[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 173 (Thursday, December 13, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10069-H10080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H10069]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1438, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 316 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 316
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 1438) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for
such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
This morning, the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule providing
for further consideration of S. 1438, the fiscal year 2002 Department
of Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of order
against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule
also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows us to finish up our work on the defense
bill. All of us, on both sides of the aisle, recognize that we must
provide for our military in this time of crisis. Indeed, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Frost) who is managing this rule for the minority, has
always been a strong advocate for our men and women in uniform.
The American people realize how important this is because we can
leave nothing to chance. The primary purpose of the Federal Government
is to defend our citizens, and the military is our primary source of
that defense. We must act quickly to give our men and women in uniform
the tools that they need to patrol our borders and to prevent terrorist
attacks.
So let us pass this rule and pass the underlying defense bill. At the
end of the day, we will have provided $343 billion to our Armed Forces,
the largest increase in support for our military since the mid-1980s.
These funds include $7 billion to fight terrorist, and at this crucial
time in our history, this bill is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, Mr. Speaker, the brave men and women of the
U.S. military are halfway around the world waging and winning the war
on terrorism. Their courage and professionalism are a fitting tribute
to the strength and unity of the United States of America.
At the same time, the American people have pulled together to support
the war abroad, and to protect each other here at home.
Here in Congress, there is strong bipartisan support for America's
Armed Forces. The history of this defense authorization bill reflects
that fact. In August, the House Committee on Armed Services reported
its original version on a bipartisan vote of 58-1. The full House then
passed H.R. 2586 by a vote of 398-17 on September 25. I am confident
that another large, bipartisan majority will pass this conference
report today.
Mr. Speaker, that is because Democrats and Republicans are strongly
committed to America's national defense and to the first rate military
that carries it out. The security of the United States of America is
not a partisan issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report, and the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
the ranking Member, deserve tremendous credit for their hard work for
America's troops.
This conference report provides $7 billion to combat terrorism and
defeatN O T I C E
Effective January 1, 2002, the subscription price of the
Congressional Record will be $422 per year or $211 for six months.
Individual issues may be purchased for $5.00 per copy. The cost for
the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies
remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based
upon the cost of printing and distribution.
Michael F. DiMario, Public
Printer
[[Page H10070]]
weapons of mass destruction, a substantial and much-needed increase. It
provides for a significant military pay raise, and for substantial
increases in critical readiness accounts. It strengthens research for
tomorrow's weapons and equipment, while providing the weapons and
equipment the U.S. military needs today.
Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased by the substantial quality of
life improvements in this bill. It includes a significant pay raise of
between 5 and 10 percent for every member of the military. And to boost
critical mid-level personnel retention, much of the pay raise will be
directed toward junior officers.
The bill also significantly increases health benefits for
servicemembers and their families, and it provides $10.5 billion, some
$528 million more than the President requested, for military
construction and family housing, because the men and women who defend
America should not have to live and work in substandard facilities.
{time} 1100
I am also pleased that this conference report continues to fund the
wide range of weapons programs that ensure our military superiority
throughout the world. For instance, it includes more than $2.6 billion
for the initial production of 13 of the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the next-
generation air dominance fighter for the Air Force. The conference
report also includes $379 million for F-22 advance procurement for
fiscal year 2003, and more than $865 million for research and
development for this aircraft.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the conference report provides some $1.5
billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter, the
high-technology, multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force,
the Navy and the Marines. And it includes $1.3 billion for the
procurement of 11 MV-22 Osprey aircraft for the Marine Corps, and
$559.4 million for research and development for the Navy, Air Force and
Special Operations Command versions of this vital aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, all of these aircraft are important components in our
national arsenal, and moving forward on their research and production
sends a clear signal that the United States has no intention of
relinquishing our air superiority.
The first duty of the Congress, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for the
national defense and for the men and women who protect it. This
bipartisan bill does a great deal to improve military readiness and to
improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform, as well
as for their families.
For that reason, I urge the adoption of this rule and of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is well known that
Americans today have a very special challenge. With the backdrop of the
loss of life on September 11, we do have the responsibility to ensure
that this Nation is secure.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this rule and, as
well, offer my tentative support for the authorization bill. I say that
because we are doing what we need to do as it relates to our military
personnel. We are providing them with the necessary pay raise to
provide the excellence and the remuneration that they deserve in
ensuring the safety of this Nation and around the world. It is
important as well that they have the necessary equipment, the necessary
flight equipment and training that this legislation suggests.
Mr. Speaker, however, I believe that there are dollars expended that
could be utilized in a different approach. We need dollars for homeland
security, and this bill includes $8.3 billion for ballistic missile
defense. There is no proof, Mr. Speaker, that this expenditure of
dollars is going to make America any more secure. There is no proof
that, in fact, these dollars could not be better utilized in providing
dollars to our emergency first responders, our police and fire, to our
public hospital system. Anthrax is still a scare in this Nation and the
better direction would have been to utilize these dollars. No one has
determined as to whether or not this world will enter into a nuclear
war and these ballistic missile dollars will be of any value.
Additionally, I would hope that the $14 billion for nuclear weapons-
related activities of the Department of Energy will be used to end
nuclear proliferation. That would be the better use of those dollars.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if all of us could have had
the kind of input and assessment on how these dollars should have been
directed. To the personnel, I say yes. To the improvement in housing
and other living conditions, yes. To the necessary equipment utilized
by our military, absolutely. But to the needs of those who also
confront homeland defense, we did not do them a service in this
legislation.
For the very reason that we are fighting terrorism, Mr. Speaker, I
believe it is necessary to support this legislation; but I hope that we
will have, as the Congress continues, the opportunity to reassess the
direction in which we go.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for yielding me the
time. I want to also thank the ranking member, the chairman of the
committee, and the membership of the committee for their fine work. I
think that they have, under very difficult circumstances, gone about
doing the work that is important to the country and uniting the country
and making sure that the country is protected.
What I am concerned about is that this House has continually stood up
and voted against any additional base closure commissions. I recognize
that there is the possibility of a recommittal motion which will be
able to be addressed, but I also notice that there may not be any time
to be able to have that discussion. I know that the House has stood
firm and negotiated in very difficult circumstances to be able to make
what they felt was a very important effort in this regard. But having
been a part of a process in 1995 and witnessing it firsthand and also
being able to watch it and participate in another instance back in 1988
in that process and then recognizing that we may not have gained the
savings that were supposed to be gained, and then also at the same time
recognizing that a lot of the communities that were left behind were
truly left behind, there was no additional resources for environmental
or community cleanup. Once the facility was closed, that was it; and we
were left as communities to have to struggle with that.
I am concerned about pushing this forward, also, at the same time
that we are looking at a war that we really have not got complete
understanding in terms of the depth and degree of what we are up
against in terms of this worldwide effort against terrorism. I
appreciate the House conferees and their resistance to this motion in
this element of the bill, but I also recognize that it now is in the
conference report. I wanted to have an opportunity to be able to
address it because I do not think at this time that it makes sense to
be moving forward in this regard at the same time that we are still
trying to develop the quadrennial report in terms of our defense needs
and at the same time we are trying to better ascertain whether those
bases are going to be needed or not needed. And I think it is at a time
where we are at war and united in the war effort, we will begin
engaging communities and also areas and interests to be trying to
protect those bases at the same time that we are engaged in a war,
which may prove to be ultimately dividing up our strength and unity
that we have been able to have at this time.
I wanted to register that concern about this product. I recognize
that there is an awful lot here for pay raises. Our troops need the pay
raises, and I noticed that health care and other issues have been
taken.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
(Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
[[Page H10071]]
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and will support the conference
report. There are some things in the conference report that are not
fully satisfactory to me, as is often the case with conference reports.
But the conference report also includes some items that I very strongly
support, and I want to speak briefly about two of them.
First, the conference report includes legislation dealing with the
future of Rocky Flats, the former nuclear-weapons production facility
in Colorado. Under this part of the conference report, Rocky Flats will
be transferred from the Department of Energy to the Department of the
Interior once it is cleaned up and closed and then will be managed as a
national wildlife refuge. This builds on legislation that I first
introduced in the 106th Congress to preserve this area for its open
space and wildlife resources and incorporates the later bill that I
developed in collaboration with Senator Allard. I had the privilege of
serving as a House conferee on this provision, and I am very pleased
that the other conferees agreed to its inclusion in the final bill.
In years past, Rocky Flats made significant contributions to our
Nation's security and the economies of the local communities
surrounding it. But it was always more than just an industrial site. In
fact, the Colorado Natural Areas Program determined that this 6,400-
acre landscape, with its prairie grasses, numerous creeks and draws and
ponds, contains some of the most highly valued and rare examples of
dry, upland prairie ecosystems in the country. Rocky Flats will be a
most worthwhile addition to the Nation's wildlife refuge system.
Mr. Speaker, there is another important reason that the House should
approve the conference report. The report includes vital funding for
people covered by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. The
people covered by RECA include uranium miners and millers and others
who worked to support the nuclear weapons program or who were exposed
to its fallout. And because of that exposure, they are sick with
cancers and other serious diseases. Many of them are residents of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and other western States.
When Congress enacted the RECA law, we promised to pay compensation
for their illnesses. But we have not fully kept that promise. We have
been slow to appropriate enough money to pay everyone who is entitled
to be paid. As a result, too often the Department of Justice has had to
send people letters saying that while they are entitled to the money
Congress promised, their payments would have to wait until Congress
made good on its word. I think that should not happen again.
That is why I have joined in sponsoring legislation to make these
RECA payments completely automatic. The conference report does not
quite do that, but it does provide mandatory funds for paying RECA
claims through 2011, subject to certain limits. I do not know if the
limits set in the conference report will be adequate, but it is
important that we act now to reduce the chance that more people will be
sent IOUs instead of the money to which they are entitled.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons above, I urge approval of the rule and
the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my support for the provision in
this bill which would transfer the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons
facility in Colorado to the Interior Department for management as a
national wildlife refuge once the site is cleaned up and closed.
This provision was developed through a collaborative partnership with
Senator Allard. Together, we were able to produce a bill that we hope
will stand as a model for transitioning former nuclear weapons sites
across the country into productive natural assets for their surrounding
communities.
In shaping this legislation, Senator Allard and I consulted closely
with local communities, State and Federal agencies, and interested
members of the public. We received a great deal of very helpful input,
including many detailed reactions to and comments on related
legislation that I introduced in 1999 and discussion drafts that
Senator Allard and I circulated in 2000.
The Rocky Flats facility made some significant contributions to our
nation's security and the economies of local communities. The language
of this provision includes a strong acknowledgment of that history and
legacy. Its mission has shifted from weapons production to cleanup, and
looking toward the completion of the process I recognized a need and an
opportunity for another new mission--to preserve the open spaces and
wildlife habitat that has remained relatively untouched behind security
fences and guard shacks.
That is why in 1999 I proposed that the site remain in federal
ownership as open space. And when after that there was a suggestion of
converting the site to a national wildlife refuge, I supported that
approach because it was consistent with the principles of federal
ownership, open space and habitat protection, and thorough, effective
cleanup.
In fact, this 6,400-acre landscape, with its prairie grasses,
numerous creeks and draws, and ponds is ideal wildlife habitat. As
evidence of this value, the Colorado Natural Areas Program, which
evaluates landscapes in Colorado for unique, threatened and critical
natural resources, determined that the Rocky Flats area contains some
of the most highly valued and rare examples of dry, upland prairie
ecosystems in the country. This area will thus be a valued addition to
the nation's wildlife refuge system and in so doing will thereby
protect these resources for generations to come.
This provision contains a number of elements, which I outline in more
detail below. But let me address just a couple of specific issues that
have generated much discussion.
First, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and its
National Wind Technology Center. This research facility, which is
located northwest of the site, has been conducting important research
on wind energy technology. As many in the region know, this area of the
Front Range is subjected to strong winds that spill out over the
mountains and onto the plains. This creates ideal wind conditions to
test new wind power turbines. I support this research and believe that
the work done at this facility can help us be more energy secure as we
find ways to make wind power more productive and economical. NREL has
been interested in expanding the wind power research performed on this
site. To accommodate that, the legislation provides for 25 acres in the
northwest section of the site to be retained by DOE for the expansion
of the Center.
Second, transportation issues. Rocky Flats is located in the midst of
a growing area of the Denver metropolitan region. As this area's
population continues to grow, pressure is being put on the existing
transportation facilities just outside the site's borders. The
communities that surround the site have been considering transportation
improvements in this area for a number of years--including the
potential completion of a local beltway. In recognition of this, the
legislation allows for some Rocky Flats land along Indiana Street (the
eastern boundary of the site) to be used for this purpose under certain
circumstances.
Third, the legislation requires the DOE and the Department of the
Interior to develop a memorandum of understanding to help facilitate
smooth transition from Rocky Flats's current status to the new status
provided for by the legislation. In this regard it is important to note
that the legislation requires DOE to retain any ``engineered
structure'' that may be needed to control the release of contamination.
This language in no way requires the DOE to construct any facility for
the long-term storage of wastes or materials. Rather, it is expected
that wastes and materials presently stored on the site or generated
during cleanup and closure will be transported to safe and secure off-
site locations. Hence, this language is only intended to refer to the
types of structures typically used to control the release of
contamination, such as ongoing operation and maintenance intercept and
treatment systems that are envisioned under Superfund remediations.
Fourth, private property rights. Most of the land at Rocky Flats is
owned by the federal government, but within its boundaries there are a
number of pre-existing private property rights, including mineral
rights, water rights, and utility rights-of-way. In response to
comments from many of their owners, the legislation acknowledges the
existence of there rights, preserves the rights of their owners,
including rights of access, and allows the Secretaries of Energy and
Interior to address access issues to continue necessary activities
related to cleanup and closure of the site and proper management of its
resources.
With regard to water rights, the legislation protects existing
easements and allows water rights holders access to perfect and
maintain their rights. With regard to mineral rights, the Secretaries
of Energy and Interior, through the MOU, are directed to work together
to address any potential impacts associated with these rights on the
refuge. Finally, with regard to power lines and the proposal to extend
a line from a high-tension line that currently crosses the site, the
legislation preserves the existing rights-of-way for these lines and
allows the construction of one power line from an existing line to
serve the growing region northwest of Rocky Flats. The DOE is presently
working with Xcel to locate the final alignment for this power line
extension to the site's eastern boundary.
[[Page H10072]]
Fifth, the Rocky Flats Cold War Museum. The legislation authorizes
the establishment of a museum to commemorate the Cold-War history of
the work done at Rocky Flats. Rocky Flats has been a major facility of
interest to the Denver area and the communities that surround it. Even
though this facility will be cleanup and closed down, we should not
forget the hard work done here, what role it played in our national
security and the mixed record of its economic, environmental and social
impacts. The city of Arvada has been particularly interested in this
idea, and took the lead in proposing inclusion of such a provision.
However, a number of other communities have expressed interest in also
being considered as a possible site for the museum. Accordingly, the
legislation provides that Arvada will be the location for the museum
unless the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with relevant
communities, decides to select a different location after consideration
of all appropriate factors such as cost, potential visitation, and
proximity to the Rocky Flats site.
Finally, cleanup levels. Some concerns were expressed that the
establishment of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge could result in a
less extensive or thorough cleanup of contamination from its prior
mission that otherwise would occur. Of course, that is not the
intention of this legislation. The legislation ensures that the cleanup
is based on sound science, compliance with federal and state
environmental laws and regulations, and public acceptability.
Specifically, the cleanup is tied to the levels that will be
established in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA) for soil, water
and other media following a public process to review and reconsider the
cleanup levels in the RFCA. In this way, the public will be involved in
establishing cleanup levels and the Secretary of Energy will be
required to conduct a thorough cleanup based on that input.
In addition, and very importantly, the legislation specifies that the
establishment of the site as a wildlife refuge cannot reduce the level
of cleanup--thereby establishing that the wildlife refuge designation
establishes a minimum standard for cleanup while still allowing for
more extensive cleanup and removing any possibility of a lesser cleanup
based on use of the lands for a wildlife refuge.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to Senator Allard for his
outstanding cooperation in drafting this important legislation. I am
very appreciative of his contributions and those of his staff and look
forward to implementing this provision.
I also want to say thank you for all the work and input of the many
individuals and groups involved with Rocky Flats and with developing
this refuge legislation. There are too many to mention, but I would
like to specially acknowledge and thank all of the entities that
comprise the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments--Boulder and
Jefferson Counties, and the cities of Arvada, Boulder, Broomfield,
Superior and Westminster. I also want to thank the past and present
members of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board. My thanks also go
to the members of the Friends of the Foothills and Rachael Carson
Group, the local chapter of the Sierra Club.
In the past, Rocky Flats has been off-limits to development because
it was a weapons plant. That era is over--and its legacy at Rocky Flats
has been very mixed, to say the least. But it has left us with the
opportunity to protect and maintain the outstanding natural, cultural,
and open-space resources and value of this key part of Colorado's Front
Range area. This provision will accomplish that end, provide for
appropriate future management of the lands, and will benefit not just
the immediate area but all of Colorado and the nation as well.
Here is a brief outline of the main elements of this part of the
conference report. It--
Provides that the Federally-owned lands at Rocky Flats site will
remain in federal ownership; that the Lindsay Ranch homestead
facilities will be preserved; that no part of Rocky Flats can be
annexed by a local government; that no through roads can be built
through the site; that some portion of the site can be used for
transportation improvements along Indiana Street along the eastern
boundary; and that 25 acres be reserved for future expansion of the
National Wind Technology Center just northwest of the site.
Requires DOE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding within 18 months after enactment to address
administrative issues and make preparations regarding the future
transfer of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service and to divide
responsibilities between the agencies until the transfer occurs;
provides that the cleanup funds shall not be used for these activities.
Specifies when the transfer from DOE to the Fish and Wildlife Service
will occur--namely when the cleanup is completed and the site is closed
as a DOE facility.
Describes the land and facilities that will be transferred to the
Fish and Wildlife Service (most of the site) and the facilities that
will be excluded from transfer (including any cleanup facilities or
structures that the DOE must maintain and remain liable for);
Directs that the transfer will not result in any costs to the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Directs that the DOE will continue to be required to clean up the
site and that in the event of any conflicts, cleanup shall take
priority; maintains DOE's continuing liability for cleanup.
Requires the DOE to continue to clean up and close the site under all
existing laws, regulations and agreements.
Requires that establishment of the site as a National Wildlife Refuge
shall not reduce the level of cleanup required.
Requires the DOE to clean up the site to levels that are established
in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement as the agreement is revised based
on input from the public, the regulators and the Rocky Flats Soil
Action Level Oversight Panel.
Requires DOE to remain liable for any long-term cleanup obligations
and requires DOE to pay for this long-term care.
Establishes the Rocky Flats site as a National Wildlife Refuge 30
days after transfer of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Provides that the refuge is to be managed in accordance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
Provides that the refuge's purposes are to be consistent with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, with specific
reference to preserving wildlife, enhancing wildlife habitat,
conserving threatened and endangered species, providing opportunities
for education, scientific research and recreation.
Directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to convene a public process to
develop management plans for the refuge; requires the Fish and Wildlife
Service to consult with the local communities in the creation of this
public process.
Provides that the public involvement process shall make
recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Service on management issues--
specifically issues related to the operation of the refuge, any
transportation improvements, any perimeter fences, development of a
Rocky Flats museum and visitors center; requires that a report is to be
submitted to Congress outlining the recommendations resulting from the
public involvement process.
Recognizes the existence of other property rights on the Rocky Flats
site, such as mineral rights, water rights and utility right-of-way;
preserves these rights and allows the rights holders access to their
rights.
Allows the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose reasonable
conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and
refuge management purposes.
Directs the DOE and the Department of the Interior to address any
potential impacts associated with mineral rights (and other property
rights) on the refuge.
Allows Xcel, Colorado's public utility, to provide an extension from
their high-tension line on the site to serve the area around Rocky
Flats.
Authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats museum to commemorate
the history of the site, its operations and cleanup.
Requires the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife Service to inform Congress
on the costs associated with implementing this Act.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor
of the DOD authorization bill. It includes funding for a program that
helps a group of people that are near and dear to all of our hearts,
our firefighters.
The DOD bill authorizes $900 million per year for the next 3 years
for the Firefighter Assistance Grant program, that bill which was
introduced in 1999 and passed last year with a tremendous amount of
support across the aisle.
Today, we authorize this grant program at the level it should have
been authorized in the first place. We are sending a message to the
appropriators, letting them know how valuable we think this program
really is. Just last month, we passed the VA-HUD appropriations bill
which provides funding of $150 million for fiscal year 2002. It is far
from the amount that I think the members of our fire services deserve
and need. But it is a start. If September 11 taught us anything, it is
the importance of the firefighters as first responders to the public
safety equation. We had to scrape and beg to get $100 million last year
in an emergency spending bill.
The leadership told us they did not believe us when we said the fire
services needed this money desperately. Boy, were they wrong. Of the
32,000 fire departments in this country, over 19,000 of them applied
for these grants, totaling up to $3 billion in requests. I am a bit
chagrined that we are still scraping and begging the appropriators
[[Page H10073]]
for a measly $150 million in view of the problem. But I tell you, we
will take it.
Trust me, you will be hearing from all of the fire departments in
your districts around the country, both career and volunteer. The odds
are that all of us have a few fire departments at home that will not
get a grant this year because there was not enough money. Next year, I
bet we will not be begging and scraping. Next year I bet we will be a
lot closer to our newly authorized funding level of $900 million,
because there are few heroes in our lives, people who put their necks
on the line day in and day out to keep us safe. That is what we are
doing here today. We are giving back to those heroes.
{time} 1115
I know our contribution to this worthy cause will continue to rise as
each of you hears from your own constituents about the need for more
fire personnel, more safety equipment and vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank folks from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. This is the House
of Representatives operating on a bipartisan basis at its highest
level. I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on
the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 316, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1438), to authorize
appropriations for the fiscal year 2002 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Pursuant to the rule, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
December 12, 2001, at page H 9333.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference
report on the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorize Act.
This legislation results from almost 2 months of intense conference
activity resolving hundreds of issues in disagreement with the Senate.
It is fair to say that this conference report represents the ultimate
compromise, as it has something in it to disappoint virtually everyone
involved.
But, that is the nature of this process. You win some, you lose some,
and others you try to find a middle ground. The important point,
however, is that we have been able to reach an agreement that, in the
aggregate, is a good bill and deserves the support of the House.
This bill stays true to the bipartisan and bicameral goal of all
conferees, protecting the welfare of our fighting men and women during
this time of crisis and providing the President and Secretary of
Defense the needed tools to accomplish their difficult mission.
Over the strong reservation of many House Members, including myself,
we have agreed to authorize a round of base closures, but not until
2005. We have ensured that the next round of BRAC will stay focused on
the overriding objective of enhancing the military posture of the
United States and not blindly saving pennies or cutting political
deals.
The bill also places the decision process on the thorny issue of
Naval training on the island Vieques back where it belongs, in the
hands of the Navy officials and out of the political realm.
This conference report also arrives at a good solution on how to
proceed with the critical development of a ballistic missile defense
system. The agreement provides the President with the option to spend
the full amount requested on this important program.
Finally, the bill authorizes the most generous pay raise in 20 years
and provides a number of other enhancements of benefits for our men and
women in uniform and their families.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment, halfway around the globe, thousands of
sons and daughters are engaged in a noble cause against the forces of
evil and intolerance. Our job is to support them and provide them with
the necessary resources and tools to successfully accomplish this task
and ensure that they are safely returned to their families.
The bill provides for all of those goals, and I commend it to my
colleagues for support.
Before concluding, I want to briefly express my thanks to all the
conferees who have worked so hard on these issues and in particular, my
friend and partner, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who has
shared my firm commitment to ensuring that this bill and the interests
of the troops were not sacrificed due to the political difficulties we
have faced this year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1438, the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. I will explain why in a
moment, but first let me compliment my friend, the gentleman from
Arizona, on the truly outstanding job he did in shaping the conference
report. This is the maiden voyage of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, and the seas
were far from smooth. Many of the issues that faced us were
particularly difficult for him personally. But I applaud his
leadership, and I thank him, and I recognize that the totality of the
bill is more important. When our country is at war, he handled that
extremely well, and let me thank him publicly for that.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are considering this bill today
reflects the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that
we must provide for the men and women of our military when they are
sacrificing in so many ways to defend our wonderful country. They are
depending on us. We cannot let them down.
Let me cite a few examples. This bill provides a pay raise of at
least 5 percent for officers and 6 percent for enlisted personnel, with
targeted raises up to 10 percent for some ranks. Without this bill, our
troops will not get any pay raise. This bill authorizes $10.7 billion
for military construction and family housing. Without this bill, badly
needed improvements to the housing for our service men and women and
their families will not be made. For these reasons alone, it is
imperative that we pass this bill today.
Other features of the bill are just as important. For instance, the
bill authorizes over $60 billion for procurement and weapons systems
modernization. It includes $1 billion for chemical and biological
research to ensure that our citizens may be protected against terrorist
attacks in the future. The bill focuses on homeland security and
authorizes $2.7 billion to train and equip local first responders to
improve their ability to respond total terrorist incidents. Finally,
the bill funds the operations and maintenance activities of the
Department of Defense.
I am not delighted with the outcome of every issue. Far from it. But
the point I would make to every Member of this House is that this
legislation is vitally important. Our troops need the authorizations in
this bill. They are fighting a war.
This bill makes great strides in improving America's security. It
reviews the period since September 11 to enhance our military's ability
to respond to the new, less-conventional threats that we face. I said 3
months ago that we have been at war for some time, and the difference
after September 11 was that now everybody knows it.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report is not perfect. We spend a little
less for procurement than I might like, and although we do add funds
above the President's request and the provisions on missile defense,
Vieques and base closure are not what I might have written on my own,
the gentleman from
[[Page H10074]]
Arizona (Chairman Stump) and I agree that the good things in this
report far outweigh the others.
This bill moves the military substantially toward new ways of
fighting. It helps the Army and Marine Corps move faster, increases the
Air Force's qualitative edge, and the pay raise is just the most basic
part of our comprehensive improvements in quality of life for America's
finest.
Now, more than any time in the last decade, it is essential that this
House speak with one voice. Americans are under fire. This vote will
not be seen only in Kabul and Baghdad, but Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin,
Norfolk and Whiteman Air Force Base. Americans are under fire. Let us
give them this support and protection they deserve.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman
Stump) for a job well done, and I hope that everyone will vote for this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I submit this statement today
in support of S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002. Although I could not be here today during this debate
because of a death in my family, I want to say for the record that this
is a good bill. It funds the priorities for the nation's military that
I have championed since becoming a member of the Armed Services
Committee. I want to thank Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Skelton
for their hard work and leadership during this process.
This bill provides for a five to ten percent pay raise effective
January 1, 2001 for the men and women serving in our armed forces. It
provides full funding for the Air Force's critical fighter
modernization programs, allowing for the procurement of 13 new F-22
fighters and providing over $1.5 billion for additional Joint Strike
Fighter research and development. It also provides a $25 million
increase for F-15 engine upgrades, and $30 million for F-16 engine
upgrades.
It includes number of important Army helicopter modernizations,
including over $800 million for the Comanche next generation
helicopter, and $10 million for important helicopter engine
modifications.
It provides full funding for procurement of a new Virginia class
attack submarine, and includes over $450 million to begin conversion of
4 ballistic missile submarines to conventional weapon platforms.
I am also pleased to see my colleagues on the committee work so hard
to address homeland security issues, providing nearly $7 billion for
Homeland Security initiatives within the DOD and DOE. Further, I am
pleased to see that the committee increased the existing firefighter
grant program from $300 million to $900 million per year through 2004,
and expanded the grants to include equipment and training to help
firefighters respond to a terrorist or WMD attack. While this increase
in funding is critical to addressing the needs of our first responders,
I will continue to purse provisions of my legislation, H.R. 3161, the
Municipal Preparation and Strategic Response Act, which seeks not only
to increase funding in the Firefighter Assistance Program for counter-
terrorism training and equipment, but also to repeal the local funding
match requirements of the program.
Finally, I support the bipartisan process and the ability of members
of the Committee to work so hard to find compromises that address the
concerns of all members.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report makes tremendous
progress in strengthening our nations's policies in dealing with
unexploded ordnance, the bombs and shells that did not go off as
intended. I very much appreciate the efforts Chairman Bob Stump and
Ranking Member Ike Skelton in raising the profile of this important
issue, and including several meaningful reforms to address the problems
these discarded military munitions cause communities throughout our
country. Our colleagues in the Senate also made valuable contributions
and I appreciate their wisdom and hard work. The sections addressing
unexploded ordnance are 311, 312, and 312 in the conference report. I
hope that the activity on this issue during consideration of this
year's defense authorization signals potential for additional steps
forward in the future.
Two of the four major provisions of the bill I have introduced, the
Ordnance and Explosives Risk Management Act (H.R. 2605) have been
legislated in this report. Congress has finally stepped up to the plate
in the campaign to make former military sites safe. In fact, by
requiring this inventory and prioritization scheme and establishing a
separate account, we've rounded first, and we're on our way to second
base. In the near future, I hope Congress will reinforce efforts within
the Pentagon to put someone in charge of munitions response and to fund
that response at a level that will address the problem over the next
two decades, rather than the next two centuries. We also need to ensure
that the Department of Defense, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the states are following the same regulatory framework.
It is important that another round of base closures is authorized in
this conference report. However, delaying that effort until after the
next two Congressional elections and the next presidential election is
problematic at best. Maintaining the infrastructure of military bases
left over from earlier eras when needs were different is a tremendous
unnecessary cost that prevents us from making the investments needed to
address today's changed security environment.
Our annual defense authorization and appropriations bills provide
opporutnity to respond to changing global security conditions. This
bill authorizes spending $343 billion in fiscal year 2002 on our
military. In addition, there is $21 billion defense spending in the $40
billion post-September 11 supplemental and its it highly likely that we
will consider at least one other supplemental in 2002. That means that
throughout this fiscal year, our military spending will be at least a
billion dollars a day.
It has been over three months since the tragedy of September 11. We
had the chance to make adjustments in this authorization based on the
new security environment. Instead, this conference report increases
spending on national missile defense nearly 50 percent over last year.
It also continues to fund cold war weapons systems such as the Crusader
mobile howitzer designed for a war from an age long past. The Army has
said it needs lightweight force that can go anywhere in under 100
hours, yet the Crusader is too heavy to carry on even our largest
plane. We need a new beginning now more than ever.
Despite improvements in a few areas, I must continue my reservations
about the fiscal year 2002 overall defense authorization and the
direction it takes us in. I will oppose this conference report.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation,
which provides for support for U.S. troops at home and abroad who are
fighting terrorism, while providing the necessary resources to improve
quality of life and readiness.
Overall, this conference report provides much needed funding
increases in several critical areas, including weapons procurement,
research and development, military construction, operations and
maintenance, and personnel. In budgetary terms, the conference reports
authorizes $343 billion for U.S. defense needs, matching the
President's amended request for fiscal year 2002. The conference report
represents the most significant defense budget increase since the mid-
1980s--which is needed to assist the men and women of our armed
services in their ongoing efforts to combat terrorism. I believe this
legislation establishes an appropriate foundation of budgetary
resources to allow the President and Congress to pay for the war on
terrorism and address many other critical needs currently facing our
nation's military.
Today, as our military services are being called to conduct combat
operations, we must ensure that our military remains the best-trained,
best-equipped and most effective force in the world. As the same time,
we must take the steps necessary to reverse recruiting and retention
trends which are down throughout the military. To that end, I am
pleased that this legislation provides the largest military pay raise
since 1982, including a 6 percent minimum to enlisted members and 5
percent to officers. This pay raise will cut the pay gap between
military and private-sector pay from 10.4 to 7.5 percent. I believe the
inclusion of these much-needed provisions will improve retention of
highly qualified military personnel and their families.
With respect to counter terrorism, the conference report includes
$5.6 billion for DOD efforts to combat terrorism, including force
protection, intelligence gathering, and anti-terrorism programs. In
addition, the conference report increases the President's budget by
nearly $300 million for procurement and research and development
programs to assist in the war against terrorism. H.R. 2586 also
includes more than $400 million to reduce the threat posed by chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons under the Nunn-Lugar initiative in the
former Soviet Union. With respect to homeland defense, the conference
report increases the firefighter grant program from $300 million to
$900 million per year through 2004, and expands the grants program to
include equipment and training to assist firefighters respond to
terrorist attacks or against weapons of mass destruction.
While I will vote in support of this legislation, I have concerns
about two areas addressed by this measure: base closures and missile
defense. With regard to base closures, I was disappointed that the
Conferees included compromise language originally included in the
Senate Defense Authorization bill, which would enact the first round of
base closings in
[[Page H10075]]
2005. As someone who has consistent record of supporting cost-savings
in all areas of the federal budget, I do not believe that another round
of base closures should be conducted until the DOD can adequately
evaluate and define its military strategy and future requirements. The
most prudent course of action would be to allow the military to address
its budget given the current realities, and to avoid any actions that
might damage military modernization, readiness or personnel
requirements.
As the BRAC process moves forward, I would also encourage the DOD to
consult closely with Members of Congress and potentially affected
communities before making any final decision on base closures. I
recognize and applaud the DOD's commitment to reducing excess
considered. The loss of a military base can be devastating for defense-
dependent local economies, especially in areas where defense jobs are
critically important to the economy, including many such bases in
Texas. I would also note that both the House and Senate versions of
this bill were marked up prior to September 11, and prior to the onset
of military campaign in Afghanistan. As such, I believe the DOD and
Congress should be cautious in planning the closure of bases that will
be carrying our military's mission in coming months and possibly years.
With respect to missile defense, this conference report includes a
provision that authorizes funds for initial deployment of a national
missile defense system in Alaska that would be barred by the 1972 ABM
Treaty, from which the president has now said the United States will
withdraw. While I respect the Administration's point of view on this
issue, and have consistently supported research and development of a
missile defense system I am concerned that the deployment of an
unproven missile defense program could lead to the unraveling of the
ABM treaty, which has served as a primary factor in our relations with
Russia and the former Soviet Union. To unilaterally abrogate our
responsibility under the ABM Treaty at this time could send the wrong
message to our allies, and to our potential nuclear adversaries,
including China, which has indicated that the U.S. action may lead to
an arms race.
While I have concerns about these provisions, I support this
Conference Report because it is an important signal that Congress speak
with one voice on behalf of our armed services. On balance, the
initiatives included in this bipartisan legislation are right on
target, and will provide our dedicated mean and women in uniform with
the necessary resources to advance our national interests with the best
equipment and training available. I urge my colleagues to vote in
support of this important legislation.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, today I am voting in favor of the Conference
Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002,
but I rise to express my grave concerns about provisions in the bill
relating to base closures and military health care. Despite my
reservations, I am voting for the Conference Report because we must
support our military establishment at this most crucial period in our
history.
However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this Conference Report
authorizes another round of base realignment and closures. While we are
contending with homeland security, now is not the time to consider
letting down our guard. It's a false economy to suggest that BRAC will
save money.
In addition, closing military bases could have the unintended
consequence of stripping health care away military retirees and their
families. Later today we will debate the ``No Child Left Behind Act''
education bill. Well, in previous rounds of BRAC, we left behind
thousands of military retirees and their families who received health
care at military bases.
When these bases closed, they lost their military health care because
their health care alternatives just didn't add up. We should be fixing
this injustice, but instead we will compound this problem if we proceed
with another round of BRAC without addressing the loss of health care
for military veterans and their families.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Conference Report does not adequately
address the military health care issue known as ``concurrent receipt.''
Under current law, the retirement pay of military retirees with
service-connected disabilities is reduced to offset disability
compensation paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This policy is just plain wrong. Military retirees who are also
disabled veterans earned, need, and should receive all the benefits to
which they are entitled; 379 of us are cosponsors of a bill that says
so.
This Conference Report authorizes concurrent receipt only if the
President submits a budget providing offsets to pay for it. In other
words, we are punting the issue over to the White House. That's wrong.
We should step up to the plate and do the right thing for our military
veterans. We should authorize and fully fund concurrent receipt.
But, like all Conference Reports, this is not a prefect bill and I
can only cast an up-or-down vote. I am unable to vote ``yes'' on the
provisions that I support or ``no'' on those I oppose.
So, Mr. Speaker, while I am voting in favor of this Defense bill
today, I will continue to oppose efforts to tear down our defense
infrastructure through further rounds of base closures.
And I will continue to make sure that we keep our promises to
America's military retirees, so we don't break faith with the people
who defend us.
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to applaud some of the
exceptional provisions of S. 1438--National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 Conference Report and to highlight a major
disappointment within the bill. As our campaign against terrorism
continues today, this conference report delivers vital enhancements to
homeland security and equips U.S. soldiers with the tools they need to
fight and win America's wars.
Homeland defense in this conference report provides approximately $15
billion for programs to combat terrorism, defeat nuclear, biological,
and chemical attacks, and protect the United States and our interests
against ballistic missile attack. Our number one priority is to defend
America from attack.
One of the principal responsibilities of this Congress is to also
ensure that we place a great emphasis on improving military quality of
life and readiness. To that end, this legislation contains the largest
military pay raise since 1982, significant construction efforts to
improve facilities where military personnel live and work, and
substantial increases to readiness accounts that support operations,
maintenance, and training.
Another responsibility of this Congress is to provide for exceptional
health care for Americans who wear and who have worn the uniform. This
bill makes significant improvements in TRICARE benefits for all
beneficiaries of the military health care system. The bill fully funds
the TRICARE military health care program for the first time in years
and protects the integrity of the military health care system. It also
enhances the freedom of TRICARE beneficiaries to choose their providers
by eliminating most of the requirements for pre-authorization of care
under TRICARE. This legislation adjusts the Military Retiree Health
Care Trust Fund to ensure the proper functioning of the fund and
continued smooth operation of the TRICARE For Life program.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to support the conference report
today because of the base realignment and closure language otherwise
known as BRAC, which is in the bill. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time
for this process to move forward. Right now, our soldiers are deployed
abroad fighting for our freedom, how can we tell families who have a
loved one deployed in that fight that we may be closing their base,
closing their home.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, while the Administration makes general
claims about savings and excess real estate, I have asked personally
and directly for the data that supports the claims and they said that
they do not have it. There is no evidence that money has been saved
during the last round of base closure.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that strategy should drive force
structure, and force structure should determine basing. The defense
department has not defined what their new strategy is or what forces
are required. Without answering those questions, deciding to put
communities through another BRAC is indefensible.
It was for those reasons that this House considered and rejected
another round of base closure. We were right to do so.
Mr. Speaker, there are many good things in this bill that I support.
But I cannot support base closure.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are waging a war on
terrorism, we have before us the strongest national defense
authorization conference report in recent memory. I rise in support of
the Conference Report on S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' when
it comes up later for a vote.
The strength of this conference report comes from many provisions,
but especially from those benefiting military personnel and their
families. For example, the conference report:
Provides $6.9 billion more for the military personnel accounts than
in fiscal year 2001. That's the biggest one-year increase in military
personnel accounts since 1985.
Authorizes the largest military pay raise since 1982--a 5 percent
across-the-board increase for officers and a 6 percent across the board
for all enlisted personnel, combined with targeted increases--ranging
from 6.3 percent to more than 10 percent--for noncommissioned officers
and mid-grade commissioned officers.
[[Page H10076]]
Increases the defense health operations accounts by $6 billion over
fiscal year 2001 levels, reflecting a commitment by DOD and Congress to
fully fund health care.
In addition the conference report:
Reduces out-of-pocket housing costs from 15 percent in fiscal year
2001 to 11.3 percent in fiscal year 2002, thereby keeping faith with
the plan to eliminate housing out-of-pockets by fiscal year 2005.
Improves the ability of military absentee voters to more effectively
and easily exercise their right to vote.
Reduces the costs that service members and their families incur while
moving between assignments. Right now, DOD only reimburses them for 62
percent of their costs. When implemented over the next couple of years,
the provisions of S. 1438 will reduce that out-of-pocket cost to
approximately 10 cents for every dollar expended.
There are many more important measures contained in H.R. 2586. For
all these reasons I urge all Members to support the conference report
on S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
conference report for the defense authorization act. This bill contains
many valuable provisions but also one serious flaw--a new round of base
closures, which I believe serves neither the best interests of our
national security nor the best interest of communities throughout the
country that host military installations.
I strongly supported the defense authorization bill when it was
approved by the House. I believe that Chairman Stump and Ranking Member
Skelton of the Armed Services Committee correctly decided not to
authorize additional base closures in the House bill. I am disappointed
that they were forced under the treat of a presidential veto to accept
a provision authorizing a new round in 2005.
First, the purported cost savings associated with base closure are
dramatically overstated at best, and, more likely, are illusory. The
reality is that base closures cause significant short-term costs in
exchange for marginal long-term savings. Contrary to the claims of base
closure proponents, another round will not relieve the genuine budget
pressures being experienced by our military.
Second, we should not embark on a new round of base closures when the
Armed Forces are still processing the more than 100 closures and
realignments undertaken in the previous four rounds. We should not
underestimate the upheaval these actions create for our men and women
in uniform and their families. Nor should we ignore the impact of these
transitions on our military readiness.
Third, it makes little sense to permanently shutter more
installations when we are still grappling with the question of how best
to match defense resources to the evolving threats to our national
security. We are currently engaged in a war against terrorism that the
President has said could last for some time. We should leave ourselves
the flexibility to meet these new threats by preserving needed basing
capacity.
Finally, for host communities, this base closure provision is perhaps
the worst-cast scenario. By authorizing a new round but postponing it
for four years, this bill well cast a long, dark cloud over base
communities across the country. The threat of closure stifles new
investment, which is especially threatening during these difficult
economic times. In North Dakota, despite our well-founded confidence in
the long-term future of our bases at Minot and Grand Forks, the specter
of base closure will have severe economic impacts for our state.
As I said, this bill contains many positive provisions, including a
significant pay raise for our men and women in uniform, needed
investments in modernization, and funds to upgrade our infrastructure.
I strongly support each of these items, but, because the bill also
includes an ill-advised authorization of more base closures, I am
compelled to vote ``no.''
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of sorrow and
regret that I rise today in opposition to the conference report for S.
1438. While this bill has many items that deserve passage by the House,
I cannot support its call for yet another round of base closures and
realignment.
As I have noted in the past, the basic premise behind base closures
is not a bad one. If we have excess installations and personnel, then
we should not be supporting them with dollars better spent equipping
our soldiers and sailors with the very best technology available. But,
despite several rounds of base closures and over a decade of time to
evaluate them, we have yet to determine that we do have that excess or
that we can drain it without costing more than we save.
While I appreciate the hard work and difficult choices that the
conferees had to make in forging the BRAC compromise in this conference
report, I do not believe that it fully addresses the problems that have
been evident in past rounds of base closures. To be certain, the
conferees attempted to address questions about the politicization of
the process and the true costs savings. However, the procedures that
they put in place do little more than offer lip service to these very
legitimate concerns.
For instance, there is evidence that past rounds of base closures
have not only fallen woefully short of the budget boons they were
expected to bring, but that they have in fact cost us more than
expected due largely to significant environmental cleanup costs. To be
sure, proponents of BRAC can find statistics that indicate cost
savings. But, given the conflicting information available, those
statistics are specious at best. The real problem is that limited and
faulty auditing has left Congress with very little to go on regarding
the true costs and savings of the process.
The conferees require the Secretary of Defense to certify that there
will be annual cost savings for each service by 2011 before the
Commission can be appointed. But, if we have been unable to obtain an
accurate accounting over the past 13 years, why should we put faith in
this report? People's jobs and communities' economies are on line, and
we should not be so cavalier about the consequences of setting this
process in motion.
Furthermore, the procedures developed by the conferees put the cart
before the horse. By requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on our military's needs and inventories before a Commission can
be appointed, the conferees admit that by 2005 they are not even
certain that another round of base closures will be necessary. If
anything has been made clear both by the Defense Department's work this
year on transformation and by the events of the past several months, it
is that current events and technology are changing so rapidly that our
military must be flexible enough to adapt. But, by voting today to
begin down the path to another round of base closures, we give the
process momentum that threatens to overcome the true needs of our
military.
The mere threat of the possibility of base closures makes our
military personnel uneasy about their futures and their families'
futures and puts community bond ratings and economic plans at risk.
Particularly now that we are engaged in a war against terrorism, we
need our installation commanders fully engaged in this effort and not
preoccupied with the possibility that their base will be closed or
their personnel reassigned. If we are so uncertain as to the necessity
of this round of base closures, we should wait to have the vote on BRAC
until that need has been demonstrated. In this time of great anxiety
about our nation's economy and our global safety, I am not prepared to
add to this uncertainty.
Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that there is much to commend itself in
this report. For instance, I fully support the authorization for the
servicemembers' pay raises, as I did as a member of the Committee and
on the House floor. These brave men and women have toiled for years for
the cause of freedom, doing more work with fewer resources, and they
deserve a pay raise. But, to give these soldiers and sailors pay raises
one day, and then uproot their homes and their families the next is
simply not fair.
I also support the reduction in out-of-pocket housing costs for
military personnel and the improvements in military health care, as
well as the provisions preserving our right to seek the best possible
training options for our servicemembers by continuing to use the
facilities at Vieques. Readiness protects our servicemembers from harm
and gives their families some peace of mind. It is far too important to
be the subject of a political referendum.
Let me make clear, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that many of my
colleagues here today--including some who served in these difficult
conference negotiations--are equally displeased with the inclusion of
any base closure process, but that they will, in the end, support this
report. For my part, I am certain that the BRAC provisions are not in
the best interests of Virginia's Fourth District or of our Nation, and
I cannot support them. But, I do not question the patriotism or the
wisdom of these colleagues.
So, while it is with a heavy heart that I cast my vote today against
this conference report, it is with a clear mind. I appreciate the work
of my chairman and my colleagues, and look forward to working with them
to continue to improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and
the readiness of our forces.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
conference report to S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002.
This bill addresses the needs of the Department of Defense. It
increases pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform, will
improve our readiness, and support efforts to develop defenses against
missile and terrorist attacks.
As a conferee on this bill from the science committees, I want to
spend a minute drawing
[[Page H10077]]
the House's attention to a program authorized in the bill that, while
not in the Defense Department, is nonetheless critical to our security.
I am talking about the Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, which
provides help to fire departments throughout the country.
According to the International Association of Fire Fighters, more
public safety officers were lost in September 11 attacks than in any
other single event in modern history. There is no telling how many
lives these brave men and women saved, but it is estimated in the
thousands if not tens of thousands.
The Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program, which is administered
by U.S. Fire Administration, provides funds to fire departments for
training, personnel, protective equipment, communications equipment,
and other items. This program is vital to ensuring that our Nation's
fire departments are up to the job with which we have entrusted them.
After September 11, no one can doubt that if the terrorist enemy can
deliver a weapon of mass destruction--be it chemical, biological, or
nuclear--it will. As the first line of defense after terrorists strike,
firefighters must be prepared to respond to these sorts of incidents.
However, without proper training, staff, and equipment, fire
departments may not be as prepared as they would like to be. If we are
to ask firefighters to assume these responsibilities, we must provide
them support for personnel, training, communications equipment, safety
equipment, and other tools to improve their readiness and capabilities.
Last year, $100 million was provided for this program. For fiscal
year 2002, more is needed.
As a conferee to this bill, I offered an amendment for a substantial
increase in funding for this program. I am pleased, therefore, that the
conferees have agreed to boost authorized funding for this program to
$900 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Also, to ensure that adequate personnel are available to implement
the program, the amendment sets aside three percent of the authorized
amount for administration. The Fire Administration should not be made
to short change other programs, such as education and training, to
administer the grants program.
On September 11, the Nation's firefighters showed the world what
courage means. If we expect the fire services--most of whom depend on
volunteers--to deal with these kind of disasters, we have a
responsibility to provide them with the resources they need. This
conference report does that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the Ranking Democrat on
the Committee on Resources I was a conferee on the fiscal year 2002
Defense Authorization bill for certain matters within the jurisdiction
of my committee, including a provision in the original House-passed
version of this legislation dealing with Vieques, Puerto Rico.
Unfortunately, I am withholding my signature from the pending
conference report in protest of the manner by which this legislation
treats the controversy surrounding U.S. military exercises on Vieques.
In effect, language contained in the pending legislation represents a
major retrenchment from agreements between the federal government and
Puerto Rico relating to Vieques in current law, as well as positions
advanced by the Bush Administration in this area.
To those of my colleagues who believe that U.S. citizens should not
be subjected to live-fire military training exercises, that bombs and
munitions should not be exploded in the vicinity in which they live,
and that their land should not be laid waste with a legacy of
unexploded ordnance and toxic substances, I say to you that this
conference agreement seals their fate to these very situations.
Currently we have in place the Clinton-Rosello agreement, negotiated
by the former U.S. President and former Governor of Puerto Rico and
enacted into federal law. I supported this agreement and I still
support it today because it gives the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow
Americans, assurances that their concerns and their voices were being
heard in the halls of this Congress. Clinton-Rosello demonstrated that
the threat to American citizens living within earshot and bull's-eye
range of our own U.S. military, did not fall on deaf ears or blind
eyes.
Under this agreement, the people of Vieques were given an opportunity
to participate in a referendum to determine whether a portion of the
island should remain available for live-fire training. It also
authorized $50 million in economic assistance to the people of Vieques
if they chose to allow continued military exercises. Most importantly,
however, this agreement mandated that if the people of Vieques simply
said no to further live-fire training by the U.S. military on their
island, that activity would halt and land administered by the Navy on
the eastern side of the island would be transferred to the Secretary of
the Interior to be managed as a wildlife refuge.
This was a good and fair agreement, keeping within the traditions of
this great country, by empowering the people themselves to make
decisions that will affect their lives and livelihoods.
On some level President Bush thought so too. As the Republican
Presidential candidate, he stated that he would uphold the Clinton-
Rosello agreement. And despite his own party's resistance, I think
President Bush has made his best effort to keep with the spirit of
those terms.
Though the Administration is not supporting a referendum in Puerto
Rico on continued military training, President Bush did announce over
the summer a target date for the withdrawal of military forces from the
Vieques range.
The critical point here is that under either the Clinton-Rosello
agreement, or the positions stated by the Bush Administration, there
was a light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Vieques because
they could reasonably expect the withdrawal of the U.S. military from
the island.
Yet, the Republican majority in this body apparently felt otherwise.
The version of the pending legislation originally passed by this body
runs roughshod over the Clinton-Rosello agreement and flies in the face
of the stated Bush Administration positions by containing provisions
that almost guarantee the military will not withdraw from Vieques.
These are draconian changes to current law and policy, and changes that
have largely been incorporated into the final conference agreement
pending before us today.
What the people of Puerto Rico now face, what the residents of
Vieques now must contend with, is not the Clinton-Rosello agreement and
not the Bush Administration's stated May 2003 military withdrawal from
Vieques.
Rather, under the pending legislation it would be up to the Secretary
of the Navy to decide the fate of the island by certifying to the
President and the Congress the military's intention to cease using
Vieques for military training exercises. I find it highly unlikely the
Navy would take that action.
Yet, this legislation dictates that even if the Navy Secretary did
halt military training on the island, after consultation with the Chief
of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, it would be
conditioned upon the identification of one or more alternative training
facilities and the immediate availability of such a facility or
facilities.
So what once was an agreement responsive to the concerns of Puerto
Rico, respecting our citizens' right to choose what is better for them,
has degenerated into what the Republican Majority in this body wants to
impose on them.
Mr. Speaker, we have entered a new century, yet what is contained in
this conference report as it relates to Vieques harkens back to the age
of colonialism. This legislation gives the people of Vieques, U.S.
citizens, no opportunities for economic growth. No chance to
demonstrate their patriotism. No option to assert for themselves what
they truly desire. We give them no voice. Mr. Speaker, this is a
tragedy of epic proportions.
Certainly, I realize that our world has changed since the terror of
September 11th. Every American, whether residing in a State or a
Territory, understands how important it is to protect our freedom. And
everyone is willing to do his or her part. We seem to have forgotten
that Puerto Ricans, also serve in our military, die in our wars, and
are just as eager to preserve freedom and democracy. We are taking away
from Puerto Ricans the very ideal on which our country was founded and
continues to fight for. That is truly unfortunate.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2002. I want to specifically address the provisions in
the bill relating to military readiness.
First, I would like to express my personal appreciation to the
readiness subcommittee leadership . . . and to my colleagues, on both
the subcommittee and the full committee, . . . for their active
participation, support and cooperation in addressing critical Readiness
matters during this accelerated session. I feel confident that our
efforts to improve the readiness of the forces are being reflected in
the performance of our deployed forces worldwide. They truly deserve
our best efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the readiness provisions in the bill reflect some of the
steps that I believe are necessary, . . . with the dollars available, .
. . to continue to make some of the readiness improvements that are
sorely needed. But it still does not provide all that is needed. As I
have said before, . . . while the readiness of the force has shown some
improvements in some areas, . . . much remains to be done. And we
cannot afford to wait until they are involved in conflict to properly
resource them. September 11 was a reminder for all of us just how
vulnerable we are as a free and open society. As such, we must ensure
that we have a ready military force that is capable of responding to
threats to our national security. I look forward to continuing to
initiate and support efforts to address two
[[Page H10078]]
areas that have been neglected for a number of years . . . the
readiness of our dedicated civilian employees and the modernization of
our failing infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, the readiness provisions in this bill do represent a
step in the right direction. They permit the Department to build on the
improvements that have been started in an area that is crucial to our
national security. I would hope that as we continue through with the
passage of this bill and in future consideration of supplementals later
in the fiscal year, . . . we will continue to search for opportunities
to increase the resources available for the readiness accounts without
having to trade off funds for other critical needs.
Mr. Speaker, while I have expressed strong support for the readiness
provisions in this bill, I still have reservations about some other
portions of S. 1438. Specifically, I think the BRAC provisions are ill-
timed and costly. We are approving these BRAC provisions at a time when
the nation is at war and the economy is in bad shape. Funds that could
be used to improve readiness will have to be diverted to begin the
costly preparations for BRAC considerations. Based on our past
experiences, once an installation is identified as a candidate for BRAC
consideration, resources have been diverted, resulting in further
degradation of the installation prematurely. We are all aware that
historically preparations for BRAC rounds have had a devastating effect
on the morale and performance of the civilian workforce.
Notwithstanding my reservations about having BRAC in the bill, I
strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 1438. In this time of
national crisis, it is essential that we have a defense authorization
bill. There are a significant number of provisions that are necessary
to ensure essential support for our military forces, their family
members, and the dedicated civilian workforce that supports them.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on S.R. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2002. During this extraordinary time in our national history, our
military forces need our support more than ever. We must provide our
dedicated military men and women with the necessary resources to
continue to go in harm's way with the best equipment and training
available. The readiness of our military's forces is the responsibility
of every Member of Congress.
The conference report on the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization
bill provides a significant increase for readiness funding this year as
compared to last year. As an example, funding for flight operations has
increased by over $5 billion, which includes the increased costs for
fuel, and attempts to address severe spare parts shortages. In
addition, there is an increase for training of over $825 million, an
increase for facilities repair and sustainment of nearly $500 million,
and an increase of $1.2 billion for depot maintenance and repair of
equipment. We have also provided $6 million for protection of critical
needs. The conference report on S. 1438 supports these and other
increases in critical readiness funding.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today provides the
military services with an acceptable level of funding necessary to
maintain readiness and to help reduce the continued stress on our
military forces. At a time when our military services are being called
upon to conduct combat operations, we must ensure that our military
remains the best-trained, best-equipped, and most effective military
force in the world. We must also ensure that we take the necessary
steps to reverse declining readiness rates throughout all of the
military services. At the same time, we must take action to ensure that
the living and working conditions for our service members and families
are at acceptable levels. This conference report accomplished all these
goals. To do anything less would allow the readiness of our military to
slip further, and could risk the lives of countless men and women in
every branch of the military.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report, vote yes
for improved military readiness, and vote yes for the men and women of
our military forces.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I support
S. 1438, the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Conference Report.
While I believe that passing this bill is important for the war effort
in Afghanistan and the brave men and women deployed to defend the
American people and our strategic interests around the world, I
staunchly oppose the tremendous increase in funding the bill provides
for the development and deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD)
that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with
Russia.
The tragic attacks committed against the United States on September
11, 2001, demonstrate that terrorism is the gravest threat facing
America today. It is clear that ensuring the safety of our citizens and
our cities will require the development and deployment of military
resources capable of facing challenges much more diffuse than isolated
missile threats by rogue nations.
I am highly disappointed that this Conference Report contains $8.3
billion for missile defense, a 56 percent increase over the current
level, while authorizing only $6 billion for anti-terrorism programs. I
am also concerned that it authorizes funds for the deployment of a
National Missile Defense (NMD) system in Alaska, a move that would
automatically violate the ABM treaty requirement that anti-ballistic
missile systems only be installed in the vicinity of our national
International Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) complex, based in
North Dakota, or near the nation's capital in Washington, DC.
These policies are a poor reflection of our nation's priorities. We
should be using this opportunity to focus on military intelligence,
preparedness against chemical and biological weapons attacks, and
nuclear threat reduction. By diverting so many resources toward a
faulty missile defense program plagued by massive cost-overruns and
technological deficiency, we compromise our investment in other vital
areas and jeopardize the cornerstone of U.S.-Russia military
cooperation at a time when coalition building and international
alliances are critical.
In June 2001, my staff on the Government Reform Committee conducted
an analysis of the Coyle Report, a comprehensive study conducted by the
Pentagon's chief civilian test evaluator that revealed serious
weaknesses in the NMD test program. The report also demonstrates the
futility of scheduling deployment when basic elements of the system,
such as the ability to defend against countermeasures, multiple
engagements, and against accident or unauthorized launches, have
repeatedly failed.
Considering that the ABM treaty is not holding back the design and
development of the technology needed for NMD, nor slowing the testing
of the system, I think it is shortsighted and irresponsible for the
Conference Report to authorize measures that would violate the treaty
or for the Bush Administration to propose unilateral withdrawal.
At the same time, at the critical stage in our nation's history, I
believe the U.S. military and its brave soldiers deserve full
Congressional support. Although I have opposed previous Defense
Authorization bills, I support this bill because it contains the
largest single-year increase for military personnel in nearly a decade
and invests in technology and hardware that will keep our soldiers
safer in the field. Such attention to pay, housing allowance, and
family assistance, give recognition to the sacrifice they make and help
our military compete for the best and brightest.
I commend all of the soldiers and reservists from Los Angeles,
California, and across the country for their dedication, and I urge the
Bush Administration to take immediate action to change its misguided
course on the ABM treaty.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1438, the
National Defense Authorization Act.
Some military retirees--individuals who are eligible for military
retirement benefits as a result of a full service career--are also
eligible for disability compensation from the VA based on an injury
they incurred while in the service. Under present law, these service-
disabled retirees must surrender a portion of their retired pay if they
want to receive the disability compensation to which they are entitled.
More than 500,000 disabled retirees are impacted by this inequitable
offset.
For over 15 years, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 303, to repeal
this unjust offset. I am pleased that the conference report we are
considering today includes language that will authorize the concurrent
receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation.
However, under the bill, these provisions only become effective if
legislation offsetting the costs of concurrent receipt is subsequently
enacted into law. This is the same language that was approved by the
House earlier this year.
This conference report also increases the amount that certain
severely disabled retirees may receive under the special compensation
program which was enacted during the 106th Congress. I am pleased that
the conferees added these provisions to the final bill.
While not perfect, I do believe that the language in the conference
report is an important step in our efforts to repeal the offset between
military retired pay and VA disability compensation. First, the passage
of this language puts the House of Representatives firmly on record as
supporting the elimination of the offset. Although I have introduced
H.R. 303 for more than 15 years, this is the first year that the House
has actually voted on this issue.
Second, I originally proposed this language because I wanted to
ensure that concurrent receipt language was included in the Fiscal Year
2002 authorization act. In previous years when language has been
included in the Senate versions of the authorization bill and no
language was included in the House bill, the Senate has receded to the
House, meaning no language was enacted into law.
[[Page H10079]]
By authorizing the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
disability compensation now, we are one step closer to repealing the
offset once and for all. Next year, I will be working with my
colleagues to secure the enactment of legislation to fund the
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability
compensation.
Each of the thousands of disabled military retirees answered when
America called. Now it's time for America to answer their call.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 1438.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
conference report on S. 1438, the Department of Defense Authorization
bill for fiscal year 2002. This is a good bill, one that addresses the
critical needs of our military as we engaged in the war against
terrorism. S. 1438 also contains a provision allowing the transfer of
an old, unused Army Reserve Center in Kewuanee, WI to the city. This
transfer will allow the property to be put to good use by the City of
Kewaunee instead sitting dormant and a benefit to no one.
While S. 1438 is a good bill, it is not a perfect bill. The one
glaring imperfection in the bill is a provision that fundamentally
alters a Department of Justice program known as the Federal Prison
Industries, or FPI.
Language in S. 1438 would basically exempt the Department of Defense
from the mandatory-source preference of the FPI program. Eliminating
mandatory-source preference for DoD means that approximately 60% of
FPI's business will be lost. Obviously, this would dramatically
undermine FPI.
I will not delve into a full explanation or defense of the program
here. Frankly, debate over FPI should not even take place within the
context of a defense bill. Debate over FPI has always been spirited.
However, it is a debate that I welcome and one that I expected to
participate in as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But that right
has been denied to me and my fellow Judiciary Committee members.
I appreciate and thank Chairman Stump for his efforts to work with me
on this issue. His indulgence over last couple of months was more than
I could have asked for. Unfortunately, the die was cast on this issue,
and we were unable to remove this language.
As I stated, FPI is a Justice Department program. I, along with many
of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, feel very strongly that
our committee should review any change to the FPI program. Sadly, the
most dramatic reforms to FPI in its history will occur without the
input of just about every member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am including, for the record, a copy of a memorandum
from the chief operating officer of FPI and a letter from the Justice
Department. The FPI memo details the destructive effects the language
in S. 1438 is already having on the program. In the DoJ letter, the
department clearly states its strong opposition to this language. I
request that both items be made a part of the Record.
____
U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 30, 2001.
Hon. Mark Green,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Green: This is in response to your letter
of November 26, 2001 regarding Section 821 of the Fiscal Year
2002 Defense Authorization Bill. The Department of Justice
agrees with your concerns regarding Section 821. Indeed, the
Department has been actively engaged in educating
Congressional Members on this important issue. On September
25, 2001 we sent a letter to the Senate Leadership and Senate
Judiciary Committee and, on November 13, 2001, a letter to
all Defense Authorization Conferees about our significant
concerns regarding the effect of Section 821 upon Federal
Prison Industries (FPI). As you point out in you letter, the
bill as drafted fails to recognize the contribution of this
important correctional program to the safe and effective
administration of Federal prisons, and as a tool for reducing
recidivism by preparing inmates to lead productive, law
abiding lives upon their return to society.
While our continued efforts have met with little success,
we remain in support of removal of Section 821 from the
Conference Report. Moreover, we believe that any future
consideration of FPI reform should be the purview of the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the committees with
jurisdiction over Department of Justice programs.
If you have any questions or if we may provide you further
information, please feel free to contact the Department.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Bryant,
Assistant Attorney General.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, DC, November 26, 2001.
Memorandum for Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, Director Federal Bureau
of Prisons & Chief Executive Officer of Federal Prison
Industries
From: Steve Schwalb, Chief Operating Officer Federal Prison
Industries
I am writing to advise you of the initial effects of the
Defense Authorization language on FPI recently adopted by the
Senate.
Even though the final language, as of this date, has not
been adopted by the conferees, numerous customers report to
us that they have received calls, e-mails, faxes and personal
visits from office furniture vendors and their dealers on
this legislative language. Our customers report being told,
``FPI's mandatory source has been eliminated'', ``federal
agencies no longer have to buy from FPI'', and that
``customers can now buy directly from commercial vendors
without considering FPI.''
Several customers have also forwarded to us e-mails from
the furniture coalition and/or company members thereof, in
which they indicate their intent to influence the conferees
to `'strengthen'' the Senate adopted language to include all
agencies, not just the Department of Defense.
The result has been that many of our customers now feel,
mistakenly, that changes are already in effect and that
procedures for buying from or considering products offered by
FPI have been altered. Several customers have indicated that
they are going to hold up on making any purchase decisions
while they get more information that address their confusion.
This is only the beginning of what we can expect to be an
aggressive, and often inaccurate, campaign by the private
sector to confuse, persuade or otherwise present to our
customers information which puts us and our products in the
worst light possible. As you know, all the big furniture
companies have previously provided extensive training to
their commercial sales staff on how to write, for the federal
customers, waiver requests to FPI, so as to specify those
commercial company's unique product features as ``must have''
items, thereby justifying a waiver from FPI's mandatory
source. If language regarding purchases from FPI is adopted
into final legislation, there is no doubt that we will see
the efforts by the furniture companies intensify.
The results of these initial efforts have been the
suspension or delay of some orders and the placement of other
orders directly with the private sector without customers
following the requirement to contact FPI first to see if our
products will meet their needs. Although it is too early to
accurately quantify the effects, there is no doubt that we
will see a significant decline in future office furniture
orders. Since DOD represents 65% of our furniture sales, a
significant reduction in orders from DoD will have
devastating consequences for us. Depending on how significant
the decline is, it undoubtedly will affect our ability to
support the capacity we currently have and will cause us to
reduce our staff and inmate employment in several of our
furniture factories. In turn, this will also affect our raw
material purchases from the numerous vendors we rely on for
our production.
We will continue to monitor the situation as it develops
and keep you advised.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382,
nays 40, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 496]
YEAS--382
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
[[Page H10080]]
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Largent
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins (OK)
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--40
Allen
Baldacci
Blumenauer
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Conyers
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Delahunt
Filner
Forbes
Frank
Holden
Holt
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Miller, Jeff
Nadler
Owens
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pomeroy
Rangel
Schakowsky
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Wilson
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--11
Cubin
English
Gonzalez
Hostettler
Larson (CT)
Luther
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Olver
Quinn
Young (AK)
{time} 1150
Messrs. BALDACCI, McDERMOTT, HOLDEN, KANJORSKI, PALLONE, and DeFAZIO,
Ms. McKINNEY, Messrs. WU, BOYD, TIERNEY, and OWENS, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr.
TOWNS, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. MEEKS of New York changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Waxman and Mr. Bishop changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately was required
to attend a funeral in my Congressional District today and missed
rollcall Vote No. 496. Had I been present and voting, I would have
voted ``aye''.
____________________