[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 130 (Tuesday, October 2, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1768-E1769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DIANA DeGETTE

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 25, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2586) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for 
     other purposes.

  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chairman, I rise today to give my qualified 
support to H.R. 2586, the 2002 Defense Authorization Act and to explain 
the reasoning behind my vote. Although I support a strong and effective 
national defense, I have opposed Defense authorization and 
appropriations bills in the past. Many of the funds included in past 
bills would have gone to purchase weapon systems and other items that 
the Pentagon did not request and whose efficacy was questionable. I 
voted against past bills because I believe Congress must more 
effectively target scarce resources to all our national priorities.
  However, one of the reasons that I am supportive of this legislation 
today is the fact that we are heading into a potentially protracted and 
difficult military conflict and it is important that our nation's armed 
services have necessary and appropriate resources available to them 
quickly. Additionally, I voted for H.R. 2586 with the understanding 
that certain controversial and questionable provisions of the bill will 
be worked out in conference with the Senate.
  The Defense Authorization bill contains provisions that will provide 
increased benefits to the men and women of our armed forces, including 
retirees, and their families. The bill will include the largest 
increase in pay for members of our nation's military in 19 years. 
Additionally, this pay raise will be targeted to provide lower-paid 
enlistees with greater benefits.
  With housing prices rising across the country, lower-paid members of 
our voluntary military forces sometimes struggle to pay their housing 
costs. The Defense Authorization bill would effectively reduce the 
current out-of-pocket housing costs for servicemembers from

[[Page E1769]]

15 percent to 11.3 percent by next year, and would seek to completely 
eliminate the out-of-pocket housing expenses by 2005. The 2002 Defense 
Authorization bill would also provide $17.6 billion for defense 
healthcare including funding for promised care under TRICARE for 
Medicare-eligible military retirees.
  The bill also includes important environmental cleanup provisions and 
assistance to foreign nations for humanitarian efforts. The bill would 
provide $3 billion for the Energy Department to clean facilities with 
extensive and severe environmental damage before those facilities 
close. Funding for the development of new technologies to clean the 
environment is also included in the bill.
  Despite these important provisions, I have grave concerns with 
certain provisions in the bill that I believe could harm our nation's 
relations with key allies. This bill includes $8.2 billion for missile 
defense, which is 55 percent more than the current funding level. It 
also includes authorization to construct a test bed for a national 
missile defense system in Alaska. This test bed could violate the 
AntiBallistic Missile (ABM) treaty, which has been the cornerstone of 
international arms control for nearly 30 years. The proposed national 
missile defense system has only been tested in ways that can be 
described as artificial, and a majority of those tests have failed. In 
fact, a panel of Defense Department experts cautioned that Congress's 
rush to install a national missile defense was a ``rush to failure.''
  Congress's misguided insistence on developing a missile defense 
shield and its apparent willingness to abrogate the ABM treaty will 
seriously injure America's relations with its foreign allies. Our 
European allies--Britain, France and others--have expressed 
reservations about America's unilateral approach toward national 
missile defense. Additionally, Congress's insistence on a national 
missile defense that violates the ABM treaty could incite another arms 
race. Already, China has warned that it would acquire as many ballistic 
missiles with as many warheads as possible if the United States 
unilaterally deploys a missile defense.
  While I strongly oppose provisions in the bill that would violate the 
ABM treaty by pushing forward with the development of a missile shield, 
I voted for the Defense Authorization bill with the understanding that 
both Republicans and Democrats will work together to come to an 
agreement on these contentious provisions. The Senate has already 
indicated its intention to cut $1 billion from the funding contained in 
the bill for missile defense and it intends to consider a separate bill 
at a later date that will ensure Congress's authority to oversee any 
missile tests that could violate the ABM treaty.

                          ____________________