Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)

[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

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.''

____________________