[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''.

                          ____________________