place if the Secretary of Defense determines that 
     it is in the best interest of the Government: Provided 
     further, That any contract extension shall be based on the 
     price in the final best and final offer for the last year of 
     the existing contract as adjusted for inflation and other 
     factors mutually agreed to by the contractor and the 
     Government: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all future TRICARE managed care support 
     contracts replacing contracts in effect, or in the final 
     stages of acquisition as of September 30, 2000, may include a 
     base contract period for transition and up to seven 1-year 
     option periods.
       Sec. 8090. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate an employee of the Department of Defense who 
     initiates a new start program without notification to the 
     Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management 
     and Budget, and the congressional defense committees, as 
     required by Department of Defense financial management 
     regulations.
       Sec. 8091. Training and Other Programs. (a) Prohibition.--
     None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     support any training program involving a unit of the security 
     forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has 
     received credible information from the Department of State 
     that the unit has committed a gross violation of human 
     rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been 
     taken.
       (b) Monitoring.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, shall ensure that prior to a 
     decision to conduct any training program referred to in 
     subsection (a), full consideration is given to all credible 
     information available to the Department of State relating to 
     human rights violations by foreign security forces.
       (c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if he determines that such waiver is required 
     by extraordinary circumstances.
       (d) Report.--Not more than 15 days after the exercise of 
     any waiver under subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
     describing the extraordinary circumstances, the purpose and 
     duration of the training program, the United States forces 
     and the foreign security forces involved in the training 
     program, and the information relating to human rights 
     violations that necessitates the waiver.
       Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $537,600,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign 
     currency fluctuations, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $114,600,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $36,900,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $9,700,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $83,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $177,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $31,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $1,600,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $53,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $15,300,000; 
     and
       ``Defense Health Program'', $13,300,000.
       Sec. 8093. None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     in this Act to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
     develop, lease or procure the ADC(X) class of ships unless 
     the main propulsion diesel engines and propulsors are 
     manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
     entity: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive 
     this restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying in 
     writing to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that adequate domestic 
     supplies are not available to meet Department of Defense 
     requirements on a timely basis and that such an acquisition 
     must be made in order to acquire capability for national 
     security purposes or there exists a significant cost or 
     quality difference.
       Sec. 8094. Of the funds made available in this Act, not 
     less than $65,200,000 shall be available to maintain an 
     attrition reserve force of 23 B-52 aircraft, of which 
     $3,200,000 shall be available from ``Military Personnel, Air 
     Force'', $36,900,000 shall be available from ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air Force'', and $25,100,000 shall be available 
     from ``Aircraft Procurement, Air Force'': Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a total force of 94 
     B-52 aircraft, including 23 attrition reserve aircraft, 
     during fiscal year 2001: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of Defense shall include in the Air Force budget request for 
     fiscal year 2002 amounts sufficient to maintain a B-52 force 
     totaling 94 aircraft.
       Sec. 8095. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or other Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Acts may be obligated or expended for the 
     purpose of performing repairs or maintenance to military 
     family housing units of the Department of Defense, including 
     areas in such military family housing units that may be used 
     for the purpose of conducting official Department of Defense 
     business.
       Sec. 8096. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for any 
     advanced concept technology demonstration project may only be 
     obligated 30 days after a report, including a description of 
     the project and its estimated annual and total cost, has been 
     provided in writing to the congressional defense committees: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may waive this 
     restriction on a case-by-case basis by certifying to the 
     congressional defense committees that it is in the national 
     interest to do so.
       Sec. 8097. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of establishing all Department of Defense 
     policies governing the provision of care provided by and 
     financed under the military health care system's case 
     management program under 10 U.S.C. 1079(a)(17), the term 
     ``custodial care'' shall be defined as care designed 
     essentially to assist an individual in meeting the activities 
     of daily living and which does not require the supervision of 
     trained medical, nursing, paramedical or other specially 
     trained individuals: Provided, That the case management 
     program shall provide that members and retired members of the 
     military services, and their dependents and survivors, have 
     access to all medically necessary health care through the 
     health care delivery system of the military services 
     regardless of the health care status of the person seeking 
     the health care: Provided further, That the case management 
     program shall be the primary obligor for payment of medically 
     necessary services and shall not be considered as secondarily 
     liable to title XIX of the Social Security Act, other welfare 
     programs or charity based care.
       Sec. 8098. During the current fiscal year--
       (1) refunds attributable to the use of the Government 
     travel card and refunds attributable to official Government 
     travel arranged by Government Contracted Travel Management 
     Centers may be credited to operation and maintenance accounts 
     of the Department of Defense which are current when the 
     refunds are received; and
       (2) refunds attributable to the use of the Government 
     Purchase Card by military personnel and civilian employees of 
     the Department of Defense may be credited to accounts of the 
     Department of Defense that are current when the refunds are 
     received and that are available for the same purposes as the 
     accounts originally charged.

[[Page H4010]]

       Sec. 8099. (a) Registering Information Technology Systems 
     With DOD Chief Information Officer.--None of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act may be used for a mission critical 
     or mission essential information technology system (including 
     a system funded by the defense working capital fund) that is 
     not registered with the Chief Information Officer of the 
     Department of Defense. A system shall be considered to be 
     registered with that officer upon the furnishing to that 
     officer of notice of the system, together with such 
     information concerning the system as the Secretary of Defense 
     may prescribe. An information technology system shall be 
     considered a mission critical or mission essential 
     information technology system as defined by the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       (b) Certifications as to Compliance With Clinger-Cohen 
     Act.--(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated 
     information system may not receive Milestone I approval, 
     Milestone II approval, or Milestone III approval within the 
     Department of Defense until the Chief Information Officer 
     certifies, with respect to that milestone, that the system is 
     being developed in accordance with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 
     1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). The Chief Information Officer 
     may require additional certifications, as appropriate, with 
     respect to any such system.
       (2) The Chief Information Officer shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees timely notification of 
     certifications under paragraph (1). Each such notification 
     shall include, at a minimum, the funding baseline and 
     milestone schedule for each system covered by such a 
     certification and confirmation that the following steps have 
     been taken with respect to the system:
       (A) Business process reengineering.
       (B) An analysis of alternatives.
       (C) An economic analysis that includes a calculation of the 
     return on investment.
       (D) Performance measures.
       (E) An information assurance strategy consistent with the 
     Department's Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 
     Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 
     Architecture Framework.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Chief Information Officer'' means the senior 
     official of the Department of Defense designated by the 
     Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 3506 of title 44, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``information technology system'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``information technology'' in section 
     5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401).
       (3) The term ``major automated information system'' has the 
     meaning given that term in Department of Defense Directive 
     5000.1.
       Sec. 8100. During the current fiscal year, none of the 
     funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to 
     provide support to another department or agency of the United 
     States if such department or agency is more than 90 days in 
     arrears in making payment to the Department of Defense for 
     goods or services previously provided to such department or 
     agency on a reimbursable basis: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not apply if the department is authorized 
     by law to provide support to such department or agency on a 
     nonreimbursable basis, and is providing the requested support 
     pursuant to such authority: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Defense may waive this restriction on a case-by-
     case basis by certifying in writing to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that it is in the national security interest to do so.
       Sec. 8101. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to transfer to any nongovernmental entity ammunition 
     held by the Department of Defense that has a center-fire 
     cartridge and a United States military nomenclature 
     designation of ``armor penetrator'', ``armor piercing (AP)'', 
     ``armor piercing incendiary (API)'', or ``armor-piercing 
     incendiary-tracer (API-T)'', except to an entity performing 
     demilitarization services for the Department of Defense under 
     a contract that requires the entity to demonstrate to the 
     satisfaction of the Department of Defense that armor piercing 
     projectiles are either: (1) rendered incapable of reuse by 
     the demilitarization process; or (2) used to manufacture 
     ammunition pursuant to a contract with the Department of 
     Defense or the manufacture of ammunition for export pursuant 
     to a License for Permanent Export of Unclassified Military 
     Articles issued by the Department of State.
       Sec. 8102. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Chief of the National Guard Bureau, or his designee, may 
     waive payment of all or part of the consideration that 
     otherwise would be required under 10 U.S.C. 2667, in the case 
     of a lease of personal property for a period not in excess of 
     1 year to any organization specified in 32 U.S.C. 508(d), or 
     any other youth, social, or fraternal non-profit organization 
     as may be approved by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 
     or his designee, on a case-by-case basis.
       Sec. 8103. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used for the support of any nonappropriated funds activity 
     of the Department of Defense that procures malt beverages and 
     wine with nonappropriated funds for resale (including such 
     alcoholic beverages sold by the drink) on a military 
     installation located in the United States unless such malt 
     beverages and wine are procured within that State, or in the 
     case of the District of Columbia, within the District of 
     Columbia, in which the military installation is located: 
     Provided, That in a case in which the military installation 
     is located in more than one State, purchases may be made in 
     any State in which the installation is located: Provided 
     further, That such local procurement requirements for malt 
     beverages and wine shall apply to all alcoholic beverages 
     only for military installations in States which are not 
     contiguous with another State: Provided further, That 
     alcoholic beverages other than wine and malt beverages, in 
     contiguous States and the District of Columbia shall be 
     procured from the most competitive source, price and other 
     factors considered.
       Sec. 8104. In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in 
     this Act, the amount of $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated for 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', to be available, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, only for a grant 
     to the High Desert Partnership in Academic Excellence 
     Foundation, Inc., for the purpose of developing, 
     implementing, and evaluating a standards and performance 
     based academic model at schools administered by the 
     Department of Defense Education Activity.
       Sec. 8105. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force may convey 
     at no cost to the Air Force, without consideration, to Indian 
     tribes located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
     Montana, and Minnesota relocatable military housing units 
     located at Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force 
     Base that are excess to the needs of the Air Force.
       (b) Processing of Requests.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall convey, at no cost to the Air Force, military housing 
     units under subsection (a) in accordance with the request for 
     such units that are submitted to the Secretary by the 
     Operation Walking Shield Program on behalf of Indian tribes 
     located in the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, 
     and Minnesota.
       (c) Resolution of Housing Unit Conflicts.--The Operation 
     Walking Shield program shall resolve any conflicts among 
     requests of Indian tribes for housing units under subsection 
     (a) before submitting requests to the Secretary of the Air 
     Force under paragraph (b).
       (d) Indian Tribe Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' means any recognized Indian tribe included 
     on the current list published by the Secretary of Interior 
     under section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe 
     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-454; 108 Stat. 4792; 25 U.S.C. 
     479a-1).
       Sec. 8106. During the current fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall fully identify any health care contract 
     liabilities, requests for equitable adjustment, and claims 
     for unanticipated healthcare contract costs during the budget 
     year of execution: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide a report to the congressional defense 
     committees which fully details the extent of such health care 
     contract liabilities, requests for equitable adjustment and 
     claims for unanticipated healthcare contract costs not later 
     than March 1, 2001: Provided further, That the Secretary of 
     Defense shall establish an equitable and timely process for 
     the adjudication of claims, and recognize actual liabilities 
     during the Department's planning, programming and budgeting 
     process: Provided further, That nothing in this section 
     should be construed as congressional direction to liquidate 
     or pay any claims that otherwise would not have been 
     adjudicated in favor of the claimant.
       Sec. 8107. Funds available to the Department of Defense for 
     the Global Positioning System during the current fiscal year 
     may be used to fund civil requirements associated with the 
     satellite and ground control segments of such system's 
     modernization program.


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8108. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act under 
     the heading, ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $115,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer such funds to 
     other activities of the Federal Government.
       Sec. 8109. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $463,400,000 to reflect stabilization of the balance 
     available in the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense'' 
     account, to be distributed as follows:
       ``Military Personnel, Army'', $40,200,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Navy'', $70,200,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', $27,700,000;
       ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', $92,700,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $137,300,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $34,800,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'', $4,400,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', $35,500,000;
       ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $11,500,000; 
     and
       ``Defense Health Program'', $9,100,000.
       Sec. 8110. None of the funds provided in title III of this 
     Act may be obligated for F-16 aircraft modifications until 
     the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report to the 
     congressional defense committees detailing a plan to assign, 
     no later than the first quarter of fiscal year 2002, F-16 
     Block 40 aircraft, or

[[Page H4011]]

     later model F-16 aircraft, to Air National Guard units which 
     were deployed to Operation Desert Storm.
       Sec. 8111. (a) Report to the Congressional Defense 
     Committees.--Not later than May 1, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report on work-related illnesses in the Department of 
     Defense workforce, including the workforce of Department 
     contractors and vendors, resulting from exposure to beryllium 
     or beryllium alloys.
       (b) Procedure, Methodology, and Time Periods.--To the 
     maximum extent practicable, the Secretary shall use the same 
     procedures, methodology, and time periods in carrying out the 
     work required to prepare the report under subsection (a) as 
     those used by the Department of Energy to determine work-
     related illnesses in the Department of Energy workforce 
     associated with exposure to beryllium or beryllium alloys. To 
     the extent that different procedures, methodology, and time 
     periods are used, the Secretary shall explain in the report 
     why those different procedures, methodology, or time periods 
     were used, why they were appropriate, and how they differ 
     from those used by the Department of Energy.
       (c) Report Elements.--The report shall include the 
     following:
       (1) A description of the precautions used by the Department 
     of Defense and its contractors and vendors to protect their 
     current employees from beryllium-related disease.
       (2) Identification of elements of the Department of Defense 
     and of contractors and vendors to the Department of Defense 
     that use or have used beryllium or beryllium alloys in 
     production of products for the Department of Defense.
       (3) The number of employees (or, if an actual number is not 
     available, an estimate of the number of employees) employed 
     by each of the Department of Defense elements identified 
     under paragraph (2) that are or were exposed during the 
     course of their Defense-related employment to beryllium, 
     beryllium dust, or beryllium fumes.
       (4) A characterization of the amount, frequency, and 
     duration of exposure for employees identified under paragraph 
     (3).
       (5) Identification of the actual number of instances of 
     acute beryllium disease, chronic beryllium disease, or 
     beryllium sensitization that have been documented to date 
     among employees of the Department of Defense and its 
     contractors and vendors.
       (6) The estimated cost if the Department of Defense were to 
     provide workers' compensation benefits comparable to benefits 
     provided under the Federal Employees Compensation Act to 
     employees, including former employees, of Government 
     organizations, contractors, and vendors who have contracted 
     beryllium-related diseases.
       (7) The Secretary's recommendations on whether compensation 
     for work-related illnesses in the Department of Defense 
     workforce, including contractors and vendors, is justified or 
     recommended.
       (8) Legislative proposals, if any, to implement the 
     Secretary's recommendations under paragraph (7).
       Sec. 8112. Of the amounts made available in title II of 
     this Act for ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $1,900,000 
     shall be available only for the purpose of making a grant to 
     the San Bernardino County Airports Department for the 
     installation of a perimeter security fence for that portion 
     of the Barstow-Daggett Airport, California, which is used as 
     a heliport for the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, 
     California, and for installation of other security 
     improvements at that airport.
       Sec. 8113. The Secretary of Defense may during the current 
     fiscal year and hereafter carry out the activities and 
     exercise the authorities provided under the demonstration 
     program authorized by section 9148 of the Department of 
     Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-396; 106 
     Stat. 1941).


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 8114. Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' in title 
     IV of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 
     (Public Law 106-79) for the Grizzly minefield breacher 
     program, $15,000,000 is hereby transferred to ``Procurement 
     of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', in title III 
     of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, and 
     shall be available only for the Wolverine heavy assault 
     bridge program: Provided, That funds transferred pursuant to 
     this section shall be merged with and shall be available for 
     the same purposes and for the same time period as the 
     appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That 
     not later than 60 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Department of the Army shall, from within funds available 
     under the heading ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat 
     Vehicles, Army'', in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
     Act, 2000, obligate $97,000,000 for procurement of the 
     Wolverine heavy assault bridge program.
       Sec. 8115. (a)(1) None of the funds described in paragraph 
     (2) that are provided in title III of this Act for the 
     Department of the Army to procure a second brigade set of 
     Interim Armored Vehicles (also referred to as the Family of 
     Medium Armored Vehicles) and other equipment to support the 
     fielding of a second new interim brigade combat team 
     (hereinafter in this section referred to as a ``medium 
     brigade'') may be obligated or expended until the Secretary 
     of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees, 
     after February 1, 2001, a certification of the following:
       (A) That the fiscal year 2002 budget of the Department of 
     Defense submitted as part of the budget of the President for 
     fiscal year 2002 (including any amendment or supplement to 
     such budget) fully funds the fiscal year 2002 procurement 
     costs, development costs, and initial year operation and 
     maintenance costs associated with the procurement and 
     fielding of two additional new medium brigades (in addition 
     to those for which funds are provided in this Act and 
     previous appropriations Acts).
       (B) That the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) current at 
     the time of such budget submission includes amounts to fully 
     fund the procurement costs, the development costs, and the 
     operation and maintenance costs associated with the 
     procurement and fielding of at least two additional medium 
     brigades per fiscal year covered by that Future Years Defense 
     Plan.
       (C) That the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of 
     the Department of Defense has approved the Test and 
     Evaluation Master Plan for the Interim Armored Vehicle.
       (2) The funding provided in title III of this Act to 
     support the fielding of a second new medium brigade that is 
     subject to the limitation in paragraph (1) is the amount of 
     $600,000,000 provided under the heading, ``Procurement of 
     Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'', and the amount 
     of $200,000,000 provided under the heading ``Other 
     Procurement, Army'', for procurement of equipment for a 
     second medium brigade, as set forth in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
     fiscal year 2001.
       (b) Not later than 90 days after the date of the source 
     selection for the Interim Armored Vehicle program (also 
     referred to as the Family of Medium Armored Vehicles 
     program), the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a detailed report on that 
     program. The report shall include the following:
       (1) The required research and development cost for each 
     variant of the Interim Armored Vehicle to be procured and the 
     total research and development cost for the program.
       (2) The major milestones for the development program for 
     the Interim Armored Vehicle program.
       (3) The production unit cost of each variant of the Interim 
     Armored Vehicle to be procured.
       (4) The total procurement cost of the Interim Armored 
     Vehicle program.
       (c) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report (in both 
     classified and unclassified versions) on the joint 
     warfighting requirements to be met by the new medium brigades 
     for the Army. The report shall describe any adjustments made 
     to operational plans of the commanders of the unified 
     combatant commands for use of those brigades. The report 
     shall be submitted at the time that the President's budget 
     for fiscal year 2002 is transmitted to Congress.
       (d) In this section, any reference to the budget of the 
     President for fiscal year 2002 refers to a budget transmitted 
     to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, after January 20, 2001.
       Sec. 8116. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-79) may be used to award a full funding contract for 
     low-rate initial production for the F-22 aircraft program 
     until--
       (1) the first flight of an F-22 aircraft incorporating 
     Block 3.0 software has been conducted;
       (2) the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional 
     defense committees that all Defense Acquisition Board exit 
     criteria for the award of low-rate initial production of the 
     aircraft have been met; and
       (3) upon completion of the requirements under (1) and (2) 
     above, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation 
     submits to the congressional defense committees a report 
     assessing the adequacy of testing to date to measure and 
     predict performance of F-22 avionics systems, stealth 
     characteristics, and weapons delivery systems.
       Sec. 8117. (a) The total amount expended by the Department 
     of Defense for the F-22 aircraft program (over all fiscal 
     years of the life of the program) for engineering and 
     manufacturing development and for production may not exceed 
     $58,028,200,000. The amount provided in the preceding 
     sentence shall be adjusted by the Secretary of the Air Force 
     in the manner provided in section 217(c) of Public Law 105-85 
     (111 Stat. 1660). This section supersedes any limitation 
     previously provided by law on the amount that may be 
     obligated or expended for engineering and manufacturing 
     development under the F-22 aircraft program and any 
     limitation previously provided by law on the amount that may 
     be obligated or expended for the F-22 production program.
       (b) The provisions of subsection (a) apply during the 
     current fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years.

  Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill through page 113, line 25, 
be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at 
any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?

[[Page H4012]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 8118. Joint Strike Fighter Program.--(a) Reports.--(1) 
     Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the Joint Strike 
     Fighter (JSF) aircraft program. The report shall include a 
     detailed description of any change or modification to that 
     program made since the submission of the President's budget 
     for fiscal year 2001, including any such change or 
     modification initiated by the Department of Defense and any 
     such change or modification resulting from congressional 
     action on the fiscal year 2001 budget for the Department of 
     Defense. The report shall also include the following:
       (A) The acquisition strategy for the Joint Strike Fighter 
     program, including the estimated total program costs for 
     development and for production, the program development 
     schedule, and the planned production profile.
       (B) If applicable, the effect of any revisions to that 
     acquisition strategy on the average unit cost of the Joint 
     Strike Fighter aircraft when compared to the original 
     acquisition strategy for that program.
       (C) Results derived to date from the concept demonstration/
     validation phase of the program, including available data 
     from flight tests of demonstration aircraft.
       (D) An assessment of the degree to which the concept 
     demonstration/validation phase has addressed key aircraft and 
     aircraft subsystem performance parameters before a source 
     selection decision is made and the engineering and 
     manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program is 
     begun.
       (E) The strategy of the Department for insertion of 
     technology into the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, including 
     details regarding when critical subsystems to be incorporated 
     on the aircraft are to be demonstrated in a prototype 
     configuration (either before or in the early stages of 
     Engineering and Manufacturing Development).
       (2) Not later than March 30, 2001 (and not earlier than 
     February 1, 2001), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to 
     the congressional defense committees a second report on the 
     acquisition plan for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft 
     program. That report shall address each of the matters 
     specified in paragraph (1) as of the time of that report, as 
     well as any additional changes to that acquisition plan that 
     have been made as a consequence of the fiscal year 2002 
     Department of Defense budget (as submitted as part of the 
     budget of the President for fiscal year 2002 transmitted 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, after 
     January 20, 2001) and the accompanying Future Years Defense 
     Plan (as well as any amendment to the Department of Defense 
     budget submitted before the submission of the report).
       (b) Engineering and Manufacturing Development.--Consistent 
     with funds provided in title IV of this Act, none of the 
     funds provided in this Act may be used to award a contract 
     for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the 
     Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program--
       (1) before the later of--
       (A) June 1, 2000; and
       (B) the date of the submission of each of the reports 
     required by subsection (a); and
       (2) until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 
     congressional defense committees that the Joint Strike 
     Fighter engineering and manufacturing development program is 
     fully funded in the Future-Years Defense Plan for each of the 
     principal Department of Defense participants in the Joint 
     Strike Fighter program.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:

       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with an entity that has 
     submitted information to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant 
     to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the entity has, 
     on a total of three or more occasions after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, either been convicted of, or had a 
     civil judgment rendered against it for--
       (1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a 
     Federal, State, or local contract or subcontract;
       (2) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes 
     relating to the submission of offers for contracts; or
       (3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
     falsification or destruction of records, making false 
     statements, or receiving stolen property.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order, and the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman does not insist 
on his point of order, because the amendment that is before the House 
now, which I am offering, would provide for ``three strikes and you're 
out'' for defense contractors who are convicted of government 
procurement related fraud only. They can have other offenses of law 
against their employees, environmental laws, any other Federal law, but 
more than three government procurement-related fraud convictions would 
suspend them from bidding on government contracts.
  I have quite a list of firms here, which I am not going to read 
through in its entirety, obviously; but the list, from 1988 to 1999, of 
several hundred convictions consists of $1.125 billion in penalties on 
firms for both civil and criminal fraud in the area of procurement.
  I believe that if we are talking about having the best most effective 
military we can have, the best weapon systems, the most cost-effective 
weapon systems, and having money adequate to provide training for our 
young men and women in uniform, we should do everything we can to 
squeeze fraud out of the system. Fraud is occurring, regularly 
occurring. Many would be shocked by the numbers and the names on this 
list, which is available through the Government Accounting Office.
  If the gentleman's point of order prevails, I will have to offer 
another amendment on this subject which would provide for ``one strike 
and you're out,'' which is in order and would also be retroactive. My 
legislation which is before us now would be ``three strikes and you're 
out,'' and it is not retroactive. So these hundreds of prior 
convictions would be forgiven, but the message would be sent to these 
defense contractors that we will no longer allow them to freely commit 
fraud in procurement; and if they do, the fourth time they do, they 
would be barred from further procurement for some period of time. The 
bill is not specific on the period of time for which they would be 
barred. There would be discretion available under existing law to the 
Secretary.
  I cannot see how anybody could raise an argument against this. Yes, 
someone can make a point of order and reduce it down to one strike and 
make it retroactive, which would of course disbar most of our existing 
contractors, because many have one, two, three or more convictions for 
prior fraud; but I would hope that everybody here is concerned about 
fraud.
  I believe this amendment could be crafted in a way that it would not 
be deleterious to our national defense. I would hope that the committee 
would accept the amendment and then perhaps rework it in a conference 
committee. I attempted to offer this amendment during the authorizing 
process, and I was precluded by the rule in offering a more 
sophisticated version of this amendment which would have dealt with a 
number of the questions that I am certain are going to be raised by 
members of the committee here. I had hoped to be able to do that during 
the authorizing process. I was not allowed to offer that amendment by 
the Committee on Rules, though it was submitted on a timely basis to 
the Committee on Rules.
  How can anybody defend continuing fraud? We have limited resources. 
Some of the fraud jeopardizes the safety of our troops; some of it goes 
to quality; some of it goes just to ripping off the Federal taxpayers. 
Either way, we cannot defend it; and we should bring an end to it. So I 
would suggest strongly that the gentleman withdraw his point of order, 
accept the amendment, and if they have some problems with some of the 
details, certainly those details could be provided for in conference 
with the Senate.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California insist on his point 
of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes a change in existing law and 
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, 
violates clause 2, rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment does not impose any new 
requirements on

[[Page H4013]]

the Secretary of Defense or contracting officers. Therefore, it is not 
legislating.
  According to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR 9.409(a), when 
the contract value is expected to exceed $25,000, contractors are 
required to disclose honestly, they are already required to disclose 
honestly, the existence of indictments, charges, convictions, or civil 
judgments against them in the area of procurement.
  Further, the contracting officer can come back to the contractor and 
request specific information on the indictments, charges, convictions, 
or civil judgments in order to evaluate the business integrity of a 
contract.
  This is all under existing law. My amendment is a limitation 
amendment that merely states if an entity, if a contractor, which again 
they are required to do under the FAR, admits to more than three 
convictions for civil or criminal fraud, then the taxpayer dollars 
spent by the Pentagon cannot be used to support that contractor because 
of their criminal behavior.
  The amendment lists a number of offenses that would trigger the 
contract prohibition. These provisions in my amendment were taken 
directly from the FAR 9.406-2. So, again, there is no new legislating 
or authorizing going on in this amendment.
  I would say that many and most all Members of this House voted for 
``three strikes you're out'' on Federal crimes against persons or the 
State. I would suggest that it would be appropriate to extend that 
principle to the very critical area of defense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. 
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon imposes a new burden 
on the Secretary of Defense by requiring him to discover the number of 
times an entity seeking to enter a contract with funds under this act 
has committed certain violations of law. While current law already 
imposes a duty on the Secretary to be apprised whether such violations 
have occurred, it does not require him to keep a tally.
  As such, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI and the amendment is not in order. The point of order is 
sustained.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:

       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with an entity that has 
     submitted information to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant 
     to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the entity has, 
     either been convicted of, or had a civil judgment rendered 
     against it for--
       (1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a 
     Federal, State, or local contract or subcontract;
       (2) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes 
     relating to the submission of offers for contracts; or
       (3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
     falsification or destruction of records, making false 
     statements, or receiving stolen property.

  Mr. DeFAZIO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to not be required to offer an 
amendment which would disbar contractors for committing criminal or 
civil fraud in procurement from the Federal taxpayers in doing business 
with the Pentagon, and do that with only one offense. I was willing to 
give them both the opportunity to amend their ways, that is to say, it 
would not be retroactive. And, secondly, that it would allow three 
strikes, the same thing allowed in many criminal cases against persons 
under Federal law.
  What message are we sending here tonight if the committee objects to 
this amendment? We have had extensive and emotional discussion about 
the lack of resources for our young men and women in uniform. What 
message are we sending to them saying the next time a contractor 
provides a piece of equipment that does not meet specifications and 
endangers their lives, their mission, that could strand them behind 
enemy lines.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just advise the 
gentleman that I did not reserve a point of order against this 
wonderful amendment that he is now presenting.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I did not say that the 
gentleman had. What I said is that the gentleman prevailed on his point 
of order against the first one, so now I must offer one that goes to 
one strike, which I admit is very rigorous.
  But the point I am making is what message are we sending to defense 
contractors who have committed fraud, and the list is long and it is 
ongoing, according to the Government Accounting Office, if we say to 
them we are not going to crack down on you; keep committing fraud, 
fraud that endangers the lives of young men and women in the military 
with substandard equipment, fraud that drains precious tax dollars from 
the training the gentleman from California so eloquently talked about 
earlier, fraud that takes resources away from the American people, 
their tax dollars, and diverts it into the coffers that have not been 
earned by defense contractors? What message are we sending if we cannot 
crack down on fraud?
  I cannot believe that Members would vote against such an amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
for a point of clarification?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, would this amendment apply 
to the allegations against the Loral Corporation and Bernard Schwartz 
and the technology transfer to China?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we have Loral down 
here on 12/8/89, $1.5 million, procurement fraud. The gentleman asked 
about a specific firm, and I was not going to read specific firms, but 
Loral has one conviction in 1989. I am looking to see if there are 
subsequent convictions of Loral.
  Oh, yes. Loral Electric Systems, DeFective pricing, 10/95, $1.55 
million. Loral only seems to have two convictions. So under my previous 
amendment, they would not have been barred, and I do not know if there 
is pending litigation against them, but many other firms would be. 
Although under the modified amendment, which is in order, they would be 
barred because they have two convictions.
  So I would hope that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) would 
reconsider. If he has concerns about barring firms who have only one 
criminal fraud indictment against them, DeFrauding the American 
taxpayer, DeFrauding the military and jeopardizing our military 
security, that then he would go back and reconsider, accept the 
original amendment, or accept this amendment with the idea of going to 
5 or 10 or 15 or 20 strikes, whatever he thinks would be necessary in 
the conference with the other body.

                              {time}  1900

  Personally, I think three strikes with no retroactivity having been 
put on notice by the $1.2 billion of fines paid in the past would be 
adequate.
  I would really hate to have to go and put Members on record on this 
vote. I think it is a very difficult vote for Members to cast. We would 
hear that this would hurt the defense of the country because most of 
our defense contractors have committed fraud at least once and been 
convicted of it. That is true. That is why I wanted to go with three 
fraud convictions.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to say to my friend the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) that his amendment is strongly opposed by the 
Defense Department because they already have the ability to deal with 
these issues.
  Let me give my colleagues what they say. This comes over from the 
comptroller:

       The Department strongly opposes this provision since it 
     would supersede the current suspension and debarment program 
     established in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR; 
     unduly burden the procurement process; and eliminate the 
     Department's flexibility in choosing with whom to do 
     business.

[[Page H4014]]

       The Department agrees that it should not do business with 
     firms or individuals whose conduct is unethical or unlawful. 
     To this end, the suspension and debarment system now in place 
     protects the Government from dealing with unscrupulous 
     contractors. It allows for individual debarment 
     determinations based on factors, such as poor performance or 
     violation of law, and requires due process so that 
     exceptions, often in the form of settlement agreements, may 
     be made when circumstances warrant.
       The Department recommends that the offenses listed continue 
     to be handled through the current FAR suspension and 
     debarment process. Last year over 800 firms and individuals 
     were suspended or debarred by the DOD.
       Government-wide there are 5,000 firms and individuals 
     currently suspended or debarred from doing business with the 
     Government. The existing FAR system gives the Department the 
     flexibility to consider mitigating factors and select an 
     appropriate debarment period.
       Potential mitigating factors include the fact that a firm 
     is the sole source supplier of a product or service, that the 
     offense was committed several years ago, and that the firm 
     has taken steps to prevent a recurrence or has removed the 
     individual responsible for the improper conduct and educated 
     its workforce on ethics and integrity.
       The FAR debarment process is well established and does not 
     impose undue administrative burdens or absolutely prohibit 
     doing business with critical suppliers.
       The Department already has the authority to debar 
     individuals and contractors for commission of offenses, such 
     as the ones indicated, as well as for a general lack of 
     business integrity or honesty.
       Making debarment statutory adds nothing to the authority 
     DOD already has and removes our ability to tailor the 
     appropriate sanctions to individual cases.

  So not only is this not necessary, the amendment of the gentleman 
would immediately debar almost all of the defense industry. Now, I know 
that he does not favor the defense industry, but getting rid of all of 
it at once, I think, would be overkill.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, how many strikes would the gentleman 
accept?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I cannot accept any 
strikes because the gentleman has not even gotten close to the plate 
with this amendment. So let us vote it down and move along.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), the ranking member, for their assistance in including language 
in this important bill concerning Beryllium illness and compensation 
and to make it a part of this defense appropriations measure.
  The language in the bill requires the Department of Defense to report 
to Congress for the first time on the incidence of Beryllium-related 
diseases amongst Department of Defense current and former employees, 
contractor employees serving during the Cold War, and vendor employees 
and to do so by May of next year.
  This requirement is a complement to the work already undertaken by 
the Department of Energy, under the leadership of Secretary Richardson, 
the difficulty we are having in getting our executive branch to focus 
on those workers who are ill who have performed work related to 
Beryllium either in Government-run plants, such as DOE facilities, or 
plants that were totally 100 percent contract shops for the Department 
of Defense or their vendors.
  The House would have considered the defense authorization bill last 
month included a sense of Congress resolution stating that Congress and 
the Federal Government has a responsibility toward people suffering 
from Chronic Beryllium Disease and other occupational diseases 
contracted while performing work related to our national security. But, 
of course, there was no actual compensation or medical benefits even 
contemplated in that particular measure.
  I want to place on the Record, Mr. Chairman, the bill that I have 
introduced, H.R. 3418, that actually would authorize that compensation 
and medical assistance for people who served in the line of duty to 
this country who are dying and who are having the Government of the 
United States turn its back on them year after year.
  Let me also state, for the Record, that Chronic Beryllium Disease is 
a horrendous illness. It is often debilitating, and it can be a fatal 
lung condition for a small percentage of people who worked in this 
industry, 2 percent. But we believe over 1,200 Americans have 
contracted this disease mostly by working in defense-related plants and 
some in energy-related facilities.
  What essentially happens is that if they have the Beryllium 
sensitivity, their lungs begin to crystallize over a period of time and 
they, essentially, are strangled to death.
  One of the people who was so injured was a constituent in my 
district, Mr. Gaylen Lemke, who first came to see me over 5 years ago 
to tell me about his experience. He worked in a contract shop that was 
on contract to the Department of Defense. Without question, he 
contributed his work and his life to this Nation winning the Cold War; 
and he suffered a slow and cruel death, as the disease slowly sapped 
his ability to breathe over the years.
  Gaylen Lemke is as much a veteran of this country as anyone who has 
flown an airplane or served on a submarine, and we owe him and his 
survivors the kind of treatment and compensation we provide for those 
who have suffered in the service of our Nation, our paralyzed veterans, 
our disabled veterans.
  I really hope that this Congress will find a way to provide the kind 
of compensation and medical care so these families, at one of the most 
difficult times in their lives, do not have to worry about the 
compensation and medical care for the person who has done so much for 
the Nation.
  I just again want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for 
including the language in this bill that pushes us forward as a country 
to understand the true costs of freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following time line of 
events on Beryllium disease and what we, as a country, have done thus 
far:

            Chronic Beryllium Disease Background Memorandum

     U.S. Beryllium production
       Brush Wellman, Inc. in Elmore, Ohio, is currently the only 
     company in the country that produces beryllium, a strong, 
     light metal. Beryllium is of strategic interest to the United 
     States because of its unique applications in the aeronautic 
     and aerospace fields. It is also an important component in 
     nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities.
       A former Brush facility in Luckey, Ohio, was closed in 
     1958, and it is currently undergoing remediation by the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers.
       The Brush manufacturing facility in Elmore employs about 
     600 people and produces both berryllium and beryllium alloy 
     products.
       Brush mines and processes beryllium ore at its facility in 
     Delta, Utah, and has other facilities in Pennsylvania and 
     Arizona.
       Until the mid-1990's Brush was primarily a defense 
     dependent industry with the Department of Defense and 
     Department of Energy being as much as 90% of its customer 
     base. Since then, the company has made a major transition 
     toward commercial products, and today those alloy products 
     represent the majority of the company's production. The 
     transition has also resulted in the expansion of the Elmore 
     plant and increased employment there.
     Kaptur legislative initiatives relating to beryllium
       Defense Strategic Metals Classification and Defense 
     Conversion: Initiatives in several Defense Authorization 
     bills to classify beryllium and related strategic metals as a 
     unique set of defense-related materials requiring special 
     attention and the transition of defense-related production to 
     commercial market applications.
       Medical Research: Appropriations for scientific and medical 
     research on prevention and treatment of chronic beryllium 
     disease (CBD).
       Victim Compensation: Compensation for the victims of CBD at 
     both federal (H.R. 3478) and state levels.
     Chronic Beryllium Disease
       Chronic Beryllium Disease is a chronic, often debilitating, 
     and sometimes fatal lung condition. A relatively small 
     number, perhaps 10% of the general population are uniquely 
     sensitive to exposures to beryllium. Of these, perhaps 20% (2 
     percent of the general population) could develop symptoms of 
     CBD if exposed.
       Several 9th District constituents, former and current Brush 
     Wellman employees suffer from CBD. Some of them have asked 
     for assistance on a number of issues. The most regular 
     requests are in three areas:
       Screening for beryllium sensitivity,
       Improved disability benefits for people suffering from CBD,

[[Page H4015]]

       Additional federal support for scientific research into 
     CBD, and
       A tightening of the exposure limits for persons working 
     with beryllium.
     Benefits
       There is no special program, federal or state, for persons 
     suffering from CBD, and victims are looking to the federal 
     government for relief as virtually all persons who have 
     contracted CBD, at least since WWII, have either worked for 
     the federal government or for employers contracted to the 
     federal government. They want a special federal compensation 
     program for beryllium workers similar to the Brown Lung 
     program for coal miners.
       State Workers Compensation or Occupational Disability laws 
     are woefully inadequate in providing compensation for CBD 
     largely because of the latency period of the disease tends to 
     be longer than the statute of limitations on claims.
     Compensation legislation in the 106th Congress, 1st Session
       H.R. 675: Introduced February 10, 1999, by Rep. Paul 
     Kanjorski (D-PA) establishes a federal beryllium disease 
     trust fund to provide a benefit for some former national 
     defense workers who suffer from CBD or for their families if 
     they are deceased:
       H.R. 675 establishes the Beryllium Exposure Compensation 
     Trust Fund in the Department of the Treasury.
       The trust fund would pay a one time award of $100,000 to 
     persons who worked in the beryllium industry between 1930 and 
     1980, were exposed to significant beryllium hazards in the 
     course of that employment, and who developed a condition 
     known to be related to beryllium exposure.
       The bill does not make any provision for funding the trust 
     fund. The trust fund if established would be dependent on 
     annual appropriations. That is a problem because it would 
     establish a federal entitlement without a dedicated revenue 
     source. It makes a promise to CBD sufferers without a 
     guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled.
       H.R. 675 provides no specific definition of covered 
     diseases.
       H.R. 675 is cosponsored by Reps. Brady, Sherrod Brown, 
     Gilchrest, Gutierrez, Holden, Inslee, Tubbs Jones, Klink, 
     Kucinich, Lantos, Manzullo, Pastor, Slaughter, Strickland, 
     Tancredo, Mark Udall, and Tom Udall.
       As a solution to the problem of CBD, H.R. 675 is now no 
     longer under active consideration by the House.
       H.R. 3418: Introduced by Rep. Kanjorski on November 17, 
     1999, on behalf of the Clinton Administration. H.R. 3418 
     reflected the position of the Department of Energy at the 
     time.
       H.R. 3418 establishes a federal compensation program for 
     employees of the DOE contractors and vendors who suffer from 
     CBD providing wage replacement benefits and medical coverage.
       H.R. 3418 provides the choice of retroactive compensation 
     for victims of CBD contracted before the bills enactment or, 
     at the employee's option, a retroactive lump sum award of 
     $100,000 to cover previous lost wages and medical expenses.
       H.R. 3418 does not provide benefits for contractors or 
     vendors to the Department of Defense.
       H.R. 3418 also provides for a pilot project to examine the 
     possible relationship between workplace exposures to 
     radiation, hazardous materials, or both and occupational 
     illness or other adverse health conditions.
       H.R. 3418 also provides a compensation program similar to 
     the beryllium compensation program for workers exposed to 
     radiation hazards at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion 
     plant.
       H.R. 3418 is cosponsored by Reps. Biggert, Brady, Sherrod 
     Brown, DeFazio, Holden, Kaptur, Klink, Phelps, Slaughter, 
     Thornberry, Mark Udall, Wamp, and Whitfield.
       H.R. 3478: Introduced by Rep. Kaptur on November 18, 1999, 
     provides a more comprehensive beryllium compensation bill.
       H.R. 3874 authorizes a federal workers' compensation 
     program for beryllium workers employed by the Department of 
     Energy and the Department of Defense, their contractors and 
     vendors who suffer from CBD.
       H.R. 3874 provides for a $200,000 lump sum retroactive 
     payment option.
       H.R. 3874 is cosponsored by Reps. Gillmor, Kanjorski, and 
     Hansen.
       H.R. 3874 does not address diseases other than those 
     related to beryllium.
       S. 1954: Introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) on 
     November 17, 1999. This bill is essentially identical to Rep. 
     Kanjorski's H.R. 3418.
     Compensation legislation in the 106th Congress, 2nd Session
       H.R. 4398: Reps. Strickland and Whitfield also introduced a 
     compensation bill on May 9, 2000.
       H.R. 4398 establishes a beryllium compensation program 
     administered by the Department of Labor under contract with 
     the Department of Energy.
       H.R. 4398 provides a $200,000 retroactive payment option 
     with prospective medical benefits.
       H.R. 4398 establishes a similar compensation program for 
     Department of Energy nuclear workers.
       H.R. 4398 directs the Secretary of Energy to determine if 
     similar compensation benefits should be provided to DOE 
     contractor employees exposed to other toxic materials in the 
     course of their work.
       H.R. 4398 does not provide coverage for construction 
     subcontractor employees at vendor plants.
       S. 2514: Senators Voinovich and DeWine introduced a 
     beryllium compensation bill, S. 2514, on May 9, 2000, which 
     is essentially the same as the Strickland/Whitfield bill.
       H.R. 4205, Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2001: 
     Kaptur supported a sense of the Congress amendment on the 
     House floor stating that Congress should act on legislation 
     providing compensation for Department of Energy workers with 
     beryllium disease.
       Defense Appropriation Bill for Fiscal 2001: In May 2000, 
     Kaptur secured bill language requiring the Department of 
     Defense to report back to Congress by May 2001, on the impact 
     of beryllium disease on DOD contractors and recommendations 
     for compensation for these employees.
     Research
       The federal government had conducted research into the 
     health effects of beryllium in the past, but by the early 
     1990's federal support for such research had lagged.
       In the fiscal 1998 appropriations process, Rep. Kaptur 
     raised the issue of the need for further research on CBD with 
     Dr. Kenneth Olden, Director of the National Institute on 
     Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She suggested areas 
     where additional research might be useful, among them:
       The standardization of diagnostic criteria and clinical 
     pathologic diagnostic modalities for CBD; and
       Determination of the physical, chemical, and steric 
     properties of beryllium in the work place to determine if the 
     size distribution, the particle number, and/or the particle 
     morphology are critical factors in the production of CDB in 
     the worker.
       As a result of this inquiry, Rep. Kaptur requested an 
     increase in the appropriation for the NIEHS to be used for 
     further research into CBD. The appropriation was increased.
       On March 18, 1999, almost solely as a result of Rep. 
     Kaptur's efforts, NIEHS, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
     Institute, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and 
     Health, and the Department of Energy announced, a major new 
     research initiative to the mechanisms of CBD.
     Exposure limits
       CBD support groups have argued that the current work place 
     exposure limits for beryllium are too high and result in an 
     unnecessarily high incidence of CBD among beryllium workers.
       The current exposure limit is 2 micrograms per cubic meter 
     (g/m\3\ ), measured as an 8 hour, time weighted 
     average.
       Rep. Kaptur officially wrote to Charles Jeffress, Assistant 
     Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health asking 
     the status of the current review of OSHA's current beryllium 
     exposure standard. Response received July 21, 1999, saying 
     that OSHA is reviewing the exposure standard.
       In December 1998, the Department of Energy issued a 
     proposed rule to change the beryllium exposure limits for DOE 
     employees to a bifurcated standard.
       The new DOE standard would establish a new short-term 
     exposure limit of 10 g/m\3\ for small-scale, short-
     duration exposures.
       And lower the 8 hour, time weighted exposure limit to 0.5 
     g/m\3\.
       The public comment period for this proposed new rule ended 
     on March 9, 1999.
       On December 8, 1999, the DOE issued a final rule, The 
     Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program for DOE 
     facilities. The new regulation retained the 2 g/m\3\ 
     PEL but instituted a new action level of 0.5 g/m\3\ 
     at which a number of engineering and work practice 
     precautions must be instituted.
     Defense conversion and materials research
       In 1994, Rep. Kaptur secured $2 million in the fiscal 1995 
     Defense Appropriations bill to aid in the companies' 
     conversion from defense-dependent companies to ones that also 
     produce advanced products for the commercial market. Of this, 
     Brush received a few hundred thousand dollars which helped in 
     the development of copper-beryllium alloy products for the 
     electronics and other high-tech industries Brush Related 
     Defense Projects:
       Because beryllium is such a critical national security 
     resource, Rep. Kaptur has acted a number of times behalf to 
     secure our nation's stockpile of strategic metals including 
     beryllium. She has also worked to insure that important 
     national defense research development projects related to 
     beryllium and other aerospace metals are funded.
       In May, 1995, Rep. Kaptur requested authorization of $25 
     million from Subcommittee on Military Research and 
     Development for the continued development of advanced 
     strategic aerospace metals and other lightweight structural 
     materials as a unique subset of the strategic materials 
     reserve. She also requested a $20 million appropriation for 
     this same purpose for fiscal 1996.
       Aerospace Metals Affordability Consortium: In 1998, Rep. 
     Kaptur secured in the fiscal 1999 Defense Appropriations bill 
     $5 million to initiate this applied research project to meet 
     the national security need for advances in special aerospace 
     metals and metal alloys for aircraft and space vehicle 
     structures, propulsion, components, and weapon systems. Ohio 
     firms are leading participants. The Consortium is funded 
     through and directed by the Air Force Research Laboratory at 
     Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton. For fiscal 2000 she secured 
     an additional $5 million for the Consortium, and for fiscal 
     2001, she secured $15 million to continue the Consortium's 
     work. Authorizing language for the Aerospace Metals 
     Affordability Consortium

[[Page H4016]]

     was included in the fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization bill.
       National Defense Strategic Metals Stockpile: Because 
     beryllium is an important national security resource, Rep. 
     Kaptur has on different occasions written to the Armed 
     Services Committee and to the Pentagon on strategic stockpile 
     issues.
       In May 1997, for instance, she wrote to the Pentagon in the 
     spring of 1997 regarding the potential sale of beryllium and 
     beryllium-copper alloy from the National Defense Stockpile. 
     The DOD responded that such sales were not being contemplated 
     at that time.
     Luckey FUSRAP site
       Brush Beryllium, the predecessor company to Brush Wellman, 
     operated a plant in Luckey, Ohio, as a beryllium production 
     facility under contract with the Department of Energy between 
     1949 and 1958.
       The site has been included in the Formerly Utilized Site 
     Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) currently under the 
     direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. A preliminary 
     radiological survey at the site showed that several areas 
     contain radiation, primarily from radium, in excess of 
     applicable guidelines. In addition, beryllium concentrations 
     in the soil at the site are well above background levels.
       The Corps is presently conducting an assessment of the 
     project's scope. The site is scheduled to be remediated by 
     2005.


                Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of title VIII (page 116, after line 22) insert 
     the following new section:
       Sec. ____. Grant To Support Research on Exposure To 
     Hazardous Agents and Materials by Military Personnel Who 
     Served in the Persian Gulf War. (a) Grant To Support 
     Establishment of Research Facility To Study Low-Level 
     Chemical Sensitivities.--Of the amounts made available in 
     this Act for research, development, test, and evaluation, the 
     Secretary of Defense is authorized to make a grant in the 
     amount of $1,650,000 to a medical research institution for 
     the purpose of initial construction and equipping of a 
     specialized environmental medical facility at that 
     institution for the conduct of research into the possible 
     health effect of exposure to low levels of hazardous 
     chemicals, including chemical warfare agents and other 
     substances and the individual susceptibility of humans to 
     such exposure under environmentally controlled conditions, 
     and for the conduct of such research, especially among 
     persons who served on active duty in the Southwest Asia 
     theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. The grant 
     shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The 
     institution to which the grant is to be made shall be 
     selected through established acquisition procedures.
       (b) Selection Criteria.--To be eligible to be selected for 
     a grant under subsection (a), an institution must meet each 
     of the following requirements:
       (1) Be an academic medical center and be affiliated with, 
     and in close proximity to, a Department of Defense medical 
     and a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.
       (2) Enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense 
     to ensure that research personnel of those affiliated medical 
     facilities and other relevant Federal personnel may have 
     access to the facility to carry out research.
       (3) Have demonstrated potential or ability to ensure the 
     participation of scientific personnel with expertise in 
     research on possible chemical sensitivities to low-level 
     exposure to hazardous chemicals and other substances.
       (4) Have immediate access to sophisticated physiological 
     imaging (including functional brain imaging) and other 
     innovative research technology that could better define the 
     possible health effects of low-level exposure to hazardous 
     chemicals and other substances and lead to new therapies.
       (c) Participation by the Department of Defense.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each element of the 
     Department of Defense provides to the medical research 
     institution that is awarded the grant under subsection (a) 
     any information possessed by that element on hazardous agents 
     and materials to which members of the Armed Forces may have 
     been exposed as a result of service in Southwest Asia during 
     the Persian Gulf War and on the effects upon humans of such 
     exposure. To the extent available, the information provided 
     shall include unit designations, locations, and times for 
     those instances in which such exposure is alleged to have 
     occurred.
       (d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than October 1, 2002, 
     and annually thereafter for the period that research 
     described in subsection (a) is being carried out at the 
     facility constructed with the grant made under this section, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on the results during the year preceding 
     the report of the research and studies carried out under the 
     grant.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which in a 
moment I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw.
  I have spoken to leading members of the committee and to their staff, 
and I have received assurance that this very important matter will, in 
fact, be taken care of later on during the process; and I am happy to 
accept their assurances. I would, however, like to take just a moment 
to raise the issue of what this amendment is about.
  Mr. Chairman, since 1993, there has been a bipartisan consensus in 
the House that the establishment of an environmental medical unit and 
research into multiple chemical sensitivity is one of the most 
promising areas in terms of understanding and treating Gulf War 
illness.
  In fact, in the fiscal year 1994 Department of Defense appropriations 
bill, this House approved money to begin construction of that unit. 
Unfortunately, that funding was greatly reduced in the subsequent 
conference committee and the Department of Defense chose to ignore the 
report language supporting the establishment of that project.
  In other words, 6 years later, and after all of the suffering and 
pain associated with Gulf War illness, we still have not been able to 
build a relatively inexpensive unit that could give us key information 
about the causes and possible treatment of Gulf War illness. And, 
frankly, this is unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be submitting to the committee a letter to the 
Honorable Jesse Brown, who was then Secretary of Defense of Veterans 
Affairs, dated November 19, 1993. This bipartisan letter, which was 
signed by Sonny Montgomery, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), Roy 
Roland, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and Frank Tejeda, 
Democrats and Republicans, asks for that money to build this 
environmental medical unit.
  The question is how many years do we have to wait before this very 
important project is undertaken?
  Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, this process has dragged on for 
too many years. Gulf War illness is a tragedy. It affects close to 
100,000 Americans. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who is 
chairman of the relevant subcommittee has done a terrific job. I have 
worked with him in trying to bring forth witnesses who can give us the 
information about Gulf War illness.
  There is widespread belief that multiple chemical sensitivity is one 
of the causes of Gulf War illness. This unit will go a long way in 
allowing us to understand the relationship of multiple chemical 
sensitivity and Gulf War illness.
  I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this 
amendment. And I believe that I have assurances from both the chairman 
and the ranking member that we are going to proceed on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) withdraw 
his amendment?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to take a moment to have the House know 
that this was the end of the first session in which Dave Killian has 
provided a leadership role on the other side of the aisle. He is a very 
able member of the Committee on Appropriations staff and worked with us 
for many, many years. I want to express our appreciation for his 
efforts this year, as well to express my appreciation for all of the 
staff on both sides of the aisle, and in particular Kevin Roper, who is 
my staff director, but especially to Betsy Phillips, who has been here 
all day on her birthday.


                 Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H4017]]

  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the Chairman for his efforts 
to address the serious problem of toxic waste remaining on the island 
of Bermuda and submit, on behalf of myself and the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for insertion in the Record, two letters to 
the chairman on this issue, one from the Premier of Bermuda and one 
from the British Ambassador, as well as a letter the Chairman wrote to 
the Secretary of the Navy on this topic.


                                            Hamilton, Bermuda,

                                                     May 29, 2000.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, House Appropriations 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that the House 
     Appropriations Committee is now considering report language 
     that would require the U.S. Department of Defense to work 
     with the Governments of Bermuda and the United Kingdom on a 
     resolution of the Bermuda base lands clean-up issue.
       In this connection, the Navy has on several occasions 
     stated that Bermuda agreed to accept the reversion of the 
     former Navy properties in Bermuda in an ``as is'' condition. 
     I wish to advise you unequivocally that this is not the case. 
     Bermuda has consistently expressed its concern directly to 
     the U.S. Navy about the contaminated condition of the base 
     lands and has never agreed to accept the property in its 
     contaminated state. As Ambassador Meyer reaffirmed during his 
     visit with the Subcommittee recently, the British Embassy has 
     also consistently supported Bermuda's position in this 
     matter.
       Immediately following notification that the properties 
     would be returned, Bermuda expended more than $1.5 million on 
     three separate environmental assessments of the base lands. 
     The assessments showed that leaks from the Navy's storage 
     tanks had created major free product plumes that are 
     threatening Bermuda's groundwater supplies. The assessment 
     also showed that sludge and raw sewage at the bottom of 
     Bassett's Cave and more than 400 tons of friable asbestos are 
     posing significant health risks to Bermuda's population. 
     Bermuda promptly turned over all such studies to the Navy.
       On the 14th of December 1994, some eight months before the 
     bases were closed, Bermuda submitted a formal position paper 
     to Captain Tim Bryan, Commanding Officer of the Bermuda Naval 
     Air Station. The paper detailed the environmental problems at 
     the base lands and communicated the view that the U.S. should 
     bear full responsibility for the contamination and 
     environmental problems at the U.S. base lands. In a 
     subsequent position paper dated 17th May 1995, three months 
     before closure, Bermuda formally notified the Navy that it 
     would not accept the U.S. position concerning abandonment of 
     the bases, and that ``the U.S. has moral and political 
     obligation for clean-up''. The Bermuda notification also 
     stated that ``Bermuda has formally advised the U.S. Navy on 
     two occasions that the contamination constitutes an 
     unacceptable imminent risk to citizens, residents and 
     visitors to Bermuda''.
       You will find attached for ease of reference Bermuda's 
     position papers of 14th December 1994 and 17th May 1995. I 
     hope this information is helpful to you. This matter has now 
     been protracted over nearly five years without a satisfactory 
     resolution. I have attached also two recent articles from 
     Bermuda's newspapers that show just how much this issue 
     continues to be a matter of major concern in Bermuda.
       We very much hope that your Committee will initiate a 
     process that can lead to a satisfactory resolution of this 
     matter without further delay. As always, we are very grateful 
     for your continuing interest in this issue.
           Yours sincerely,
                                  The Hon. C. Eugene Cox, JP, MP.,
     Acting Premier.
                                  ____



                                              British Embassy,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2000.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman, I understand that the House 
     Appropriations Sub-Committee on Defense, which you chair, 
     will soon be completing consideration of the Defense 
     Department's Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2001, 
     including the issue of the environmental clean-up of the 
     former U.S. military baselands in Bermuda, which closed in 
     1995. I am writing to confirm that the British Government 
     have always backed Bermuda's claim. This letter sets out why 
     we believe the U.S. has both a moral and legal responsibility 
     to clean up the environmental damage at the sites.


                     extent of environmental damage

       A number of studies by experienced U.S. and Canadian firms 
     have revealed extensive environmental damage at the bases. 
     The main concerns are:
       Serious soil and groundwater pollution caused by leaking 
     fuel storage tanks improperly closed when the bases ceased 
     operating;
       Bassett's Cave, in which the U.S. Navy disposed of raw 
     sewage and industrial wastes. There is now a layer of sludge 
     two to five feet thick, containing numerous toxic substances;
       Asbestos: approximately 70% of the abandoned U.S. buildings 
     contain asbestos, 25% of which is crumbling, and thus 
     particularly hazardous.
       I enclose a paper setting out the damage in more detail 
     (Annex A), and a paper challenging (i) the U.S. Navy's 
     assertions that Bermudian claims are exaggerated, and (ii) 
     the extent of the U.S. remedial efforts before departure 
     (Annex B).


                             legal position

       The U.S. Government have argued that there is no legal 
     requirement for additional clean-up. We disagree. We believe 
     that the reference in the 1941 Agreement to the ``spirit of 
     good neighborliness'', as well as its character as a lease, 
     imply a requirement that the lessee, the U.S., would return 
     the leased areas in a good physical condition, in accordance 
     with common law. Moreover, under customary international law, 
     and the ``polluter pays'' principle to which the U.S. 
     subscribes, States have a general obligation to ensure that 
     their activities do not damage other States' environment.
       We do not accept the U.S. Government's view that it is 
     entitled to compensation for the residual value of the 
     facilities which were left behind on closure. The 1941 
     Agreement makes no provision for this. Nor under common law 
     is a lessor liable to his lessee for improvements voluntarily 
     made by the lessee. In fact, the Bermudians will need to 
     spend a lot of money to turn the abandoned bases into useful 
     assets.
       The third enclosed paper (Annex C) sets out in more detail 
     the legal position on environmental damage, and on the 
     separate but related issue of the U.S. obligation to maintain 
     Longbird Bridge.


                         The Canadian Precedent

       The bases were established under the 1941 U.S./UK Leased 
     Bases Agreement. This agreement also applied to certain bases 
     in Canada. When these were closed, the U.S. Congress did 
     agree, in October 1998, to compensation, citing the unique 
     and longstanding national security alliance between the U.S. 
     and Canada, and the fact that the sites were used by the U.S. 
     and Canada for their mutual defense. We believe that the same 
     arguments apply at least as strongly to Bermuda in light of 
     the uniquely close U.S./UK defence relationship. In the 
     Canadian case, Congress also cited the substantial risk which 
     environmental contamination could pose to the health and 
     safety of U.S. citizens also applies in the case of Bermuda, 
     which 463,000 U.S. citizens visited last year and where 4,600 
     U.S. nationals have homes.
       Although we believe that the Canadian case does provide a 
     precedent for Bermuda, we do not believe that clean-up in 
     Bermuda need create a precedent which might be used against 
     the U.S. in relation to bases elsewhere in the world, given 
     the limited territorial scope of the 1941 Leased Bases 
     agreement.
       I hope that this information is helpful, and would welcome 
     your views on the best way to advance this issue. I would be 
     happy to brief you and your colleague son the Defence Sub-
     Committee on Appropriations, to whom I am copying this 
     letter, in more detail if you felt this would be useful. I 
     could accompany my briefing with a short video highlighting 
     the extent of the contamination on the island.
           Sincerely,
     Christopher Meyer.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2000.
     Hon. Richard J. Danzig,
     Secretary of the Navy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Danzig: On May 4, 2000, the British 
     Ambassador, Sir Christopher Meyer, met with several members 
     of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to explain the 
     British Government's strong support for Bermuda and its 
     interest in seeing the Bermuda base cleanup issue resolved 
     promptly.
       As we had not yet had an opportunity to discuss this issue 
     with you, the Committee chose not to include any directive 
     language regarding environmental cleanup at Bermuda in the 
     fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill 
     that we have just reported out of Committee. It is our 
     intention, however, to revisit this issue during conference 
     committee deliberations with the Senate.
       I understand from a previous Navy report to the Committee, 
     forwarded on February 11, 1998, that it is the Navy's 
     position that ``the United States is under no legal 
     obligation to remediate environmental contamination at its 
     former bases in Bermuda''. However, I am concerned that this 
     issue could become a serious irritant between the U.S, the 
     U.K. and Bermuda if it is not resolved soon. I therefore 
     request that you look into this issue to determine what 
     options you have at your disposal and what recommendations 
     you would make to reach a satisfactory resolution of this 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jerry Lewis,
                                   Chairman, Defense Subcommittee.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the remainder of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2001''.

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gutknecht) having assumed the chair, Mr.

[[Page H4018]]

 Camp, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department of Defense 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, 
pursuant to House Resolution 514, he reported the bill back to the 
House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). As indicated by the bells, 
the next series of votes will be 5 minutes each.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 367, 
nays 58, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 241]

                               YEAS--367

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--58

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Luther
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stark
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Danner
     Greenwood
     Houghton
     Istook
     Markey
     McInnis
     Smith (MI)
     Vento
     Wise

                              {time}  1936

  Messrs. RANGEL, TOWNS and BROWN of Ohio changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WYNN and Mr. METCALF changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 241, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________