[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2249-H2264]
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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would advise that 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 20 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 19 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), another member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are considering this rule and the debate that 
certainly concerns our support of the United States military and the 
men and women who represent us. We are talking in this bill about a 
better pay raise, a pay raise where we are able to keep the brightest 
and the best. We are talking about better housing for our men and 
women; we are talking about increasing our readiness; we are talking 
about research and development; we are talking about counterterrorism. 
We are trying to talk about the issues which I perceive are important 
to the military in this country.
  However, perhaps the most key component is we are going to talk about 
homeland security today, and there is one amendment which will be 
discussed today that says that no funds for 2003 appropriations for the 
Department of Defense may be used for space-based national defense 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleagues that I believe that now, more 
than ever, this Congress should focus on not only ballistic missile 
threats that face this country, because it is not just what is aimed at 
our military, it is what is aimed at our homeland. Our homeland 
security is now an issue.
  Mr. Speaker, there are more than 28 countries outside the United 
States that possess not only ballistic missiles, but the desire and the 
threat to not only threaten America, but also our allies. These 28 
countries, as we look around, many of them represent belligerent 
countries who would wish for America to be harmed. These 28 countries 
possess the ability to threaten the United States and our military and 
our allies.
  What is important about this debate is that we need to understand 
what our President has said about it. President Bush has said, 
America's development of a missile defense is a search for security, 
not a search for advantage.
  Mr. Speaker, homeland security for America is what this bill is also 
about. I support this rule, I support this bill, and I hope Members 
will focus on homeland security and the support our President gives for 
this bill.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. The defense 
authorization bill provides a waiver to the Secretary of Defense to get 
around the current cap on U.S. military personnel in Colombia.
  I strongly oppose such a waiver. It is a serious abrogation of the 
duties of this Congress to monitor and provide oversight to our 
military programs and presence in Colombia. I oppose this waiver 
because it provides the Secretary of Defense with the ability for an 
unrestricted escalation of U.S. military personnel in Colombia and 
further engages in that country's 40-year-old civil war, a war that 
Colombia's government has failed to adequately support.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) offered an amendment to

[[Page H2250]]

strike the waiver language and maintain the cap. Unfortunately, that 
amendment was not made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, this a huge issue. We have seen waivers used and abused. 
Mr. Speaker, this bill strips away the principal safeguard Congress has 
insisted upon to protect us from an escalating military mission in 
Colombia. It deserves a debate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can bring up the Taylor amendment and other amendments, and if we are 
not successful in defeating the previous question, then vote against 
the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), my neighbor.
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise strongly in support of the rule that would 
allow for consideration of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2003.
  The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have thrust our Nation's 
military into the spotlight, and called to duty the brave men and women 
of the U.S. Armed Forces. Once again, U.S. citizens are rallying behind 
them in strong support of the harrowing mission they have been called 
upon to perform, and today the U.S. Congress has the duty to pass this 
important legislation that will help provide the necessary resources 
for these brave men and women to do their job.
  Where were the Members on September 11? I was in the Pentagon at 8:47 
a.m. discussing the defense bill with Secretary of Defense. My question 
to him that morning was, when will people realize that national 
security is our number one priority? His answer was to agree and say 
that it would take a major incident for this to happen. That was 8:47 
a.m. on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule and the underlying legislation first and 
foremost take care of the most vital asset in our military: our people. 
It provides every servicemember with a 4.1 percent pay increase. It 
also begins a transition program to fully fund concurrent receipt of 
veterans' disability and retirement pay. It increases housing 
allowances and boosts special pay while extending enlistment and 
reenlistment bonuses.
  The defense authorization bill increases our manpower by nearly 1 
percent, the largest single increase since 1986. It builds upon our 
work last year and continues to reverse the decline of military 
readiness by funding key operations, maintenance, and training 
accounts.
  This financial support devoted to our national security is long in 
coming. I am proud to say that as a member of the Committee on Armed 
Services, this legislation will enable our men and women in uniform to 
continue prosecuting successfully the war on terrorism.
  The bill in front of us today marks the most significant increase to 
the defense budget since 1986. It has targeted two of the most critical 
areas which are crucial to maintaining a healthy and robust military: 
quality of life and readiness.
  For the soldiers and airmen in my district, Fort Bragg and Pope Air 
Force Base in North Carolina, the ability to adequately care for their 
families and train for the mission for which they are called are two 
issues second to none. I believe this legislation makes significant 
progress in these areas.
  Furthermore, the bill funds the development and testing of an 
effective ballistic missile defense system.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a gross injustice that it took unspeakable 
tragedies in September to focus the public eye on the need for a more 
robust defense budget. I feel the legislation in front of us today 
takes the first step, and the rule provides for consideration and is 
fair and effective. We are establishing a clear and strong course to 
rebuild our Nation's defenses.
  I urge my colleagues to send a message loud and clear to our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that we will strongly support 
them and give them the resources necessary to perform the mission.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would also like to pay tribute to my 
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). He has served honorably, 
courageously, and effectively. He will be sorely missed. He personifies 
national security by his service in our military and in our Congress.
  I say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), best wishes and 
Godspeed.
  When it comes to defending our country, our families, and our 
freedom, there is no higher priority than national security. To this 
end, I think the Marine Corps says it best: We must always be faithful; 
Semper Fi.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule for national 
security and in favor of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. Semper Fi.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
The Committee on Rules has denied the House the opportunity to 
eliminate the demeaning practice of making only American servicewomen 
stationed in Saudi Arabia wear an abaya, a religious garment of faith 
most of them do not follow. These women are on the front lines risking 
their lives fighting to protect our freedom and democracy and to defend 
Saudi Arabia itself.
  The Langevin-Hostettler amendment should have been ruled in order. 
Women make first-class soldiers and should not be treated like second-
class citizens. Our amendment would have prohibited the military from 
requiring or strongly encouraging servicewomen to wear abayas and would 
have stopped forcing the American taxpayer to pay for them.
  As we can see, the abaya and head scarf cover the entire body from 
head to toe. The State Department does not require or encourage any of 
its employees to wear the abaya on duty precisely because they are 
representing the United States. Are our military not doing the same? 
Not even the spouses and dependents of the State Department staff wear 
the abaya.
  The government of Saudi Arabia does not require non-Muslim women to 
wear the abaya, and neither should we. General Schwarzkopf agrees. 
During the Gulf War, he never issued such a mandate. Male 
servicemembers are not required to wear the abaya, grow beards, or 
embrace any Islamic religious beliefs in this way, so neither should 
the women.
  Forcing our female troops to wear the abaya has a negative impact on 
our recruitment and diminishes morale, unit cohesion, and the chain of 
command headed by female servicemembers. Most of all, it is not 
necessary. As I said, the Saudi government does not require non-Muslim 
women to wear the abaya.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to issue a point of clarification. It is my 
understanding that a Federal lawsuit has been filed on this issue, 
because I also support that. It is very inappropriate for Congress to 
get involved in this in the middle of the lawsuit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me. I thank our colleagues for working on what I think 
is a good, bipartisan defense bill.
  As my colleagues know, I voted against the President's budget on the 
House floor because I was not satisfied with the level of defense 
spending because of our inability to meet our resource needs.
  I give total credit to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for working 
together to get us a portion of that $10 billion to help with the 
modernization problems we have.
  The fact is, we took a holiday in the nineties and we are paying for 
it today. If we look at the shipbuilding account, which the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has been fighting for, we are building 
down to a 235-ship Navy with our current funding level. The average age 
of our tactical fighters is 17

[[Page H2251]]

years old. That B-52 bomber will be 7 years old before it is retired. 
We have cut back across the board and now we are trying to play catch-
up, and it is impossible. This bill makes a good downpayment in trying 
to reverse that, but it is not enough.
  I want to respond to one of the issues raised by my colleagues on the 
environment. I will take a back seat to no one on environmental votes. 
I have been a green Republican, voting and endorsing and cosponsoring 
the Clean Air Act, clean water, endangered species, wetlands 
protection. I serve on the Migratory Bird Commission. I voted against 
the environmental riders.
  This bill does not gut our environmental laws. There is a need for us 
to make sure that our military is properly trained. At Camp Pendleton 
in California, the number one training site for our Marines' amphibious 
force, they come off of the ships, the landing craft, and they have to 
board buses to go across an area where some endangered species are. 
Then they come back on the ground and do their training. These are the 
same people that we ask to risk their lives.
  What we are saying in this bill is we need to have some rifle-shot 
provisions to let this training take place. This is not about any 
rollback; this is not about going back to the 1930s. This is about a 
very commonsense, bipartisan approach to let our military and our 
soldiers, sailors, corpsmen, and Marines be equated to a snail darter. 
Is a snail darter's life more important than the soldier?
  The whole issue of migratory birds, cut me a break. Maybe we should 
buy a duck stamp and put it on our planes, because for a $15 duck stamp 
we are legally allowed to kill birds; but yet we are saying we should 
not have an exemption so our military can properly train.
  Those who say that somehow this bill is rolling back environmental 
laws in this country are grossly misinformed. I invite them to work 
with us. We are not about hurting the environment. If we look at the 
Navy's research budget, more money is spent on oceanographic research 
by the Navy than any Federal agency in this country. Every 
oceanographic research school, Scripps, Woods Hole, gets all or a bulk 
of their money from naval research accounts.
  We are trying to do the right thing. We are also trying to protect 
our troops. We are also trying to give some relief so our military 
personnel can be properly trained and equipped when they are called 
upon to protect America.
  Mr. Speaker, it really boggles my mind. When I took a delegation out 
to California and we flew by helicopter along the coast, the only open 
area left along California's coast was Camp Pendleton. Where were the 
State officials? Where were the county commissioners? I used to be a 
county commissioner in local zoning and planning, to allow every piece 
of property to be built up so the endangered species had no place to go 
except for our military base? And now to come back and say somehow the 
military has to bear the brunt is absolutely outrageous. Yet, that is 
the fact today.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for the rule and to vote for final 
passage. Again, I commend my leaders for the great job they did with 
this legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELLl asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and I rise 
in opposition to the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of high-handed arrogance by the 
Republican leadership and the Committee on Rules. What is wrong with 
having a vote to address the problems which exist with regard to a 
piece of legislation which does not permit the House to require the 
regular order and to see to it we have a chance to discuss all of the 
questions which relate to important environmental matters?
  I have been dealing with the military for years. They constantly seek 
to get out from under environmental laws; and the military bases in 
this Nation are some of the most skunked up, defiled, and dirty places, 
contaminated with hazardous waste, radioactivity and other things.
  They seek yet another opportunity to escape the requirements of law 
that say we are all going to together protect our environment against 
the kind of high-handed arrogance that the military engages in.
  There is provision in each of the laws which were challenged 
originally to permit the military to seek relief and to get it. And 
there is a regular process around here which would permit the military 
to have the ordinary hearings and find out what relief they need.
  No action of that kind was taken in the committees of jurisdiction; 
and the Committee on Armed Services, with its usual arrogance, saw to 
it that there was no opportunity for the environmentalists to be heard, 
no opportunity for Members to be heard, no opportunity to complete a 
record to justify whether or not this is appropriate.
  Clearly, when they are behaving in this kind of a sneaky and 
dishonest fashion, it is quite appropriate for the House to give them a 
rap on the knuckles and say, we think you ought to allow this matter to 
be debated. We think you at least ought to give an opportunity for an 
amendment to be considered to strike this.
  They seek an exemption from the Migratory Bird Act. I would note that 
this Nation has fought World War I, World War II, and a number of other 
wars with that law on the books, and a number of police and military 
actions with the others. I say vote down the rule and vote down the 
previous question.
  Two weeks ago the Department of Defense (DoD) sent a legislative 
proposal to the Committee on Armed Services seeking broad exemptions 
from six of our Nation's most important environmental laws--the Clean 
Air Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Armed Services ultimately did not seek to undo the important 
environmental provisions contained in four of the six laws. 
Unfortunately, the Migratory Bird Act and the Endangered species Act 
did not fare so well. Mr. Rahall and I, with several of our colleagues, 
offered an amendment to strike those broad and unwarranted exemptions. 
But the Republican leadership will not allow a vote today to undo the 
damage. That is why I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question.
  We absolutely support the need to maintain military readiness in the 
interests of national security. That is why when we wrote the laws we 
inserted specific provisions to ensure there was no conflict between 
protecting our national security and complying with our environmental 
laws.
  This is the case with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1981, one of 
our oldest conservation statutes. The Secretary of Interior has the 
authority to determine the circumstances under which migratory birds 
can be taken, killed or possessed and issue regulations permitting such 
activities. The United States has fought in two World Wars, the Korean 
War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the 1918 Act in place. I 
fail to see why our current war against terrorism would now call for 
its elimination.
  The members of this body should also be aware of the ridiculous 
arguments that the DoD is making in court to support its efforts to 
exempt itself.
  In the FDM case, DoD claimed:

     . . . plaintiffs have suffered insufficient injury because 
     the more birds that the defendants (DoD) kill, the more 
     enjoyment Mr. Frew (a plaintiff) will get from seeing the 
     ones that remain: ``bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting 
     a rare bird than they do spotting a common one.''

  Let me also quote Judge Sullivan's finding with respect to DoD's 
argument (on page 17 of his opinion):

     Suffice it to say, there is absolutely no support in the law 
     for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out 
     of the destruction of natural resources because that 
     destruction makes the remaining resources more scarce and 
     therefore valuable. The Court hopes that the federal 
     government will refrain from making or adopting such 
     frivolous arguments in the future.

  With regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the military again 
seeks to have exemptions for which no other Federal Agencies are 
eligible. ESA requires that land where threatened or endangered species 
live be designated critical habitat. The military does not want to 
comply with this law like every other federal agency and every other 
American citizen does. As the author of ESA, I can assure you that 
exemptions are available for reasons of national security. In fact, 
Section 7 of ESA allows agencies to get waivers from the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Ironically, the Pentagon wants a blanket waiver even 
though they have never sought a Section 7 exemption.
  Needless to say, DoD proposals have gone through a most curious 
legislative process so

[[Page H2252]]

far. The relevant Committees with expertise have been bypassed. No 
hearings have been held on these significant exemptions. And now we 
don't have a chance to vote on the House Floor.
  A stealth process has been employed to circumvent the Committee of 
jurisdiction, to deny the public the opportunity to testify, and to 
undermine two of our most important environmental laws. Defeat the 
previous question so we have the opportunity to reverse this 
environmental outrage.

                              {time}  1200

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time. I think it is clear now that as we enter this new century that we 
entered with such great optimism a few months ago that this century is 
going to be as dangerous as the last one in which we lost 619,000 
Americans killed in battlefields around the world.
  Going into this new century, it is more important than ever that we 
develop what I would call broad military capability. And that means 
that we, and I think Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on 
Armed Services understood and marked up a bill, that toward those ends 
that we must have the ability to deter and, if necessary, to fight a 
number of different types of conflicts. That means that we have to be 
able to stop a conventional armored attack like the one that was 
launched by Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. We have to be able to 
handle a guerilla warfare operation. Obviously we have to be able to 
handle a terrorist and to deal a blow to those who would strike us on 
our homeland. We have to stop this new threat, this emerging threat of 
incoming ballistic missiles, the first of which killed our troops in 
the Gulf War almost a decade ago, in fact, more than a decade ago. So 
we have to have broad military capability. We cannot have a specialty 
military like a lot of our allies have. That means we have to spend 
money.
  I think, frankly, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), did correctly state that we are behind the 
curve in terms of modernization. If we replaced all the tanks, trucks, 
ships and planes on a steady-state basis that are now aging, we would 
be spending an additional $30 billion a year on national security. We 
have turned the corner. We have made the down payment. We are expensing 
about $71.8 billion this year, although we have a baseline of about 90 
that we should be achieving.
  Now we should also perhaps be spending a little bit more money on 
missile defense, in my estimation. But we do have a pretty good tranche 
of money in there. We have a good guy, General Kadish, who is working 
this program, who will be accountable to this Congress, who is going to 
throw out the losers and he will award the winners in missile defense, 
those systems that work. And so we are on a pretty good track there.
  Lastly, we do some good stuff for our people, and our people in this 
ongoing war, this conflict we are fighting right now, have proven to 
be, as usual, our greatest assets. We have the 4.1 percent pay raise. 
We have more targeted to certain areas where we need a little more 
help, but all in all we do a pretty good job for our people. So people, 
modernization, the ability to defend against incoming ballistic 
missiles, and some good money on some new technology in the future with 
R&D is in this package. Please support this package. It is the right 
thing. And every Member should remember as we vote this bill today, we 
are in a war right now. We need to get the tools that our military 
needs, that the President needs to carry out this mission. Please vote 
this bill up, vote the rule and vote the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, this bill illustrates an apparent Republican 
principle, namely, that there should be an inverse relationship between 
one's commitment to practicing democracy at home and exporting it 
abroad. We are doing a great deal to try and advance democracy 
overseas, but here we are engaging in a travesty of democratic debate 
being shut down.
  We will have spent today in this Chamber more time honoring the 
former Members than we will have in debating any single aspect of 
military policy. Now, former Members are wonderful. Many of us some day 
hope to be former Members, but to put that ahead of debating 
environmental policy, nuclear policy level of spending makes no sense. 
A number of very important issues have been, by the Republican 
leadership, excluded from today's debate. Why? We were scheduled to 
meet tomorrow, but Members have now apparently been told that we should 
put aside any further debate on these issues. A free day tomorrow is 
more important than thorough debate today. The notion that you take 
this enormous chunk of the budget, all of these important issues, and 
cram them into one part of the day, is a travesty of democracy unworthy 
of the people's House.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it may be appropriate at this stage to say a few 
words about the context in which we are considering this defense 
authorization bill this year, for it is truly different than the 
context, the environment, the international situation in which we have 
considered it in previous years.
  The United States is currently engaged in a war. We have troops in 
the field. And for probably the first time in our history, every 
American community is a potential target for our enemy. And I think it 
is important that as the urgency we all felt from September 11 begins 
to fade away and we have a drift, perhaps, back towards complacency, 
that we remember that our enemy in this situation is very dangerous, 
indeed. Their aim is to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
  Mr. Speaker, the President gave an important speech I believe at the 
Citadel last December when he said, ``The great threat to civilization 
is that a few evil men will multiply their murder and gaining the means 
to kill on a scale equal to their hatred.''
  Mr. Speaker, I think that has profound implications for us. We have 
faced evil in the world before. We have faced an evil system with the 
means to destroy us before during the Cold War. But never before have 
we faced a situation where a few evil men could gain the means to kill 
on a scale equal to their hatred. And I think that as a backdrop to 
everything that we are considering, whether it is pay and benefits, 
whether it is certain particular weapons systems we ought to buy, 
whether it is a defense policy regarding some issues or other issue or 
other, we ought to keep this context in mind and the dangers that we 
face.
  In addition to the war on terrorism, we have very serious tension in 
the Middle East. We have continuing tension between India and Pakistan, 
two nuclear powers. We continue to have difficulties and issues with 
North Korea. Of course, China and Russia are of concern. And that is 
the international situation in which we find ourselves.
  This bill, I believe, will help make us stronger. It takes some 
important steps towards defining the Department of Defense's role in 
protecting our homeland security. It takes some important steps towards 
transforming our military so that we are ready to face the challenges 
of the future, not refight the wars of the past. Things like joint 
training and experimentation are talked about here. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
think more important than any of these particulars is the necessity for 
this House to take this with all the seriousness which the 
international situation demands.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I have served in the House for 20 years and 
for 20 years I have served on the House Committee on Armed Services. I 
speak from experience and mince no words when I say this rule is an 
outrage, nothing less than that. In the 1980s when I also served here, 
we had another enormous buildup in our national defense. And every year 
when we came

[[Page H2253]]

to the floor with this defense authorization bill, we would have 100 to 
200 amendments filed to the Committee on Rules, and we bent over 
backwards to make most of them in order. We had a full, fair and free 
debate in the well of this House. It was a free market idea, but it is 
no more.
  We lived in those days up to article 1, clause 8, the solemn 
responsibility the Constitution gives us. We gave these issues serious 
consideration. The consideration they merit.
  We had another tradition that somehow has been lost in the last 5 or 
6 years. Senior members of the committee with experience were given 
deference on the Committee on Rules. If we brought amendments to be 
considered, the Committee on Rules would give some weight to the fact 
that we had some experience on the committee.
  I brought four rules. I did not abuse the privilege. I brought four 
amendments to the Committee on Rules yesterday and asked that they be 
made in order. One was an amendment that was made at the behest of the 
Department of Defense. Another one was an amendment that was made in 
order because also another amendment, a second order amendment, was 
made in order that would change it to the liking of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter). I will support that amendment, but that really 
makes it his rather than mine.
  The two other amendments that I sought were important amendments. 
Neither was made in order. Now they made in order amendments for 
noncommittee members. But when the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), 
who is a member of the committee, asked for an amendment, he was 
stiffed. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) was stiffed. I 
was stiffed. Noncommittee members who offered amendments that they 
thought might be ``got you'' amendments, they went ahead and made in 
order, but not ours which were seriously considered and we wanted an 
open and free debate on those issues. One was nuclear testing.
  I sense a slow, subtle about-face in our policy of moving away from 
nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nuclear weapons, particularly 
early to use nuclear weapons towards nuclear weapons and even a 
resumption of nuclear testing. That may be the right policy. It may be 
the wrong policy. In any event, it is a serious policy issue.
  As we make this move subtly, we should have a full, free, fair and 
open debate. And all I wanted to say was, Mr. President, by virtue of 
this act, we ask you solemnly for 12 months notice before you make the 
decision to resume nuclear testing.
  As a matter of fact, it will not impede in any way the resumption of 
nuclear testing. DOE says it will take them today 24 to 36 months. But 
it would allow us 1 authorization appropriations cycle before that 
solemn decision was finally taken. We would have an opportunity to 
register opposition. We will be a full partner in what I think is a 
fundamentally serious decision. That amendment was not made in order. 
This is a rigged rule. It shuts out debate. It makes a mockery of the 
Constitution. Vote against the previous question, vote against the 
rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. There is a Tauscher 
amendment that is allowed and there were 10 Democrat amendments, 3 
bipartisan, and 12 Republican.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. 
Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of the rule and to draw attention to a part of H.R. 4546 that is 
critical in helping to protect the environment and keeping America's 
commitment to care for our Nation's reserve fleets, also known as the 
Ghost Fleet, located in the James River.
  MARAD is mandated to dispose of all national defense reserve fleet 
ships by September 30, 2006. The authorization relating to ship 
disposal and scrapping for the Maritime Administration is of critical 
importance. I am happy to report that the merchant marine panel, with 
my strong support, just authorized 20 million to more quickly dispose 
of surplus vessels that cause serious potential danger to our 
environment. I would like to see more dollars allocated to this 
national priority, but after zero dollars in fiscal year 2002, I 
believe this funding puts us back on track to rid our fleet of these 
aging ships.
  Additionally, this measure also allows for financial assistance to 
environmentally mitigate and reef these same vessels. We must begin to 
think out of the box to solve this looming problem. Cleaning, then 
reefing, these ships will create cost savings and will allow us to 
scrap them more rapidly. We have to work toward the September 30, 2006 
deadline and to encourage adequate funding this year to get the job 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our distinguished Committee on 
Armed Services chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and 
especially thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) of the 
maritime marine panel for his work on this matter. I say thank you, Mr. 
Speaker. I support the rule and I ask all of my colleagues to support 
this authorization.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me time and for his courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I stood on the floor earlier this morning and heard our 
distinguished Republican leader extol the institution of this House to 
the former Members. Then our first order of business following that 
ceremony is a rule on defense authorization that continues the march of 
marginalization of this Chamber. There is, Mr. Speaker, a national 
debate raging about defense policy in this country. It is healthy, it 
is appropriate, and we all have strong feelings about it, their concern 
about the nature, extent and direction of national defense, but not on 
the floor of this Chamber.
  I have offered an amendment, for instance, to strike funding for the 
Crusader. Along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the 
Secretary of Defense, we have deep concerns about this. I would hope 
that we spend this money cleaning up the thousands of sites across the 
country that are polluted with military toxics and unexploded ordinance 
which killed two of our servicemen in this country a few weeks ago. 
But, no, due to this rule and the management of this piece of 
legislation, we are going to remain silent. I think that is sad, Mr. 
Speaker. I expect better from this Chamber.

                              {time}  1215

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, according to the GAO and Secretary 
Rumsfeld, the Pentagon cannot account for $1 trillion, T-trillion, of 
expenditure and acquisition costs over the last decade, a bookkeeping 
shambles that makes Arthur Andersen and Enron look somewhat 
respectable.
  So what is the response in this United States House of 
Representatives, the people's House, in considering this bill for 1 
year, $43 billion increase for a budget that will total more than $400 
billion? Hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.
  No amendment to question any Pentagon program, no matter how behind 
schedule, overbudget or unneeded, will be allowed. It is an expensive 
debate, $833 million a minute, but not extensive in examining the 
priorities, waste and abuse at the Pentagon.
  I hoped to offer a number of amendments for troubled programs, 
particularly one on the $12 billion Cold War-era artillery system 
Crusader that Secretary Rumsfeld says is not needed and he wants to 
kill, but it will not be allowed nor will an amendment on the F-22, the 
Comanche.
  Stifling debate does not constitute national security readiness for 
this country. I believe it does a disservice to the people in uniform, 
those who go without necessities while we put on pedestals gold-plated 
turkeys.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing the debate on 
the

[[Page H2254]]

National Defense Authorization Act. No one in this Chamber is a 
stronger advocate for the military than I am, and I intend to vote for 
final passage of the defense bill; but the rule prevents us from having 
an honest debate of two amendments that were offered by myself and the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  First, the defense bill includes a requirement for a GAO report on 
the current state of health care under TRICARE. Mr. Speaker, if we have 
another study on health care for our military retirees, we will not 
have any left.
  Too often retirees cannot get timely health care at military bases 
because TRICARE's space-available provisions send them to the end of 
the line. Other retirees who do not live near bases have difficulty in 
finding private doctors who will accept TRICARE, and the system often 
requires our sick and elderly to travel long distances to military 
doctors and bases.
  My amendment would have replaced the GAO study with real health care 
alternatives by inserting the text of H.R. 179, Keep Our Promise to 
America's Military Retirees Act. It would enhance the ability to 
participate in the same health care system that Federal and 
congressional retirees can elect. My amendment is fair and does not 
create another bureaucracy. H.R. 179 has 317 cosponsors in this House, 
including most of the Members on the Committee on Rules, but the 
Committee on Rules will not let us debate it.
  The Committee on Rules has also struck down the gentleman from 
Mississippi's (Mr. Taylor) amendment to put off another round of base 
closures. This is no time to be shutting down our military bases when 
we are engaged in war. When we have shut down bases in the past, we 
have also shut down military health care for our Mississippians and all 
over the country. Thousands of active and retired families who depend 
on the Meridian Naval Air Station and Columbus Air Force Base, among 
others, for their health care, these and many other facilities could 
face closures; but the Committee on Rules will not even let us talk 
about it.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to debate these issues today, but the rule does 
not allow it. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. Tell 
the Committee on Rules that military health care is an essential 
component of national defense.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the rule in its 
present form and urge Members to vote to defeat the previous question 
so that amendments to strike anti-environmental riders may be offered.
  Along with the distinguished dean of the House, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and eight of our colleagues, we filed an 
amendment to strike the unwise exemptions to the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have been attached to this 
important bill. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did make our 
amendment in order, even though I am the ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources, whose jurisdiction has been abused by this 
bill.
  This rule adds insult to injury. Not only has Resources been excluded 
from the process, but meaningful public hearings have not been held on 
these important issues. Members will be denied a fair opportunity to 
debate and vote on these important issues under the rule in its present 
form, but if we defeat the previous question, the amendment to strike 
these objectionable anti-environmental exemptions may be offered.
  We should not sanction this bill's sneak attack on our environmental 
laws. This is not a fair rule, and I ask Members to defeat the previous 
question.

   Strike the Anti-Environmental Riders on DOD Authorization Vote To 
                Defeat the Previous Question on the Rule

       Dear Colleague: We urge you to vote to defeat the previous 
     question on the rule for the Bob Stump National Defense 
     Authorization Act for FY 2003 (H.R. 4546) so that amendments 
     may be offered to strike anti-environmental riders. This 
     legislation--while important to our national security and 
     military preparedness--has been misused as a vehicle to 
     bypass committee jurisdiction and public process in order to 
     create unprecedented and unwarranted exemptions to key 
     environmental laws.
       We would clearly have preferred that Members have the 
     opportunity to vote directly to remove the harmful 
     environmental provisions from H.R. 4546. But the Committee on 
     Rules has refused to give Members that choice. Our amendment, 
     which was cosponsored by eight of our colleagues, would have 
     strategically stricken both section 311 and section 312, 
     which unwisely exempt DoD from compliance with the Migratory 
     Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, respectively. 
     Moreover, sweeping changes to these laws are unnecessary: 
     Section 7 of the ESA specifically provides for a national 
     security exemption (which DoD has never invoked) and DoD and 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are close to finalizing an 
     administrative agreement to resolve Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
     disputes.
       In effect, proponents of these anti-environmental riders 
     seek to accomplish through the back door of the Armed 
     Services Committee and a closed rule what they could not 
     through the front door of open public hearings and careful 
     consideration in the regular legislative process. While we 
     fully appreciate the importance of military training and 
     readiness, we also do not think that DoD, in the very limited 
     public process to date, has made the case that exemptions to 
     important and long-standing environmental laws are necessary 
     or that training is greatly impaired because of those laws.
       In fact, GAO--in a soon to be a released report--will 
     inform Congress that readiness data provided by the military 
     does not indicate that environmental laws or other 
     ``encroachment'' by urbanization has significantly affected 
     training readiness. To the contrary, DoD continues to report 
     high levels of training readiness at almost all units.
       In our view, the House should not be stampeded into gutting 
     key environmental laws based on illusory and inconclusive 
     allegations by DoD. It defies logic that suddenly we should 
     surrender to demands for new statutory exemptions so that 
     the environment no longer matters to our largest and most 
     powerful federal agency.
       As longstanding proponents of these critical environmental 
     laws, we urge you to vote ``no'' on the previous question on 
     the rule on H.R. 4546.
           Sincerely,
     Nick J. Rahall III,
       Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources.
     John D. Dingell,
       Ranking Democratic Member, Committee Energy and Commerce.


      migratory bird treaty act (mbta) [section 311 of h.r. 4546]

       The MBTA of 1918, one of our Nation's oldest and most 
     enduring conservation statutes, sets forth U.S. obligations 
     under the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds 
     with Canada. It also provides implementing authority for 
     subsequent Conventions with Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and 
     Russia (1976) which guide the cooperative conservation 
     management of North America's migratory birds.
       H.R. 4546 would unilaterally exempt military readiness 
     activities from MBTA requirements. This would compromise U.S. 
     international treaty obligations and could establish a 
     negative precedent for other signatory nations to exempt 
     their own activities from such obligations or consider other 
     forms of retaliation.
       This bill would grant the military an unprecedented, far 
     less-restricted self-regulatory authority. No federal agency 
     or state has such an authority.
       H.R. 4546 would negatively affect migratory bird 
     management. Removing military readiness and training 
     activities from compliance with the MBTA would likely 
     increase unreported incidental mortalities. Migratory bird 
     population estimates might become far less accurate, the 
     listing of endangered species could increase, and regulated 
     hunting seasons could be delayed or made more restrictive.
       A legislative ``fix'' is premature and unnecessary. Section 
     3 of the MBTA provides broad authority to the Secretary of 
     the Interior to determine when the incidental ``taking'' of 
     migratory birds is compatible and to develop regulations 
     within the law's context. In fact, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service and Department of defense are close to finalizing 
     a Memorandum of Agreement establishing an administrative 
     process to resolve migratory bird disputes.
       The U.S. has fought in two World War, the Korean War, 
     Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the MBTA in place. 
     Since 1916 only one modification of this magnitude occurred 
     (1997) and that was only after 20 years of negotiation.


        endangered species act (esa) [section 312 of h.r. 4546]

       The ESA requires, with limited exceptions, the designation 
     of critical habitat for all endangered or threatened species. 
     Federal agencies are required to consult with the U.S. Fish 
     and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 7 in order to 
     avoid actions that destroy or adversely modify critical 
     habitat.
       H.R. 4546 would exclude military lands from critical 
     habitat designation under the ESA, if an Integrated Natural 
     Resources Plan (INRMP) has been developed.
       Blanket legislative exemptions are not needed. Section 7 of 
     the ESA already provides an exemption for any agency action 
     for

[[Page H2255]]

     reasons of national security. According to the USFWS, the 
     Secretary of defense has never sought a section 7 exemption.
       Critical habitat designation has also been precluded 
     pursuant to ESA,. when concerns about the impacts on military 
     training activities were raised.
       It is the critical practice of the USFWS to consider 
     excluding areas covered by INRMPs from critical habitat 
     designation if certain conservation criteria are met. 
     Contrary to DoD assertions, the Clinton Administration did 
     not determine that installations with INRMPs were 
     automatically excluded from critical habitat designation.
       H.R. 4546 would require the USFWS to substitute an INRMP 
     for critical habitat if ``such plan addresses special 
     management considerations or protections'' with no further 
     explanation or definition of this standard.
       INRMPs do not provide the same level of protection as 
     critical habitat designations.
       The ESA has been in place since 1973. Our military 
     maintained its readiness throughout the Cold War and trained 
     for and executed Operation Desert Storm in 1991 during the 
     Persian Gulf War with current laws in place.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Armed Services does so 
much of its work on a bipartisan basis, but this rule is an outrage. 
The Republican leadership has allowed what will probably be about a 
dozen amendments not considered en bloc to a defense bill authorizing 
$393 billion.
  In the past, under Democratic leadership, dozens of amendments over 
several days was the rule. Why so little debate permitted? So Members 
can go home tonight and not have to vote on Friday and not have to deal 
with controversial matters. Why so few amendments? So the American 
people will not hear what Democrats have to say.
  The House Republicans are squeezing the life out of democratic debate 
in the people's House. They have blocked amendments to prevent 
exempting the Defense Department from our environmental laws. They 
rejected my amendment to stop the development of a proposal to use 
nuclear weapons to blow up missiles above American cities, a really 
dumb idea.
  They barred amendments by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Tauscher) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) that would 
have led to a longer floor debate over the emerging Republican plans to 
develop and use on a first-strike basis new tactical nuclear weapons.
  They blocked debate over aid to Colombia and base closings. When 
Republicans change our defense policies, change our environmental 
policies, change our nuclear policies without a full and fair debate, 
this country loses. Democrats and Republicans stand shoulder to 
shoulder in the war on terrorism. This rule makes a mockery of our 
unity. We are weaker as a country when the Republican majority in this 
House slams the door on a full and fair debate.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, vote down this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget is a 
request for $98 million of the American taxpayers' dollars to defend a 
pipeline in Colombia owned by Occidental Petroleum through which 
Colombia National Oil Company oil flows. They had record profits last 
year, but the Colombia National Oil Company wants the American taxpayer 
to pay to defend it.
  What is worse than that is the President is now trying to change the 
rules that limit American involvement in Colombia to less than 500 
troops so that American troops, the sons and daughters of Mississippi, 
of Georgia, of Alabama can go defend a pipeline that the Colombians 
themselves will not defend. While the Colombians have cut their defense 
budget and made it easier to avoid military service there, they are 
working with our State Department to get American kids to go fight 
their war for them.
  I think this House ought to vote on that. I think we ought to have a 
cap on the number of troops that serve in Colombia; and if the 
President wants to make the case for American kids to die in Colombia, 
let him come forward, and then let this House vote on it.
  Number two, we are at war. Do my colleagues not think it would make 
sense not to close bases while we are at war? Do my colleagues not 
think it makes sense not to close commissaries and hospitals that our 
military retirees, who half of which live near a base, close them while 
these people are in their senior years? Do my colleagues not think it 
makes sense not to have every single person who works for the 
Department of Defense wondering whether or not they have a job 
tomorrow?
  I have asked the Republican Congress for a vote to kill base closure 
because base closure has not saved one dime. We have not purchased one 
weapons systems with money from the base closures. We have given away 
the properties; and better than that, we spent $13 billion in 
taxpayers' money to clean up bases that used to be good for soldiers, 
but then we had to pay to clean them up before we gave them away to the 
local communities.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule so we can have an up 
or down vote as to whether or not American kids are going to die in 
Colombia.
  I urge my colleagues to have an up or down vote on whether or not the 
base in the gentlewoman from North Carolina's (Mrs. Myrick) State is 
going to close, the bases in the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Dreier) State are going to close, the bases in the gentlewoman from 
Ohio's (Ms. Pryce) State are going to close, whether or not the bases 
in Georgia, where the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) who is on the 
Committee on Rules, are going to close, decide whether or not the 
gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Goss) and the gentleman from Florida's 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) bases in Florida will close, decide whether or not 
the bases again that every single Member of this body represents, 
whether or not they are going to close.
  Base closure has not saved the taxpayers of the United States one 
penny. It has not purchased one weapons system; and to make matters 
worse, we are now looking at spending money to replace the bases that 
we closed 3 years ago because the military realized they made a 
terrible mistake in closing bases like Cecil Field in Florida. As we 
are about to put the Joint Strike Fighter out in the field, we have now 
got to go out and buy property to replace the bases that we closed just 
a few years ago.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge Members to defeat the previous question. If the previous 
question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule which will 
allow the House to consider a number of important amendments which 
Democratic Members proposed to this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. 
Make no mistake about it, Democrats are in strong support of providing 
much-needed and deserved resources for our men and women in uniform in 
a time of war; and we stand with the President in the war against 
terrorism, which this legislation will allow us to wage more 
effectively in the year ahead.
  There are a number of very important issues that deserve and need to 
be debated as we move our military into a new era. Republicans are 
using this bill to undermine the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory 
Bird Treaty, and the Wilderness Act. They refuse to accept input from 
the States, local communities, environmentalists, even the committee of 
jurisdiction over these environmental issues, the Committee on 
Resources, before action was taken on this bill. They are eroding 
environmental protections in a way that is completely inappropriate and 
unnecessary.
  There are also critical nuclear policies that are being excluded from 
this debate like the future of nuclear testing, the direction of our 
national missile defense program, the funding for our non-proliferation 
programs in Russia and a host of other issues, including congressional 
oversight of military tribunals, U.S. policy toward Colombia,

[[Page H2256]]

and management and oversight of major procurement programs.
  This is symptomatic of a pattern we have seen in the past months of a 
majority that wants to close down debate on issues that are critical to 
the American people. This has become a gag rule House, by a majority 
that is simply uninterested on the issue of free and fair debate. This 
Republican leadership shuts down debate on our alternative amendments 
in the pension reform bill.
  Just a few weeks ago, they refused to make our amendments in order on 
the budget debate and they did not make the Moore substitute in order 
either in that debate; and months ago this leadership denied a 
responsible debate on campaign finance reform. They wanted to break the 
bill into pieces in an effort to sink it. So they forced the House to 
use a discharge petition just to get the bill on the floor with a fair 
process.
  Then with the debt ceiling, the word is that we will not have a free 
and fair debate about how to deal with the misguided Republican 
economic program that was passed last year. Republicans are talking 
about tacking that bill on the supplemental appropriation.
  Again, let us not have a debate, let us not even have a questioning, 
let us not have a free discussion of issues that affect Americans in 
their everyday lives.
  I think this rule is an abomination. In the days before this, we 
always had pretty much an open rule on defense bills. There were times 
in the past that we have taken a week to consider a defense bill, and 
we allowed Republican and Democratic amendments alike. Let me tell my 
colleagues that these are important issues that people care about out 
in the country.

                              {time}  1230

  This House is being run with gag rules day in and day out. It must 
end. Vote against the previous question; vote against this rule. Let us 
let America into its own defense policy.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
proposed amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I just wanted to follow the minority leader's comments with the 
observation that we are in a war right now. We have people on the 
battlefield whose survival depends on good training.
  At many of our training bases around the United States, the 
environmental encroachments have become so strong that today at Camp 
Pendleton you can only use about a third of the training ground that is 
available. You have to build foxholes only where you have tape that has 
been laid out in an environmentally-sensitive manner. The Marines that 
replicate the Iwo Jima-type assault on the beaches have to dismount 
from the landing craft and get in buses and be bused up to an 
environmentally-acceptable point to where they can commence their 
assault to practice to give their lives to this country. Go to bases 
like Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, where only one plane at a 
time can train on the training field, which is like having one football 
player on the team be allowed out on the field at the same time.
  These are reasonable positions that we have taken, reasonable 
restrictions on the environmental laws to help our people stay alive on 
the battlefield.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman 
from Texas' time has expired.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It has.
  The amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 415

       At the end of the resolution insert the following:
       Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider, without 
     intervention of any points of order, the amendments offered 
     to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     printed in section 7 of this resolution. Each amendment may 
     be offered only by the proponent specified in section 7 or a 
     designee, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable 
     for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 7. The amendments described in section 6 are as 
     follows:

 Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hinchey of New York

(For himself, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, and Ms. Sanchez of California)

       Strike title XIV (page 240, beginning line 14), relating to 
     the Utah Test and Training Range.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Shows of Mississippi

       Strike section 712 (page ____, lines ____ through ____) and 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 712. COVERAGE OF MILITARY RETIREES UNDER THE FEDERAL 
                   EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

       (a) Earned Coverage for Certain Retirees and Dependents.--
     Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 8905, by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) For purposes of this section, the term `employee' 
     includes a retired member of the uniformed services (as 
     defined in section 101(a)(5) of title 10) who began service 
     before June 7, 1956. A surviving widow or widower of such a 
     retired member may also enroll in an approved health benefits 
     plan described by section 8903 or 8903a of this title as an 
     individual.''; and
       (2) in section 8906(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) through (5)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) In the case of an employee described in section 
     8905(i) or the surviving widow or widower of such an 
     employee, the Government contribution for health benefits 
     shall be 100 percent, payable by the department from which 
     the employee retired.''.
       (b) Coverage for Other Retirees and Dependents.--(1) 
     Section 1108 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees 
       Health Benefits program

       ``(a) FEHBP Option.--The Secretary of Defense, after 
     consulting with the other administering Secretaries, shall 
     enter into an agreement with the Office of Personnel 
     Management to provide coverage to eligible beneficiaries 
     described in subsection (b) under the health benefits plans 
     offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program 
     under chapter 89 of title 5.
       ``(b) Eligible Beneficiaries; Coverage.--(1) An eligible 
     beneficiary under this subsection is--
       ``(A) a member or former member of the uniformed services 
     described in section 1074(b) of this title;
       ``(B) an individual who is an unremarried former spouse of 
     a member or former member described in section 1072(2)(F) or 
     1072(2)(G);
       ``(C) an individual who is--
       ``(i) a dependent of a deceased member or former member 
     described in section 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title 
     or of a member who died while on active duty for a period of 
     more than 30 days; and
       ``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of 
     title 5; or
       ``(D) an individual who is--
       ``(i) a dependent of a living member or former member 
     described in section 1076(b)(1) of this title; and
       ``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of 
     title 5.
       ``(2) Eligible beneficiaries may enroll in a Federal 
     Employees Health Benefit plan under chapter 89 of title 5 
     under this section for self-only coverage or for self and 
     family coverage which includes any dependent of the member or 
     former member who is a family member for purposes of such 
     chapter.
       ``(3) A person eligible for coverage under this subsection 
     shall not be required to satisfy any eligibility criteria 
     specified in chapter 89 of title 5 (except as provided in 
     paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D)) as a condition for enrollment in 
     health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits program under this section.
       ``(4) For purposes of determining whether an individual is 
     a member of family under paragraph (5) of section 8901 of 
     title 5 for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D), a member 
     or former member described in section 1076(b) or 
     1076(a)(2)(B) of this title shall be deemed to be an employee 
     under such section.
       ``(5) An eligible beneficiary who is eligible to enroll in 
     the Federal Employees Health Benefits program as an employee 
     under chapter 89 of title 5 is not eligible to enroll in a 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section.
       ``(6) An eligible beneficiary who enrolls in the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program under this section shall 
     not be eligible to receive health care under section 1086 or 
     section 1097. Such a beneficiary may continue to receive 
     health care in a military medical treatment facility, in 
     which case the treatment facility shall be reimbursed by the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits program for health care 
     services or drugs received by the beneficiary.
       ``(c) Change of Health Benefits Plan.--An eligible 
     beneficiary enrolled in a Federal Employees Health Benefits 
     plan under this section may change health benefits plans and 
     coverage in the same manner as any other Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits program beneficiary may change such plans.

[[Page H2257]]

       ``(d) Government Contributions.--The amount of the 
     Government contribution for an eligible beneficiary who 
     enrolls in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5 
     in accordance with this section may not exceed the amount of 
     the Government contribution which would be payable if the 
     electing beneficiary were an employee (as defined for 
     purposes of such chapter) enrolled in the same health 
     benefits plan and level of benefits.
       ``(e) Separate Risk Pools.--The Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall require health benefits plans 
     under chapter 89 of title 5 to maintain a separate risk pool 
     for purposes of establishing premium rates for eligible 
     beneficiaries who enroll in such a plan in accordance with 
     this section.''.
       (2) The item relating to section 1108 at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended to read as follows:
``1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits 
              program.''.
       (3) The amendments made by this subsection shall take 
     effect on January 1, 2003.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       In section 107, relating to the Defense Health Program 
     (page ____, after line ____)--
       (1) insert ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--'' 
     before ``Funds''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       (b) Increase in Health Care Services for Military Retirees 
     and Dependents.--The amount provided in subsection (a) is 
     hereby increased by $2,500,000, and the total amount of the 
     increase shall be available for procurement for carrying out 
     health case programs, projects, and activities for retired 
     members of the Armed Forces and their dependents.
       (c) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount provided in section 
     105 for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense is 
     hereby reduced by $100,000, and the amount provided in 
     section 301(24) for Support for International Sporting 
     Competitions is hereby reduced by $2,400,000.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       Page 34, after line 11, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (f) Limitation on Awarding of Contract for Low-Rate Initial 
     Production.--The Secretary of the Army may not award a 
     contract for low-rate initial production for the RAH-66 
     Comanche aircraft program until the Secretary of Defense, 
     after receiving the views of the Director of Operational Test 
     and Evaluation, submits to the congressional defense 
     committees the Secretary's certification of each of the 
     following:
       (1) That the plan in the engineering and manufacturing 
     development phase of the program is adequate for determining 
     the operational effectiveness and suitability of the Comanche 
     aircraft before the start of full-rate production.
       (2) That the Comanche program has made adequate progress in 
     development flight testing to date and is on a clear track to 
     demonstrate in operational flight testing, before the start 
     of full-rate production, that the aircraft can meet the 
     following key performance parameters:
       (A) Vertical rate of climb.
       (B) Night target acquisition range.
       (C) Radar cross section signature.
       (D) Infrared engine exhaust signature.
       (E) Digital communications with joint and combined arms 
     forces.
       (3) That the Comanche can be produced within cost, 
     schedule, and quality targets.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or 
                       Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 217. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR CRUSADER 
                   ARTILLERY PROGRAM.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for the Crusader artillery program of 
     the Army may be obligated until the Secretary of Defense, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Army and the Director 
     of Operational Test and Evaluation, submits to the 
     congressional defense committees a certification of the 
     Secretary of Defense's continued support for the program and 
     a report that includes each of the following:
       (1) An assessment of the extent to which critical Crusader 
     technologies have not been demonstrated, at the component and 
     subsystem level, in an operational environment (also known as 
     technology readiness level 7), and the effect that the status 
     of technology testing will have on the milestone B decision 
     for the Crusader artillery program.
       (2) An assessment of the effect that the weight of the 
     Crusader and its resupply vehicle will have on the ability to 
     transport the system to remote battlefields, including an 
     assessment of the importance of deploying two Crusader 
     howitzers on a single C-17 aircraft.
       (3) An assessment of the effect of weight reductions on the 
     cost of the Crusader and its ability to meet performance 
     requirements.
       (4) A determination of the potential capabilities and 
     timing for deployment of the initial version of the Future 
     Combat Systems and the implications of those capabilities and 
     deployment schedule on the Crusader's utility to the Army.
       (5) An analysis, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Air Force, comparing the ability of the Crusader to carry out 
     its mission with the ability of aircraft using smart bombs, 
     global positioning systems, and on-the-ground human spotters 
     to carry out that same mission, including an assessment of 
     the utility of the Crusader, compared with the utility of 
     such aircraft, to combat likely future threats given the 
     force structure of the enemy and the terrain in which they 
     operate.
       (6) An assessment of the effect of the Army's plans to 
     award contracts for low-rate initial production for the 
     Crusader less than one-fourth of the way through the 
     prototype testing schedule on the cost of the Crusader and 
     its ability to meet performance requirements.
       (7) An assessment of the extent to which the automation of 
     the major functions of the Crusader (including aiming, 
     loading, and firing the cannon, managing inventory 
     (projectiles and propellant), and resupplying the howitzer 
     with fuel and ammunition) exposes the entire system to 
     inoperability due to software problems, including an analysis 
     of the extent to which the software has been tested under 
     operational conditions and an analysis of the challenges 
     faced by the crew in repairing potential software glitches in 
     battlefield conditions.
       (b) GAO Evaluation.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     Secretary of Defense submits the report under subsection (a), 
     the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees an evaluation of the report.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or 
                        Mr. Stark of California

       At the end of subtitle A of title II (page 31, after line 
     9), insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. TERMINATION OF FUNDING FOR THE CRUSADER ARTILLERY 
                   PROGRAM.

       The amount provided in section 201(1) for the Army is 
     hereby reduced by $475,200,000, to be derived from amounts 
     for the Crusader artillery program.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 23, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON F-22 AIRCRAFT LOW-RATE INITIAL 
                   PRODUCTION.

       The amount provided in section 103(1) for procurement of 
     aircraft for the Air Force is hereby reduced by 
     $1,812,000,000, to be derived by reducing the number of F-22 
     aircraft authorized for low-rate initial production from 23 
     to 13.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 23, after line 
     5), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 122. F-22 RAPTOR FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

       (a) Requirement for Reassessment of the Cost of the F-22 
     With a Report to Congress.--The Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall reassess the cost to complete the development program 
     for the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft. The Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress, as a supplement to the fiscal year 2004 
     budget, information on any amount that the Secretary 
     determines would be necessary for that development program in 
     addition to the amount of $21,000,000,000 previously reported 
     to Congress as the amount for that program.
       (b) Requirement for Monitoring Key Manufacturing 
     Processes.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall direct the 
     program office for the F-22 aircraft program to monitor the 
     status of key manufacturing processes for that program by 
     collecting statistics on the percentage of key manufacturing 
     processes in control as the program continues to proceed 
     toward high-rate production. As part of the report required 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide the 
     congressional defense committees with the statistics, and an 
     analysis of the statistics, collected under this subsection.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hoeffel of 
                              Pennsylvania

       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new subtitle:

     SUBTITLE D--REVIEW OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO MILITARY 
                   TRIBUNALS

     SEC. 1041. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Military Tribunal 
     Regulations Review Act''.

     SEC. 1042. CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW.

       (a) Procedures Required.--(1) Before a military tribunal 
     rule takes effect, the President shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing--
       (A) a copy of the military tribunal rule;
       (B) a concise general statement relating to the military 
     tribunal rule; and
       (C) the proposed effective date of the military tribunal 
     rule.
       (2) A military tribunal rule with respect to which a report 
     is submitted under paragraph (1) shall take effect on the 
     latest of the following:
       (A) The last day of the 60-day period beginning on the 
     submission date for that rule.

[[Page H2258]]

       (B) If the President, having been presented with a joint 
     resolution of disapproval with respect to that rule, returns 
     the joint resolution without his signature to the House in 
     which it originated, together with his objections thereto, 
     the date that is--
       (i) the date on which either House, having proceeded to 
     reconsider the joint resolution, votes on and fails to pass 
     the joint resolution, the objections of the President to the 
     contrary notwithstanding; or
       (ii) if earlier, the date that is 30 days after the date on 
     which the joint resolution, with the President's objections 
     thereto, was returned by the President to the House in which 
     it originated.
       (C) The date on which the military tribunal rule would have 
     otherwise taken effect, if not for this section (unless a 
     joint resolution of disapproval is enacted).
       (3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the effective date of a 
     military tribunal rule shall not be delayed by operation of 
     this subtitle beyond the date on which either House of 
     Congress votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval.
       (b) Effect of Disapproval.--(1) A military tribunal rule 
     shall not take effect (or continue) if a joint resolution of 
     disapproval with respect to that military tribunal rule is 
     enacted.
       (2) A military tribunal rule that does not take effect (or 
     does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in 
     substantially the same form, and a new military tribunal rule 
     that is substantially the same as such a military tribunal 
     rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new military 
     tribunal rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted 
     after the date of the enactment of the joint resolution of 
     disapproval with respect to the original military tribunal 
     rule.
       (c) Disapproval of Rules That Have Taken Effect.--Any 
     military tribunal rule that takes effect and later is made of 
     no force or effect by the enactment of a joint resolution of 
     disapproval shall be treated as though such military tribunal 
     rule had never taken effect, except that a trial of a person 
     pursuant to such rule that is being carried out before the 
     enactment of such joint resolution of disapproval shall 
     continue to be carried out as though such military tribunal 
     rule remains in effect.
       (d) Rule of Construction.--If the Congress does not enact a 
     joint resolution of disapproval with respect to a military 
     tribunal rule, no court or agency may infer any intent of the 
     Congress from any action or inaction of the Congress with 
     regard to such military tribunal rule, related statute, or 
     joint resolution of disapproval.
       (e) Joint Resolution of Disapproval Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, the term ``joint resolution of disapproval'' 
     means a joint resolution introduced on or after the date on 
     which a report referred to in subsection (a)(1) is received 
     by Congress, the title of which is ``Joint Resolution 
     disapproving the rule submitted by the President on ____, 
     relating to military tribunals'', containing no whereas 
     clauses, and the matter after the resolving clause of which 
     is as follows: ``That Congress disapproves the rule submitted 
     by the President on ____, relating to military tribunals, and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.'' (The blank spaces 
     being appropriately filled in).

     SEC. 1043. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this subtitle:
       (1) The term ``military tribunal'' means a military 
     commission or other military tribunal (other than a court-
     martial).
       (2) The term ``military tribunal rule'' means the whole or 
     part of an agency statement of general or particular 
     applicability and future effect designed to implement, 
     interpret, or prescribe law or policy, or describing the 
     organization, procedure, or practice requirements of a 
     Department or agency, with regard to carrying out military 
     tribunals.

     SEC. 1044. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       No determination, finding, action, or omission under this 
     subtitle shall be subject to judicial review.

     SEC. 1045. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR MILITARY TRIBUNALS.

       (a) In General.--(1) Subchapter XI of chapter 47 of title 
     10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 940a. Art. 140a. Reports to Congress on military 
       tribunals

       ``(a) For each military tribunal, the President shall 
     submit to Congress periodic reports on the activities of that 
     military tribunal. The first such report with respect to a 
     military tribunal shall be submitted not later than six 
     months after the date on which the military tribunal is 
     convened and shall include an identification of the accused 
     and the offense charged. Each succeeding report with respect 
     to a military tribunal shall be submitted not later than six 
     months after the date on which the preceding report was 
     submitted.
       ``(b) A report under this section shall be submitted in 
     unclassified form, but may included a classified annex.
       ``(c) In this section, the term `military tribunal' means a 
     military commission or other military tribunal (other than a 
     court-martial).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such 
     subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:
``940a. 140a. Reports to Congress on military tribunals.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 940a of title 10 United States 
     Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to 
     any military tribunal covered after, or pending on, that date 
     of the enactment of this subtitle. In the case of a military 
     tribunal pending on the date of the enactment of this 
     subtitle, the first report required by such section shall be 
     submitted not later than six months after the date of the 
     enactment of this subtitle.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Taylor of 
                              Mississippi

       In section 1206, relating to the limitation on number of 
     military personnel in Colombia, strike subsections (c) and 
     (d) (page ____, beginning line ____).
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Taylor of 
                              Mississippi

       At the end of title XXVIII (page ____, after line ____), 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL ROUND OF 
                   BASE REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES IN 2005.

       Effective as of December 28, 2001, the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) 
     is amended by striking title XXX and the amendments made by 
     that title relating to the realignment and closure of 
     military installations.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon or 
                           Mr. Paul of Texas

       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO CONGRESSIONAL WAR 
                   POWERS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Among the powers granted to Congress by the 
     Constitution are the following:
       (A) The power to declare war.
       (B) The power to lay and collect taxes and to pay the debts 
     and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the 
     United States.
       (C) The powers to raise and support armies, to provide and 
     maintain a navy, to make rules for the government and 
     regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for 
     calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the United 
     States, to suppress insurrections and repel invasion, to 
     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, 
     and for governing such part of the militia as may be employed 
     in the service of the United States.
       (D) The power to make all laws necessary and proper for 
     carrying into execution not only its own powers but also all 
     other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of 
     the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
       (E) The power of the purse (``No money shall be drawn from 
     the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by 
     Law'').
       (2) Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1541(c)) states that the President has constitutional 
     authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into 
     hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in 
     hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, only 
     pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory 
     authority, or a national emergency created by attack upon the 
     United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed 
     forces.
       (3) In response to the terrorist attacks against the United 
     States that occurred on September 11, 2001, section 2(a) of 
     Public Law 107-40 provides limited authorization to the 
     President ``to use all necessary and appropriate force 
     against those nations, organizations, or persons [the 
     President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
     aided the terrorist attacks . . . or harbored such 
     organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts 
     of international terrorism against the United States by such 
     nations, organizations or persons''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     deployment of elements of the Armed Forces into hostilities 
     outside the United States or into situations where imminent 
     involvement in hostilities outside the United States is 
     clearly indicated by the circumstances should be made only in 
     accordance with the powers granted to Congress by the 
     Constitution as described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of 
     subsection (a)(1) and relevant provisions of law.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Tauscher of 
                               California

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after 
     line 24), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3146. INTERNATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON IMPROVING 
                   PROTECTION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS IN FOREIGN 
                   COUNTRIES.

       (a) Project Required.--In carrying out the materials 
     protection, control, and accounting program of the Department 
     of Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall carry out a 
     demonstration project under this section to improve the level 
     of physical protection of nuclear materials in facilities, 
     whether military or civilian, of foreign countries.
       (b) Participating Countries.--The Secretary shall select 
     not more than three foreign countries for participation in 
     the demonstration project required by this section. The 
     Secretary may not select a country that was included within 
     the former Soviet Union for participation.
       (c) Elements.--The demonstration project required by this 
     section shall include the

[[Page H2259]]

     first two, and may include all three, of the following 
     elements:
       (1) During the first three months of such demonstration 
     project, providing training to local experts in physical 
     protection of nuclear materials, including an exchange of 
     best practices.
       (2) During the first 12 months of such demonstration 
     project, implementation of basic improvements, such as 
     upgrading doors and windows, installing barriers, and 
     blocking nonessential doors and windows.
       (3) During the first 24 months of such demonstration 
     project, implementation of extensive improvements, such as 
     upgrading the perimeter, installing sensors, implementing 
     personnel access procedures, and providing training in the 
     operation of new equipment and procedures.
       (d) Funding.--(1) The amount provided in section 3101 for 
     the activities of the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration in carrying out programs necessary for 
     national security is hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be 
     available to carry out this section.
       (2) The amount provided in section 201(4) for Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, is hereby 
     increased by $10,000,000, to be derived from program element 
     0603880C.
                                  ____


    Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mrs. Tauscher of 
                   California and Mr. Allen of Maine

       Strike section 1021 (page 210, line 2, through page 211, 
     line 20) and insert the following new section 1021:

     SEC. 1021. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MAINTENANCE OF A RELIABLE AND 
                   SECURE STRATEGIC DETERRENT.

       It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the 
     national defense strategy delineated in the Quadrennial 
     Defense Review dated September 30, 2001 (as submitted under 
     section 118 of title 10, United States Code), the global 
     strategic environment, and the commitments of the United 
     States to the arms control regimes to which the United States 
     is a party, the President should, to ensure the national 
     security of the United States and advance the foreign policy 
     goals and vital interests of the United States, take the 
     following actions:
       (1) Maintain an operationally deployed strategic force of 
     not less than 1,700 operationally deployed nuclear weapons, 
     unless determined otherwise by a subsequent Nuclear Posture 
     Review and or through negotiated bilateral or multilateral 
     agreements.
       (2) Dismantle as many nuclear weapons that are not in the 
     operationally deployed forces of the United States as 
     possible, consistent with--
       (A) the commitments of the United States under bilateral 
     and multilateral agreements; and
       (B) effective execution of the Single Integrated 
     Operational Plan.
       (3) Develop advanced conventional weapons and enhanced 
     intelligence to provide better capability for destroying--
       (A) hard and deeply buried targets; and
       (B) enemy weapons of mass destruction and the development 
     and production facilities of such enemy weapons.
       (4) Report to Congress on any plans to shorten the lead 
     time and enhance the capability to conduct underground 
     testing of nuclear weapons, and, in the case of plans to 
     shorten the lead time to conduct such testing, include an 
     assessment of cost, effect on the global strategic 
     environment, and projected technical scientific benefits 
     associated with such plans.
       (5) Ensure, through the stockpile stewardship and 
     management program, that the United States nuclear weapons 
     arsenal remains as safe and reliable as possible.
       (6) State that the United States remains committed to its 
     obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce its 
     nuclear weapons arsenal in order to discourage the spread of 
     nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South 
                                Carolina

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after 
     line 24), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3146. PRESIDENTIAL NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS BEFORE 
                   RESUMPTION OF UNDERGROUND TESTING OF NUCLEAR 
                   WEAPONS.

       (a) Notification of First Test.--(1) Not less than 12 
     months before the United States first conducts an underground 
     test of a nuclear weapon after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the resumption by the United States of the conduct of such 
     tests. The report shall include each of the following:
       (1) The date on which the President intends the first such 
     test to be conducted.
       (2) The President's certification that the national 
     security of the United States requires that the United States 
     resume conducting such tests, and an explanation of the 
     reasons why the national security so requires.
       (3) An assessment of the expected reactions of other 
     nations to the resumption by the United States of the conduct 
     of such tests.
       (b) Report on Test Readiness.--Not later than March 1, 
     2003, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the options for reducing the amount of time 
     required to conduct an underground test of a nuclear weapon 
     after a decision to conduct such a test is made. The report 
     shall include the following:
       (1) The findings of the study carried out by the Department 
     of Energy in fiscal year 2002 that examined such options.
       (2) The assessment of the Secretary as to whether reducing 
     such amount of time to less than 24 to 36 months is feasible.
       (3) The technical challenges and requirements associated 
     with reducing such amount of time to less than 24 to 36 
     months.
       (4) The cost, during the period from fiscal year 2003 to 
     2012, associated with reducing such amount of time to less 
     than 24 to 36 months.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South 
                                Carolina

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after 
     line 24), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3146. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE INCREASE IN AMOUNTS 
                   FOR DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION.

       (a) Increase for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.--The 
     amount in section 3101 for defense nuclear nonproliferation 
     is hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be available only for 
     Russian surplus fissile materials disposition.
       (b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount in section 201(4) for 
     the Missile Defense Agency is hereby reduced by $10,000,000, 
     to be derived from program element 0603880C, Ballistic 
     Missile Defense System Segment.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Allen of Maine and 
                      Mr. Spratt of South Carolina

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 234. PROHIBITION ON DEVELOPMENT AND DEPLOYMENT OF 
                   NUCLEAR-TIPPED BALLISTIC MISSILE INTERCEPTORS.

       (a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States not to develop or deploy nuclear-tipped ballistic 
     missile interceptors.
       (b) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds appopriated or 
     otherwise made available to the Department of Defense or the 
     Department of Energy may be obligated or expended to develop 
     or deploy a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor.
       (c) Definition.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``nuclear-tipped ballistic missile 
     interceptor'' means a ballistic missile defense system that 
     employs a nuclear detonation to destroy an incoming missile 
     or reentry vehicle.
       (2) The term ``develop'' includes any activities referred 
     to in section 179(d)(8) of title 10, United States Code, more 
     advanced than feasibility studies.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

       At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after 
     line 24), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3146. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS 
                   FOR PROGRAM RELATING TO ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS 
                   GRADE PLUTONIUM IN RUSSIA.

       (a) Increase for Program to Eliminate Weapons Grade 
     Plutonium in Russia.--The amount in section 3101 for defense 
     nuclear nonproliferation is hereby increased by $30,000,000, 
     to be available only for the program transferred under 
     section 3142.
       (b) Offsetting Reduction.--The amount in section 201(4) for 
     the Missile Defense Agency is hereby reduced by $30,000,000, 
     to be derived from program element 0603880C, Ballistic 
     Missile Defense System Segment.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Frost of Texas

       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ____. REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALIZATION TO CITIZENSHIP 
                   THROUGH SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) Period of Required Service Reduced to 2 Years.--Section 
     328(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1439(a)) is amended by striking ``three'' and inserting 
     ``two''.
       (b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to 
     Naturalization.--Section 328(b) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee 
     shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a 
     petition for naturalization or issuing a certificate of 
     naturalization upon his admission to citizenship, and no 
     clerk of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for 
     such services unless the laws of the State require such 
     charge to be made, in which case nothing more than the 
     portion of the fee required to be paid to the State shall be 
     charged or collected.''.
       (c) Naturalization Through Enlistment in the Armed Forces 
     and Service With an Eligibility for Access to Classified 
     Information.--The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended 
     by adding after section 328 the following new section:

[[Page H2260]]

 ``naturalization through enlistment in the armed forces of the united 
    states and service with an eligibility for access to classified 
                             information''

       ``Sec. 328A. (a) A person who has served honorably at any 
     time in the Armed Forces of the United States, who enlisted 
     for such service and was not inducted to service, whose 
     eligibility for access to classified information has been 
     certified to the Service by the relevant military department, 
     and who, if separated from such service, was never separated 
     except under honorable conditions, may be naturalized without 
     having resided, continuously immediately preceding the date 
     of filing such person's application, in the United States for 
     at least five years, and in the State or district of the 
     Service in the United States in which the application for 
     naturalization is filed for at least three months, and 
     without having been physically present in the United States 
     for any specified period, if such application is filed while 
     the applicant is still in the service or within six months 
     after the termination of such service.
       ``(b) A person filing a application under subsection (a) of 
     this section shall comply in all other respects with the 
     requirements of this title, except that--
       ``(1) no residence within a State or district of the 
     Service in the United States shall be required;
       ``(2) notwithstanding section 318 insofar as it relates to 
     deportability, such applicant may be naturalized immediately 
     if the applicant be then actually in the Armed Forces of the 
     United States, and if prior to the filing of the application, 
     the applicant shall have appeared before and been examined by 
     a representative of the Service;
       ``(3) the applicant shall furnish to the Attorney General, 
     prior to any final hearing upon his application a certified 
     statement from the proper executive department for each 
     period of his service upon which he relies for the benefits 
     of this section--
       ``(A) clearly showing that such service was honorable and 
     that no discharges from service, including periods of service 
     not relied upon by him for the benefits of this section, were 
     other than honorable,
       ``(B) clearly showing that the applicant entered the 
     Service through enlistment and not induction; and
       ``(C) clearly showing that the applicant was eligible for 
     access to classified information; and
       ``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee 
     shall be charged or collected from the applicant for filing a 
     petition for naturalization or issuing a certificate of 
     naturalization upon his admission to citizenship, and no 
     clerk of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for 
     such services unless the laws of the State require such 
     charge to be made, in which case nothing more than the 
     portion of the fee required to be paid to the State shall be 
     charged or collected.
     ``The certificate or certificates herein provided for shall 
     be conclusive evidence of such service and discharge.
       ``(c) In the case such applicant's service was not 
     continuous, the applicant's residence in the United States 
     and State or district of the Service in the United States, 
     good moral character, attachment to the principles of the 
     Constitution of the United States, and favorable disposition 
     toward the good order and happiness of the United States, 
     during any period within five years immediately preceding the 
     date of filing such application between the periods of 
     applicant's service in the Armed Forces, shall be alleged in 
     the application filed under the provisions of subsection (a) 
     of this section, and proved at any hearing thereon. Such 
     allegation and proof shall also be made as to any period 
     between the termination of applicant's service and the filing 
     of the application for naturalization.
       ``(d) The applicant shall comply with the requirements of 
     section 316(a) of this title, if the termination of such 
     service has been more than six months preceding the date of 
     filing the application for naturalization, except that such 
     service within five years immediately preceding the date of 
     filing such application shall be considered as residence and 
     physical presence within the United States.
       ``(e) Any such period or periods of service under honorable 
     conditions, and good moral character, attachment to the 
     principles of the Constitution of the United States, and 
     favorable disposition toward the good order and happiness of 
     the United States, during such service, shall be proved by 
     duly authenticated copies of the records of the executive 
     departments having custody of the records of such service, 
     and such authenticated copies of records shall be accepted in 
     lieu of compliance with the provisions of section 316(a).''.
       (d) Conduct of Naturalization Proceedings Overseas for 
     Members of the Armed Forces of the United States.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney 
     General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall ensure that any applications, interviews, 
     filings, oaths, ceremonies, or other proceedings under title 
     III of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to 
     naturalization of members of the Armed Forces are available 
     through United States embassies and consulates and, as 
     practicable, United States military installations overseas.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

       At the end of title III (page 81, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. ____. ADDITIONAL FOOD ITEM AUTHORIZED FOR PURCHASE FOR 
                   COMBAT FEEDING PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Defense shall amend the list describing 
     the types of shrimp that may be purchased for use in the 
     Department of Defense Combat Feeding Program to include 
     frozen, Pacific pink shrimp (Pandalus jordani), consisting of 
     350 to 500 shrimp per pound.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of 
                             Massachusetts

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR GROUND-BASED 
                   NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PENDING ANNUAL 
                   CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST 
                   AND EVALUATION.

       No funds of the Department of Defense may be obligated or 
     expended for a fiscal year for ground-based national missile 
     defense until after the Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation submits to Congress in that fiscal year the 
     Director's certification that the Missile Defense Agency and 
     the contractors of that agency have provided to the Director 
     access to all records and data that the Director considers 
     necessary, as required by section 139(e)(3) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of 
                             Massachusetts

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR GROUND-BASED 
                   NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PENDING ANNUAL 
                   CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TEST 
                   AND EVALUATION.

       No funds of the Department of Defense may be obligated or 
     expended for a fiscal year for ground-based national missile 
     defense until after the Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation submits to Congress in that fiscal year the 
     Director's certification that the Department of Defense is in 
     full compliance with the recommendations of the National 
     Missile Defense Deployment Readiness Review issued by the 
     Director in August 2000.
                                  ____


     Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Tierney of 
                             Massachusetts

       At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 234. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 
                   MISSILE DEFENSE FACILITIES AT FORT GREELY, 
                   ALASKA, PENDING APPROVAL OF DIRECTOR OF 
                   OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.

       No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the 
     Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the 
     construction of any missile defense facilities at Fort 
     Greely, Alaska, until the Director of Operational Test and 
     Evaluation approves (in writing) the adequacy of the plans 
     (including the projected level of funding) for operational 
     test and evaluation pursuant to section 2399(b) of title 10, 
     United States Code.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. McKinney of Georgia

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 217. TERMINATION OF CRUSADER PROGRAM.

       (a) Termination.--The Secretary of the Army shall terminate 
     the Crusader program.
       (b) Elimination of Funding.--The amount in section 201(1) 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, is 
     hereby reduced by $475,200,000.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546 (FY03 Defense Authorization Bill) Offered by Mr. 
                        Jones of North Carolina

       At the end of subtitle D of title III (page 64, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3____. RIGHTS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WITH 
                   RESPECT TO ACTIONS OR DETERMINATIONS UNDER 
                   PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS.

       (a) Appeal Rights.--Section 2467 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Appeal Rights.--(1) A person described in paragraph 
     (2) who is adversely affected by any action or determination 
     under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other 
     public-private competition for the performance of a function 
     for the Department of Defense shall have appeal rights to the 
     Comptroller General.
       ``(2) A person referred to in paragraph (1) is an officer 
     or employee of an organization within the Department of 
     Defense that is an actual or prospective offeror to perform 
     the activity that is the subject of the action or 
     determination under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

[[Page H2261]]

     ``Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; 
       consultation with employees; appeal rights; waiver of 
       comparison

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 146 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2467 and inserting the following new item:
``2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation 
              with employees; appeal rights; waiver of comparison.''.
       (c) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall apply with respect to any review under 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other 
     public-private competition for the performance of a function 
     for the Department of Defense that is commenced on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and any review or 
     competition underway on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546 (FY03 Defense Authorization Bill) Offered by Mr. 
                        Jones of North Carolina

       At the end of subtitle D of title III, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 3____. RIGHTS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WITH 
                   RESPECT TO ACTIONS OR DETERMINATIONS UNDER 
                   PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS.

       (a) Appeal Rights.--Section 2467 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Appeal Rights.--(1) A person described in paragraph 
     (2) shall be considered to be an interested party under 
     subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31 for purposes of any 
     action or determination that adversely affects the person 
     under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or other 
     public-private competition for the performance of a function 
     for the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) A person referred to in paragraph (1) is--
       ``(A) an officer or employee of an organization within the 
     Department of Defense that is an actual or prospective 
     offeror to perform the activity that is the subject of the 
     action or determination under paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) the head of any labor organization referred to in 
     section 7103(a)(4) of title 5 that includes within its 
     membership officers or employees of an organization referred 
     to in subparagraph (A).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section 
     is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; 
       consultation with employees; appeal rights; waiver of 
       comparison

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 146 
     of such title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 2467 and inserting the following new item:
``2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation 
              with employees; appeal rights; waiver of comparison.''.
                                  ____


   Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Rahall of West 
                                Virginia

(For himself, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr. 
Allen of Maine, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Pallone of New Jersey, Ms. 
     Sanchez of California, Mr. Hinchey of New York, Mr. Meehan of 
               Massachusetts, and Ms. Lee of California)

       Strike sections 311 and 312 (page 52, line 10 through page 
     54, line 18).
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 217. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Increase for Unexploded Ordnance Program.--The amount 
     provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test, 
     and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by 
     $20,000,000, to be available for program element 0603716D, 
     for use for unexploded ordnance detection and clearance.
       (b) Reduction from Crusader Program.--The amount provided 
     in section 201(1) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Army, is hereby reduced by $20,000,000, to be 
     derived from amounts available for the Crusader program.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line 
     19), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 217. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Increases for Unexploded Ordnance Program.--(1) The 
     amount provided in section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by 
     $20,000,000, to be available for program element 0603716D, 
     for use for unexploded ordnance detection and clearance.
       (2) The amount provided in section 301(17) for 
     environmental restoration, Defense-wide, is hereby increased 
     by $30,000,000, to be available for the military munitions 
     response program.
       (3) The amount provided in section 301(18) for 
     environmental restoration, formerly used defense sites, is 
     hereby increased by $70,000,000, to be available for 
     unexploded ordnance cleanup.
       (b) Reduction from Crusader Program.--The amount provided 
     in section 201(1) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation, Army, is hereby reduced by $120,000,000, to be 
     derived from amounts available for the Crusader program.
                                  ____


 Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode 
                                 Island

       At the end of subtitle F of title V (page ____, after line 
     ____), insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. WEAR OF ABAYAS BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN 
                   SAUDI ARABIA.

       (a) Prohibitions Relating to Wear of Abayas.--(1) A member 
     of the Armed Forces may not be required or strongly 
     encouraged to wear the abaya garment or any part of the abaya 
     garment while in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a 
     permanent change of station or orders for temporary duty.
       (2) No adverse action, whether formal or informal, may be 
     taken against a member of the Armed Forces who chooses not to 
     wear the abaya garment or any part of the abaya garment while 
     in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursuant to a permanent change 
     of station or orders for temporary duty.
       (b) Instruction.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 
     provide each member of the Armed Forces ordered to a 
     permanent change of station or temporary duty in the Kingdom 
     of Saudi Arabia with instructions regarding the prohibitions 
     in subsection (a). Such instructions shall be provided to a 
     member within 10 days before the date of a member's arrival 
     at a United States military installation within the Kingdom 
     of Saudi Arabia or immediately upon such arrival. The 
     instructions shall be presented orally and in writing. The 
     written instruction shall include the full text of this 
     section.
       (2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall act 
     through the Commander in Chief, United States Central Command 
     and Joint Task Force Southwest Asia, and the commanders of 
     the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps components of the 
     United States Central Command and Joint Task Force Southwest 
     Asia.
       (c) Prohibition on Use of Funds for Procurement of 
     Abayas.--Funds appropriated or otherwise made available to 
     the Department of Defense may not be used to procure abayas 
     for regular or routine issuance to members of the Armed 
     Forces serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or for any 
     personnel of contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the 
     Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the performance of contracts 
     entered into with such contractors by the United States.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado

       At the end of subtitle D of title XXXI (page 356, after 
     line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3153. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMMITMENT TO CLEANUP 
                   AT ROCKY FLATS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States and the State of Colorado have a 
     compelling interest in achieving the safe and effective 
     cleanup of present and former nuclear weapons facilities of 
     the Department of Energy, including the Rocky Flats 
     Environmental Technology Site in Colorado.
       (2) Completion of cleanup at Rocky Flats and closure of 
     that site will allow resources to be redirected to meet the 
     needs of other present and former nuclear weapons sites, 
     including sites in Washington, Texas, Idaho, Ohio, New 
     Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, and other States.
       (3) The Department of Energy seeks to complete cleanup and 
     closure of the Rocky Flats site on or before December 15, 
     2006, and it is in the national interest for that objective 
     to be met.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Energy should take all steps necessary and 
     appropriate, including removal from the site of all plutonium 
     and other wastes, to achieve cleanup and closure of the Rocky 
     Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado, on or before 
     December 15, 2006, in a manner consistent with the Rocky 
     Flats Cleanup Agreement, an intergovernmental agreement, 
     dated July 19, 1996, among--
       (1) the Department of Energy;
       (2) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (3) the Department of Public Health and Environment of the 
     State of Colorado.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio or 
                           Mr. Paul of Texas

       At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 196, after line 
     2), insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON FUNDING PENDING COMPLETION OF 
                   SUCCESSFUL AUDITS.

       (a) In General.--Of the total amount appropriated pursuant 
     to authorizations of appropriations in this Act for any 
     component of the Department of Defense specified in 
     subsection (b), not more than 99 percent may be obligated 
     until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a notice 
     in writing that such component has received an unqualified 
     opinion on its audited financial statements pursuant to 
     section 3521 of title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Covered Components.--Components of the Department of 
     Defense subject to subsection (a) are those components that 
     the Director of the Office of Management and

[[Page H2262]]

     Budget has identified (as of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act) under subsection (c) of section 3515 of title 31, 
     United States Code, as being required to have audited 
     financial statements meeting the requirements of subsection 
     (b) of that section.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio

       At the end of title II (page 49, after line 17), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS.

       As of the date when the total amount expended by the United 
     States since April 1, 1997, for fixed-base ballistic missile 
     defense programs has exceeded $50,000,000,000, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall terminate all such programs unless before 
     that date the Secretary certifies to Congress that the 
     Department of Defense has demonstrated in a flight test that 
     an interceptor missile can destroy a warhead without relying 
     in the test on any device on the target vehicle that an enemy 
     would not employ.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio

       At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 8____. UNIT COST REPORTS.

       Section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) Whether, since the most recent unit cost report was 
     submitted, a new baseline description has been established 
     under section 2435 of this title. If such new baseline 
     description has been established, the program manager shall 
     report whether this new baseline description was established 
     due to excessive cost growth and for the purpose of 
     establishing new per unit costs for charting cost growth.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), after ``Secretary concerned,'' 
     insert ``or if a new baseline description of the program has 
     been established since the most recent previous unit cost 
     report submitted under subsection (b) due to excessive cost 
     growth and for the purpose of establishing new per unit costs 
     for charting cost growth,'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(d)(1)''; and
       (B) by inserting before paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(B) If, according to the report submitted by the program 
     manager under subsections (b) or (c), a new baseline 
     description of -the program has been established since the 
     most recent previous unit cost report submitted due to 
     excessive cost growth and for the purpose of establishing new 
     per unit costs for charting cost growth, the service 
     acquisition executive shall consider the current program 
     acquisition unit cost for the program to have increased by at 
     least 25 percent.'';
       (C) by inserting ``(A)'' immediately after the first place 
     ``(2)'' appears; and
       (D) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(B) If, according to the report submitted by the program 
     manager under subsections (b) or (c), a new baseline 
     description of -the program has been established since the 
     most recent previous unit cost report submitted due to 
     excessive cost growth and for the purpose of establishing new 
     per unit costs for charting cost growth, the service 
     acquisition executive shall consider the current program 
     acquisition unit cost for the program to have increased by at 
     least 25 percent.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
       ``(4) If a determination of an increase of at least 15 
     percent is made by the Secretary under subsection (d) in 
     three successive years, or if a determination of an increase 
     of at least 25 percent is made by the Secretary three times 
     in any period, funds -appropriated for military construction, 
     for research, test, and evaluation, and for procurement may 
     not be obligated for a major contract under the program.
       ``(5) In the event of a congressional declaration of war, 
     and if the Secretary of Defense determines that a program 
     subject to termination under paragraph (4) is vital to any 
     operation of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to this 
     declaration of war, the President may, for the duration of 
     hostilities, such paragraph may be waived.''.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New 
                                  York

       At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 8____. EFFECT OF CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS ON SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES.

       (a) In General.--Whenever the Secretary of Defense or the 
     Secretary of a military department awards a consolidated 
     contract that displaces a small business as a prime 
     contractor, the Secretary shall develop and implement a plan 
     to offset the decrease in prime contract awards to small 
     businesses occurring as a result of the consolidated 
     contract.
       (b) Plan Requirements.--A plan under subsection (a) shall 
     be developed before the award of the consolidated contract 
     and shall be implemented during the same fiscal year as the 
     fiscal year in which the consolidated contract is awarded. 
     The plan shall provide for an increase in prime contract 
     awards to small businesses during such fiscal year so as to 
     offset the decrease in prime contract awards by reason of the 
     award of the consolidated contract.
       (c) Transmission to SBA.--The Secretary shall transmit a 
     copy of the plan to the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration not later than 10 days after the date on which 
     development of the plan is completed.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New 
                                  York

       At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 8____. LIMITATION ON AWARD OF SPECIFIED CONTRACT PENDING 
                   ACTION ON SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Limitation.--No funds may be obligated for a contract 
     described in subsection (b) until the Secretary of the Army 
     has accepted in their entirety the recommendations of the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration with 
     respect to that contract contained in the Administrator's 
     letter to the Secretary dated March 20, 2002.
       (b) Covered Contract.--Subsection (a) applies with respect 
     to a contract to be awarded by the Army Communications-
     Electronics Command under the contract solicitation of that 
     command numbered DAAB07-02-R-G401.
                                  ____


  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Velazquez of New 
                                  York

       At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 8____. LIMITATION ON AWARD OF BASE SUPPORT CONTRACTS.

       No funds available to the Department of Defense may be 
     obligated for a contract referred to as a ``Base Support 
     Contract'' until the head of the Base Contracting Activity 
     has prepared a written plan specifying how the Department of 
     Defense is going to increase opportunities for the local 
     small business community to be awarded prime contracts with 
     the Department of Defense during the fiscal year during which 
     the Base Support Contract is awarded or renewed.
                                  ____


Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       At the end of title IV (page 90, after line 23), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 422. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                   MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Increase in Authorization of Appropriations.--The 
     amount authorized to be appropriated in section 421 is 
     increased by $7,784,000,000.
       (b) Off-Setting Reduction.--The amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 201(4) for research, development, 
     test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities is reduced 
     by $7,784,000,000, to be derived from ballistic missile 
     defense programs.

                  Amendment to H.R. 4546, as Reported

            Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald of California

       At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. ____. TERRORIST-RELATED THREATS TO PUBLIC 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     departments and agencies, shall conduct an assessment of 
     terrorist-related threats to all forms of public 
     transportation, including public gathering areas related to 
     public transportation.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     President and Congress a report on the results of the 
     assessment conducted under this section, including the 
     Secretary's recommendations for legislative and 
     administrative actions.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a serious abuse of 
power on the part of the Republican leadership and should be rejected 
by the House.
  Everyone knows that the Defense Authorization bill is one of the most 
important measures that the House will consider this year. It should be 
considered under a rule that will allow the full House--not just 
members of the Armed Services Committee and some others favored by the 
Rules Committee--to have an opportunity to participate in shaping the 
legislation.
  That is particularly true this year because the bill as approved by 
the Committee includes many controversial provisions.
  Some of these controversial provisions involve matters appropriate 
for debate in the context of a bill to authorize defense programs. They 
include provisions authorizing weapons systems not requested or needed 
by the Pentagon as well as provisions authorizing policy changes in the 
area of missile defense and nuclear weapons development.
  But other controversial provisions go beyond the normal or 
appropriate scope of a defense authorization bill.
  For example, the bill includes provisions concerning the Endangered 
Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, matters within the 
jurisdiction of other Committees, including the Resources Committee but 
which our Committee has had no opportunity to consider.
  And, in addition, the bill includes an entire title--Title XIV--that 
not only

[[Page H2263]]

includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources 
Committee but goes further to include matters within our Committee's 
exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee members 
themselves have said this was ``a procedural foul.''
  At the very least, the Rules Committee should have allowed the House 
an opportunity to consider changing or removing these very 
controversial provisions. But the rule does not allow that debate to 
take place.
  Further, I cannot support the rule because it would not even allow 
the House to consider going on record in support of finishing the 
cleanup and closure of the Rocky Flats site by 2006.
  That former nulcear-bomb plant is right at the edge of the most 
heavily-populated part of our state. The Energy Department is working 
to clean it up so it can be closed by 2006 and transferred to the 
Interior Department for management as a National Wildlife Refuge. This 
is a matter of highest priority for all Coloradans, and we think it 
should be a high priority for the Congress and the Administration as 
well. So, I filed an amendment that would have added to this bill a 
mere ``sense of Congress'' statement reiterating that DOE should do all 
that is needed to meet the goal of a 2006 closure. But this rule does 
not even allow the House to consider adding that to the bill. Just 
allowing my amendment would not, by itself, have made this rule fully 
acceptable. Not allowing just makes the rule worse. I urge rejection of 
the rule.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule.
  The Republican attack on our Nation's environmental laws in this bill 
reminds me of the old quote from a U.S. officer during the Tet 
Offensive--``We had to destroy the village in order to save it.''
  Here, we have a situation where the military has told us that it can 
assure readiness without the exemptions being sought by the 
Republicans. Down at Fort Bragg, for example, the Army has been working 
with the environmental community to protect endangered birds and set 
aside additional land outside of the base for wildlife habitat. 
Readiness has not suffered--just ask the Taliban and Al Queda.
  In fact, the environmental laws provide exemptions for activities 
necessary for national security. And to date, no exemption has ever 
been sought by our Armed forces. In fact the most damning word the Air 
Force could conjure up to describe the effect of current law is 
``subtle.'' And the Marine Corp admitted that the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is ``sympathetic'' to DOD's needs.
  Our military personnel are well-trained and ready for action and they 
have successfully coexisted with environmental laws for the past 3 
decades.
  Nevertheless, in this legislation the Republican Majority says we 
must destroy the environment in order to save America from the 
terrorist threat. The Republicans have chosen to grant the DOD broad 
exemptions from our environmental laws wrapped in the cloak of national 
security and military readiness.
  What is really happening here is that those people committed to 
dismantling the environmental laws that protect public health and the 
environment can't do it directly because the public outcry would be too 
great. So, instead they wrapped up their arguments in the cloak of 
national security and tried to pass off despoiling the environment and 
threatening endangered species as necessary because of the war on 
terrorism.
  Don't be fooled by the new national security wrapping. This is the 
same old package--the elimination of laws inconvenient to some but 
crucial for protecting public and environmental health.
  I urge you to defeat the previous question.
  Let's defeat this gag Rule that prevents us from considering an 
amendment to delete these anti-environmental riders.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, 
nays 202, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps

[[Page H2264]]


     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Boucher
     Burton
     Crane
     Hall (OH)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     LaFalce
     Maloney (CT)
     Meehan
     Ose
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (NJ)
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1257

  Messrs. RUSH, GEORGE MILLER of California, ORTIZ, and Ms. McCOLLUM 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HYDE and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 200, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Boucher
     Burton
     Crane
     Davis (FL)
     Hall (OH)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     LaFalce
     Maloney (CT)
     Meehan
     Ose
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (NJ)
     Traficant
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ORTIZ and Mr. GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. KERNS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________