[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2245-H2248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4546, BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 415 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 415

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2003 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, and for military construction, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (c) Except as specified in section 4 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the 
     report, each amendment printed in the report shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment (except as specified in the report and except that 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services each may offer one pro forma amendment for the 
     purpose of further debate on any pending amendment).
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed 
     of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments 
     en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered 
     as read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall 
     be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en 
     bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike 
     may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original 
     proponent of an

[[Page H2246]]

     amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional Record immediately before the 
     disposition of the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the 
     floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
structured rule for H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It is a 
traditional structured rule for defense authorization and it provides 
for debate on a number of pertinent issues, including nuclear policy, 
missile defense, quality-of-life issues for our servicemen and women, 
and a number of noncontroversial concerns.
  H.R. 4546 is a good bill. This legislation firmly shows our 
commitment to restoring the strength of our Nation's military. This is 
the fifth straight year of real increases to defense spending after 13 
consecutive years of real cuts to defense budgets, and the largest 
increase in military manpower since 1986.
  With U.S. personnel risking their lives on the front lines of the war 
on terrorism, H.R. 4546 is more than just a signal to our soldiers, 
sailors, airmen and marines that this is a Nation that recognizes their 
sacrifices. It is the means by which we meet our commitment to 
providing them a decent quality of life, by providing an across-the-
board 4.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, as well as 
improving benefits and continuing to build new housing and working 
facilities. The housing conditions have been deplorable, and certainly 
they deserve better.
  I commend my colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and the ranking 
minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for 
crafting legislation that will make America a safe place. It improves 
our defense against terrorists, rogue nations, against chemical and 
biological warfare and nuclear weapons.
  However, there is one amendment the Committee on Rules made in order 
that I strongly oppose, the Sanchez amendment. It would allow abortions 
on our military bases overseas. Military treatment centers, which are 
dedicated to healing and nurturing life, should not be forced to 
facilitate the taking of the most innocent human life, the child in the 
womb. For the past 5 years, the House has voted to keep abortion on 
demand out of military medical facilities. I urge my colleagues to stay 
on this course and vote against this amendment.
  That said, this is a fair rule. So let us pass this rule and pass the 
underlying defense authorization bill. At the end of the day, we will 
be making our homeland safer and we will be supporting our sons and 
daughters who are serving us in the military. We will be preparing for 
war, if necessary, thereby ensuring victory. 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, after September 11, the world saw something that we have 
known for a long time: Ensuring the security and liberty of the 
American people is not a partisan issue. Regardless of our differences 
on domestic issues, like Social Security and education, Democrats and 
Republicans are united behind our troops and committed to providing 
them the resources to defend the people of this great country. We are 
all Americans, we are all patriotic, and we are all here to promote the 
best interests of this great Nation. A strong national defense stands 
as one of the great pillars of the might of our country, and this bill 
largely reflects America's bipartisan support for national defense, the 
war on terrorism, and our men and women in uniform.
  In light of this bipartisan cooperation in the war on terrorism, it 
is particularly outrageous that the Republican majority has given us 
such an unfair and one-sided rule on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, 
the ranking minority member and the chairman of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), respectively, deserve real credit 
for this bill. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in particular 
has fought very hard to keep this process bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, in a nutshell, this bill provides the resources to win 
the war on terrorism and to ensure America's military remains the 
world's finest. It meets the President's overall defense request, which 
is a large increase over current spending, and it provides substantial 
resources to fight terrorism.
  Additionally, Democrats and Republicans have again worked together to 
make significant improvements in the troops' quality of life.
  The bill provides for another substantial military pay raise, at 
least 4.1 percent for all servicemen and women, and up to 6.5 percent 
for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers. It authorizes $10 
billion for military construction and family housing because our troops 
and their families should not have to live in substandard conditions. 
And for military retirees, the bill ends the current practice of 
reducing veterans' retirement pay when they seek disability 
compensation.
  I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules rejected 
my amendment to remove some of the obstacles faced by more than 15,000 
legal immigrants in the armed services who want to become citizens. 
Their service reflects the tremendous pride and patriotism of our 
immigrant communities, particularly among Hispanic immigrants, and I 
will keep working to make sure this becomes law.
  I am also disappointed Republican leaders did not make in order the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), one 
of the strongest supporters of the military in this Congress, to allow 
the House a clean vote on another round of base closures, something we 
have not yet had. And the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), 
another pro-defense Democrat, had a worthy amendment to allow military 
retirees the same health coverage as Federal employees, but Republican 
leaders refused to allow it.
  This bill does, however, continue our bipartisan approach to ensuring 
America's military superiority throughout the world, providing $3.7 
billion more than the President requested for important weapons 
programs. In particular, it authorizes over $5.2 billion for the F-22 
Raptor, the Air Force's next generation air dominance fighter. It 
includes $1.6 billion for the services' various versions of the Osprey 
aircraft. It provides $562.3 million for the Global Hawk UAV. And the 
bill provides $3.4 million for the Joint Strike Fighter, the high tech 
multi-role fighter of the future.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the majority of this bill reflects the 
bipartisan support our armed forces enjoy in this Congress. So I am 
frankly mystified that Republican leaders are insisting on using the 
war on terrorism as an excuse to continue their long-time attack on the 
environment. It verges on ideological war profiteering, and they should 
be ashamed of themselves.
  Some Republicans have squirreled away in this bill provisions to 
exempt the Pentagon from landmark environmental protections that have 
been on

[[Page H2247]]

the books for decades. America has fought and won numerous wars while 
respecting the Endangered Species Act, for instance, but now some 
Republicans insist on undercutting it. Since Republican leaders know 
they cannot defend in the light of day their attack on the environment, 
the Committee on Rules last night refused to allow the House to even 
vote on Democratic amendments to strike these environmental rollbacks, 
as well as many other amendments offered by Democratic Members.
  Additionally, there are several very important issues in the bill 
that the Committee on Rules majority has given short shrift to by 
limiting debate to 10 or 15 minutes. Given the magnitude of nuclear 
weapons testing, missile defense, and other matters of global reach, it 
seems irresponsible to give Members of this body so little time to 
debate. In years past, the defense authorization bill has taken several 
days, if not a full work week of floor time. So I am disappointed the 
Republican leaders are rushing through this bill in one day so they can 
get out of town.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to oppose the previous question so 
that this bill can be improved in a way that will make it truly 
bipartisan. If the previous question is defeated, it is my intention to 
offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to consider 
amendments addressing the environmental issues in this bill as well as 
the other issues proposed by Democratic Members.
  I urge Members of both political parties to join me in opposing the 
previous question when it is ordered. In that way we can protect the 
environment and preserve the bipartisanship that has been so important 
to the war on terrorism. Then we can overwhelmingly pass this 
bipartisan bill for the troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I congratulate her on her management of this rule.
  Let me say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas describe this 
rule, it is not quite the one that I recall our having crafted late 
last night. In years past, we have had 150-plus amendments filed to the 
Committee on Rules on this legislation. The success of passage of this 
Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act, which is very appropriately titled 
for our colleague who is going to be retiring at the end of the 107th 
Congress, in fact brought a total of 83 amendments, the lowest number 
that I can ever remember. And I am very pleased that of those 83 
amendments filed, we have made in order 25 amendments. There are 10 
amendments authored by Democrats, there are 12 amendments authored by 
Republicans, and there are 3 bipartisan amendments that have been made 
in order. So we are clearly going to have the opportunity to have a 
full debate on this issue.
  In years past, Mr. Speaker, we have had sometimes 2 weeks of 
consideration of this measure because it has been so contentious. This 
is probably the least contentious, the least divisive defense 
authorization bill that we have had, again, in a long period of time, 
in large part due to the fact that we have come together as a Nation to 
win the war on terrorism and to make sure that we have a defense 
capability second to none so that we do not face the kinds of tragedies 
that our country has faced in the past.
  So I believe that we have a very good rule here that allows for a 
full debate on a wide range of issues. This rule, I am happy to say, is 
going to enjoy bipartisan support. I know there are concerns that have 
been raised by a number of people, but one of the things we know in 
this institution is that we are never going to make everyone happy when 
it comes to the process of amending legislation. But I do believe that 
this measure is a very appropriate one.
  The structure for this rule was in fact designed by our late former 
colleague, Les Aspin, who put into place this procedure that we are 
using right now, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services 
and the former Secretary of Defense Mr. Aspin. So I believe that we 
have done this in a very fair and a very balanced way.
  I want to congratulate, along with the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), my 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my home State of 
Missouri as well, who has made a number of proposals to us. And I know 
he has some concerns, but I am very pleased that we will, as I said, 
enjoy bipartisan support for this rule and will have very strong 
bipartisan support for this measure at the end of the day.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the strength of a democracy is to be able to have full 
public debate on important national issues such as national defense. We 
stand for a strong national defense. Many of us in this caucus have a 
long history in that regard; but we also stand for the proposition that 
the American people can be trusted with the facts, and that there 
should be a full discussion on important issues of national defense.
  The majority has ignored that and ignored the past practices of this 
House of having a full airing of national defense issues, and having a 
bill that would be on the floor for several days, perhaps even a week. 
That is in the best tradition of this country. We stand for a strong 
America, and we stand for a strong and complete discussion of the 
issues that make America strong, not the kind of rule which has been 
presented today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some concern that I have; 
and as Members know, I had an opportunity to testify yesterday before 
the Committee on Rules. I intend to vote against the previous question. 
However, should the previous question pass, it is my intention to vote 
for the rule. But let me first tell Members of my serious concerns.
  A number of key Democratic amendments and proposals were not made in 
order. They include, but are not limited to the amendment of the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) requiring 12 months notice 
to Congress before nuclear testing. It makes sense to debate that. Or 
another amendment by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on 
cooperative threat reduction. What is more important than that issue?
  It makes sense to debate the Allen amendment prohibiting nuclear-
tipped interceptors. That was put to bed back in 1982. It makes sense 
to debate the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) 
on the Colombian troop cap, or the gentleman's amendment of last year 
repealing last year's base closure law; the Rahall amendment on the 
environmental provisions; the Hinchey amendment on environmental 
provisions; as well as the Hooley amendment. These are items which 
should have been, in my opinion, made in order because we are in favor 
of a full and fair debate. Nevertheless, we forge ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I stated that I would vote against the previous question 
because of the fact that these amendments were not made in order, that 
we seem to be rushing to judgment without a full and fair debate that 
the country is entitled to have.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the rule and the underlying legislation. The legislation before us 
today will have a tremendous positive impact on improving the 
environment in our country and ensuring the safety of all Americans.
  But first, today's legislation authorizes $382.8 billion for national 
defense, which is consistent with the House budget resolution. It 
includes $7.3 billion for programs to combat terrorism, and it also 
includes an increase of 4.1 percent for our men and women in uniform.
  Further, this legislation keeps our commitment to our military 
retirees by completing eliminating the unfair

[[Page H2248]]

practice of reducing retirement pay based on disability payments, and 
this will be done by the year 2007.
  I am very pleased that the legislation also includes the 
administration's proposal to accelerate cleanup of former nuclear 
weapon production sites throughout the country. This year the Bush 
administration has made a strong commitment to our environment through 
the environmental management, or EM, program at the Department of 
Defense. As the chairman of the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, I 
appreciate the commitment of the committee to ensure that our Nation's 
commitment to cleaning up these sites, which represent the greatest 
environmental challenges in the country, will continue on track.
  The legislation provides at least $800 million to a new cleanup 
account to accelerate and reform cleanup of the highest risk 
environmental threats in the U.S. in a new and profoundly different 
manner. This new account will implement the results of the Department's 
year long, top-to-bottom review of the EM program. The account will 
direct dollars to accelerate cleanup throughout the Nation without 
compromising safety and embracing reforms to ensure that the best 
commercial practices and technology drive the program in the future.
  Most important, however, is the commitment to drive more program 
dollars directly to cleanup and risk reduction, which will accelerate 
cleanup by decades at these sites throughout the country and save the 
American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars in the future.
  I am convinced that this program will be successful, and I am proud 
that the Hanford site in my district has led the Nation in reaching the 
first agreement under the new cleanup account. This agreement, which 
was agreed to by the Bush administration, the Governor of the State of 
Washington and the EPA, will direct $433 million out of this new 
account to Hanford. This historic agreement, when fully implemented, 
will result in cost savings of $33 billion and will accelerate cleanup 
by 35 to 45 years. This is truly a remarkable commitment to our 
environment, and I look forward to additional sites reaching similar 
agreements in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this agreement will provide a 5-year funding commitment 
instead of the year-to-year hassle that we go through every year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 4546, the 
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. It 
is noteworthy that it is named for the chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), and it will be a tremendous legacy once finalized.
  The bill has flaws, however, and there were numerous amendments that 
were offered by Members on both sides of the aisle which were not made 
part of this rule.
  However, I do feel overall that the rule will allow for support for 
our fighting men and women as they wage war against terrorism. It 
equips them with the technology, training and personnel that they need 
to attain victory, and also demonstrates our commitment to providing an 
improved quality of life in granting of funds for military living and 
working facilities.
  However, due to the structured rule, we have been denied the 
opportunity to debate several amendments, including one I introduced. 
The amendment I introduced would have increased funding currently 
authorized for military health care by $2.5 million, with the necessary 
offsets that would not have affected the Pentagon at all. Not $25 
million, not $250 million, but just $2.5 million specifically for 
retirees and their dependents.
  In addition to serving active duty, the military and their families, 
the military health system provides services to military retirees and 
their dependents. While the number of people on active duty is not 
projected to increase dramatically over the next few years, the number 
of retirees and their dependents, especially over the age of 65, will. 
We face immense challenges in this regard.
  I regret that the structured rule has denied me and other Members the 
opportunity to provide a much-needed boost to the military health care 
system. Be assured that my support, as my colleagues, for our military 
extends to support for veterans and their families, and I will continue 
to support them however, wherever, and whenever I can.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 4546, the Bob 
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This 
bill shows the nation's unwavering support for our fighting men and 
women as they wage war against terrorism. It equips them with the 
technology, training and personnel they need to attain victory. It also 
demonstrates our commitment to providing an improved quality of life in 
the granting of funds for upgrades to military living and working 
facilities.
  However, due to the structured rule, we have been denied the 
opportunity to debate the amendment I introduced.
  My amendment would have increased funding currently authorized for 
military health care by $2.5 million, specifically for retires and 
their dependents.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to serving active duty military and their 
families, the military health system provides services to military 
retirees and their dependents. While the number of people on active 
duty is not projected to increase dramatically over the next few years, 
the number of retirees and their dependents, especially those over the 
age of 65, will.
  The greatest challenge facing the military health care system is 
caring for retirees--especially those over the age of 65.
  Again, I regret that the structured rule has denied me the 
opportunity to provide a much needed boost to the military health care 
system. Be assured that my support for our military extends to support 
for veterans and their families and I will continue to support them 
however, wherever, and whenever I can.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a few other aspects of this bill that remain 
troublesome--one concerns our environment and the other concerns the 
deployment of American troops in Colombia. Regrettably, this structured 
rule has denied us the opportunity for further debate on these two 
important issues.
  This bill grants special exemptions to the Department of Defense 
environmental programs. This provision is, and I quote, ``intended to 
restore a balance between environmental responsibilities and military 
readiness.'' It relieves DoD, when conducting training exercises, from 
observing the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Act, and the 
Marine Mammal Act.
  The ESA already contains a provision that permits DoD to request a 
waiver from compliance with the Endangered Species Act if that 
compliance poses a threat to national security. I question the 
necessity of granting the Department of Defense with a blanket 
exclusion from the laws that the rest of us must adhere to.
  An amendment, offered by Mr. Maloney sought to strike this language 
from the bill, and another from Ms. Sanchez required annual reports 
from DoD on its stewardship of the environmentally sensitive areas on 
military bases. Both of these amendments would have initiated a much 
needed debate on this issue, but we have denied that right by the rule 
that has been invoked.
  Secondly, Mr. Taylor offered an amendment to limit the number of U.S. 
troops in Colombia to not more than 500. Mr. Speaker, I have some grave 
concerns about the necessity of increasing the number of American 
troops currently in Colombia and would have welcomed the opportunity to 
debate this issue with my colleagues.

                          ____________________