[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2265-H2353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 415 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4546.
{time} 1331
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2003, and for other purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, on May 1 the Committee on Armed Services reported H.R.
4546 on a strong bipartisan vote of 57 to one. The bill authorizes
appropriations for the Department of Defense and for the Department of
Energy national security programs for a total of $383 billion in budget
authority, consistent with the President's budget and with the House-
passed budget resolution.
Over the next few hours, we will debate and explain the many
initiatives contained in this bill to support and strengthen our Armed
Forces during this critical period in our Nation's history. I am
pleased to once again be able to report to my colleagues that this
legislation embodies the same bipartisan spirit that has guided U.S.
national security policy for decades.
It provides for pay, housing, fiscal and physical well-being of our
Armed Forces members and their families. It provides for the research
and acquisition of our military arsenal so critical to maintaining our
combat edge on the battlefield. It provides for the resources and tools
to properly train our forces to be ready to defend our freedoms around
the world at a moment's notice, and it also provides for our Nation's
military retirees, who devoted a better time of their lives for this
country.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very good bill. It follows the spending
blueprints set forth by the President to make his defense budget the
largest since 1990. It also marks the largest single-year increase in
defense spending since 1966.
By marking the fifth consecutive year of real increases in defense
spending, we are starting to dig out of the budget hole that we created
after 13 years of budget cuts. Our Armed Forces, while still the most
formidable fighting force on the planet, face serious and fundamental
choices in the years ahead. This presents both an opportunity and a
risk if the choices we make are not prudent and do not hedge on our
bets against the inevitable surprises and challenges that may lie
ahead.
The bill before the House sets a prudent course. It recognizes
today's new reality and accelerates and emphasizes new tools necessary
for the critical fight against terrorism. It makes sure that our most
precious military commodity and resource, our men and women in uniform,
are properly compensated and taken care of.
It also makes sure we do not forget the basics, the unglamorous
elements of the defense budget necessary to make sure it works when
called upon.
Mr. Chairman, on a personal note, this marks the last defense
authorization bill that I will have the privilege to manage before this
great House. It has been an honor to serve and have the trust of my
colleagues to be able to
[[Page H2266]]
lead two great committees over the past 8 years, and I will greatly
miss the friendship and bipartisanship, the sense of mission that
allows the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on Armed
Services to quietly and effectively do their important work on behalf
of our Nation's veterans and military forces.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This bill, properly so,
is named in honor of our chairman, who has stated his intention not to
return to this body; and I thank him for the work that he has done on
the bipartisan amendment within the committee itself.
The committee unanimously named this bill for him. This is an
excellent bill. It passed by a vote of 57 to one. It authorizes $393
billion for defense programs, which includes $15.5 billion for the
Department of Energy defense-related matters.
The bill makes a number of vital readiness and modernization
improvements, and it does a good job in keeping our forces the best
trained and the best equipped in the world. The quality-of-life issues
are excellent for our servicemembers and their families. In particular,
there is a 4.1 percent pay raise, with targeted raises, and I am also
pleased to state that there is an increase in the end strength for all
services, a much, much needed improvement.
Many missions are being performed by our men and women in uniform
that make it clear that we need more people. There is an increase of
some $4 million in military construction and family housing that also
adds to the quality of life. We were able to increase funding for
procurement, research and development, and military construction.
My principal reservations with this bill do concern matters relating
to the environment and nuclear weapons policy. But with that said, at
the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill. It will
help our readiness; it will help our troops, whether they be on the
field or on post or on base in this country. We are very proud of what
they do, so this is a major step in supporting them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of our Subcommittee on
Military Research and Development.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to join the other members of the
Committee and of the House in thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) for his great service to our country, not only in the House of
Representatives, but also as a 16-year-old kid who joined the U.S. Navy
in World War II. That great ethic of service to the Nation has carried
through, and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) has put
together a great bill which is essential to this country right now
because we are in a war.
I made a few comments during the rule that I think covered to some
degree my work and the work of the Subcommittee on Military Research
and Development and our contribution to the bill.
Basically, we are working to try and put some money into some high-
leverage areas. We have done a pretty good job along those lines. There
is missiles and missile defense. That is the ability to stop missiles,
from the slow-moving SCUDS, or the Model-Ts of the offensive missiles,
all the way up to the fast ICBMs that can be thrown all the way across
a great ocean at a nation. Our ability to stop those missiles right now
does not exist except in the very low-performance area, and we are
moving aggressively with a $7.9 billion program.
The leader of that program, General Kadish, is, I think, acknowledged
by Democrats and Republicans to be an extraordinary steward of this
program. We have given him some very broad funding categories in
missile defense; and we have told him to go out and test this stuff,
test it in very difficult situations, put a lot of stress on the
systems, and throw out the losers and promote the winners. That means
to spend money where it is going to be effective for American security.
So we have given General Kadish a great deal of discretion. I think
it is discretion well placed. We have kept that budget very well
funded.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we have put money in a couple of vulnerable
areas. We have put money in the area that has been a real concern to
the United States, and that is our ability to defend our ships against
increasing performance of antiship missiles that potential adversaries
are developing around the world.
We have also put some money, some additional dollars, into our mine-
clearing and mine-detection capability, a very important area for us
because now we are moving from the deep ocean Navy and deep ocean
conflict scenarios into the so-called littorals, right up against the
shore where minefields are going to play an increasing role. So we have
put money there.
Also we see some potential adversaries building now these new
submarine classes, mainly diesel subs, but subs that are very quiet
that can hold choke points that can cause us severe problems in
strategic areas of the world and where our ability to detect those
submarines is critical. So we have put more money in research and
development against those areas.
Our members participated fully, Mr. Chairman; and I think we have put
together a good package. I want to again thank the chairman of the full
committee for this opportunity.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ORTIZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
Mr. Chairman, I want to specifically address the provisions in the
act relating to military readiness. First, I thank the Subcommittee on
Military Readiness leadership and my colleagues on both sides of the
committee here for doing a great job, and at the same time to the staff
for doing a great job, and for the manner in which they conducted the
business of the subcommittee this session.
I also wants to express my appreciation to my good friend, the
gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), who has now decided to retire,
for his friendship and for his leadership these last few years that we
have worked together. Mr. Chairman, we are going to miss you.
Also, I say thanks to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for
his personal involvement and the extraordinary steps he took in getting
us to this point in developing the readiness portion of fiscal year
2003. Although we worked at an accelerated pace this session, we had an
opportunity to see readiness through a different set of eyes, the eyes
of the leaders of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who are entrusted
with the awesome responsibility of carrying out our responsibility at
the forefront, in harm's way.
We heard them talk about the charges of repair parts, the extra hours
they spent trying to maintain old equipment, and the difficulties
encountered in trying to conduct realistic training. While we in this
body may differ on some policies and program objectives, we in the
subcommittee were able to get a better appreciation of the challenges
that they face in performing their duties. For their effort, we can all
be proud of it.
Mr. Chairman, the readiness provision in this bill reflects some of
the steps I believe are necessary with the dollars available to make
their task easier. It does not provide all that is needed. Much more
funding could be used. At the same time, I believe that this is a good
bill. I encourage our Members of the House to vote for a very
responsible bill.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Military Construction.
[[Page H2267]]
{time} 1345
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the
Bob Stump Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Last week the
Committee on Armed Services, as has been said here a couple of times
previously, voted on a great bipartisan vote, almost unanimously, to
continue the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the
defense needs of this Nation.
As we should expect, this bill contains several initiatives that will
aid the Armed Services in their ongoing war against terrorism on behalf
of the American people and, indeed, on behalf of the citizens of the
world. I have the honor of chairing two bodies involved in this effort,
the Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism and the Subcommittee on
Military Installations and Facilities.
The Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism has been extremely active in
educating Members of the clandestine ways of terrorists and seeking
innovative ways to protect American forces. The Subcommittee on
Military installations and Facilities has also been extremely active in
our area of responsibility in approving a multitude of important
projects necessary for improved force protection of military bases.
This bill does much more than enforce protection, however, and I want
to be sure that Members know that this need was carefully addressed by
approving only projects that were requested by the Department of
Defense and by making sure that these monies will be spent well.
I want to also thank Tom Hawley, our staffer, for all of the work
that he did in making sure that necessary measures were put in place in
a very efficient way.
Also, always I work closely with my counterpart and good friend the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Military
Construction of the Committee on Appropriations to develop the MILCON
program for 2003. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and our ranking
members the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) have worked closely with all interested
parties to build a program that supports the Department of Defense on
addressing major facilities and quality of life shortfalls.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that this chart I have here to my
left represents, I believe, the crux of what we did on this year's
military installation facilities authorization bill. H.R. 4546 includes
$10 billion for military construction and family housing accounts,
including $2 billion for quality of life enhancement. This is extremely
important, as all the members of the Committee on Armed Services are
aware, because in an all-volunteer Army if we cannot attract good
sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen then our military capabilities
will suffer. To that extent, we have included monies to enhance quality
of life and to provide the necessary facilities in this regard.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to support this bill today. I hope
it will be another great bipartisan vote at the conclusion of the
debate, which will occur sometime around 8 o'clock, and let me again
thank my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his
wonderful work as chairman of this committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for purposes of debate.
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my thanks to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for the great work he has done throughout his
career in this House. He has also been my chairman on the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and I very much appreciate him. And to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Personnel, of which I am ranking member.
This bill has many, many good things in it, including a pay raise for
our men and women in uniform. It decreases the out-of-pocket expenses
for housing. There is an increase in end strength, recognizing the
realities of the world that we are facing today.
I also want to say a word about TRICARE, which has been a very good
program, improving over the last couple of years, but we have some
potential problems with it and this bill includes within it a mandate
that GAO study some of the potential problems with TRICARE.
Specifically, one is some of the paperwork problems that our providers
are facing, like preauthorization. We had a lengthy hearing at the
subcommittee level about the problems they are having, and this is
leading to provider dropout. And while the overall numbers look good,
which is 97 percent of physicians stay with the program, many of them
are limiting the number of TRICARE patients they are seeing or are not
seeing new patients, and this is a problem for us. So we look forward
to those studies.
This bill passed the committee by a vote of 57 to 1, and thanks to
the gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Stump) leadership and the way he
conducts the committee, we had a very vigorous debate. It went on all
day with multiple votes. The result was a 57 to 1 bill that came out of
the committee.
However, the spirit of the House Committee on Armed Services is
inconsistent with the rule that brought this bill before us today. It
was said this was a structured rule. It was structured to stifle debate
and to avoid uncomfortable votes for Members. That is not consistent
with a great democracy at this critical time in history. You look at
some of the Members who were denied to bring amendments, some of the
most respected Members of this House: The gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Taylor), I disagree with him on base closure but he had every
right to bring his amendment to this floor; the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen),
both excellent members of the Committee on Armed Services; the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the Committee
on Rules and a strong supporter of our national defense, was denied an
amendment; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) denied an
amendment.
This arrogance of power, Mr. Chairman, has to stop in this body.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Readiness.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not recognize
the contribution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who leads
our committee, and the gentleman is truly a great American. I do not
throw that phrase around very casually. He has led the committee well.
I think he has the respect of his entire committee. We are going to
miss him. It is a bad decision to leave the House of Representatives
and leave us behind. We love the gentleman, and I have appreciated the
opportunity to serve with him and call him a friend.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4546, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I believe the
committee has done a superb job in fulfilling its role in oversight of
the Department of Defense and has done its best to provide the
necessary funding to improve the readiness of our military forces.
Let us not forget, however, that for many years we have seen our
military do more and more with less and less, and now as we are engaged
in the war on terrorism we are asking our military men and women to do
even more. The budget requests for fiscal year 2003 contains some
significant increases in defense spending and an effort by the
Department of Defense to fully fund their stated requirements. We are
all heartened that these increases make a good attempt at arresting the
decline in military readiness and begin the process of rebuilding and
restoring our military forces.
To accomplish this, the administration has had to significantly
increase critical readiness funding this year as compared to last year.
As an example, air, ground, and sea operations as well as training and
training range operations have increased by $2.1 billion. In addition,
base operations accounts required for the day-to-day operation of our
military facilities have increased by $1.2 billion. These increases are
fully supported in this bill.
The committee has included two provisions that I believe strike a
needed balance between the needs of our military to adequately and
effectively train for combat and the need to protect our environment.
First, we have
[[Page H2268]]
included an amendment to the Endanger Species Act that will weigh the
impact of national security along with existing obligations under
current law not to take any action that will result in the extinction
of or harm to an endangered or threatened species.
Second, we have included an amendment in the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act to permit the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a permit to the
Department for the accidental taking of migratory birds incidental to
authorized military readiness activities.
These and all segments of the Subcommittee on Readiness part of this
bill and in fact of the bill as a whole were very bipartisan. As was
already mentioned, the bill passed out of committee 57 to 1. It is not
a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. It is a bill for the
defense of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4546 is a responsible, meaningful bill that fairly
allocates resources for the restoration of acceptable readiness and an
acceptable quality of life for the men and women of our military
forces. To do anything less will allow the readiness of our military to
slip further and could risk the lives of countless men and women in
every branch of the military.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) for purposes of debate.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add my thanks to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his leadership, and I wish him every best
wish.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for the defense authorization bill
today because it does many good things. This bill will help us fight
the war against terrorism and it gives our military men and women a
well-deserved pay raise. But I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the
direction this bill takes regarding our Nation's national nuclear
weapons policy.
This bill encourages the United States to develop new nuclear weapons
for first time since 1990. It clears the way for underground nuclear
testing in Nevada. It endorses arming ballistic missile defenses with
nuclear warheads and encourages arbitrary caps on the number of nuclear
weapons that could be removed from the Nation's nuclear stockpile.
I will offer an amendment today to require the Department of Energy
to provide Congress with options for reducing our nuclear arsenal more
quickly than is called for in the Nuclear Posture Review.
If President Bush reaches an agreement with President Putin to reduce
nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to make those reductions as
quickly as possible, not wait 10 years. But I am disappointed, Mr.
Chairman, that the Committee on Rules refused to make in order other
amendments relating to our nuclear weapons posture.
I had submitted an amendment with the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Allen) to have a more balanced sense of Congress on nuclear policy. Our
amendment had several common sense provisions, including restoring the
President's ability to pursue sensible reductions in the nuclear
stockpile, encouraging conventional ``bunker buster'' weapons rather
than nuclear ones, and exploring all the implications of resuming
underground testing instead of going full steam ahead with them.
I had also prepared an amendment to extend our Nation's
nonproliferation efforts to countries like Pakistan and India.
Mr. Chairman, despite the limitations the Committee on Rules has
placed on debate, I encourage Members to vote for the defense
authorization bill today, but I also hope that Members recognize that
there are many provisions in this bill that take our Nation down a very
dangerous path toward a new nuclear arms race.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry) from the Department of Energy Panel.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time and for his years of service and leadership to our country in
national security.
Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the work of all Members on the
Department of Energy Panel and, particularly, the partnership of the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
For 57 years nuclear weapons have played a central role in
maintaining our freedom and in preventing the kind of world wars which
plagued the early part of the 20th century. There can be no doubt that
nuclear weapons will continue to be central to our security as long as
any of us are around.
Nuclear weapons exist. We cannot uninvent them. We cannot wipe them
off the memory banks of human knowledge, and we should not try to stick
our heads in the sand and wish them away. The facts, Mr. Chairman, are
that 12 countries now have nuclear weapon programs, 13 countries have
biological weapons programs, 16 countries have chemical weapons
programs, according to the administration, and that does not count
other groups, like al Qaeda, who are trying to acquire them.
The United States does not have chemical and biological, so we must
have a strong nuclear deterrent to deter use of those weapons of mass
destruction, and our deterrent must be credible against a broader array
of threats. Not only must we consider the Russian weapons, but we must
consider various other kinds of weapons and threats and our deterrent
must be credible, even against rogue states, even against terrorists,
even against underground targets. They must even be credible to the
kind of people we face in this war against terrorism whose aim is to
kill as many Americans as possible.
Now, as our nuclear weapons are aging beyond their intended design
life, it is going to be a very difficult job to keep them safe and
reliable and credible, to keep the people, the infrastructure, the
scientific knowledge we have to have to make sure that that deterrent
is credible and does work. This bill takes important steps in that
direction and it ought to be supported.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for debate purposes only.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I voted against this defense
authorization bill in committee, and I plan to vote against it on the
floor. This bill represents the largest real increase to defense
spending since 1966. It contains over $40 billion more spending than
last year's defense authorization, which was a huge authorization in
itself. This year's defense budget increase alone is greater than the
defense budget of nearly every other nation in the world.
H.R. 4546 provides for over $383 billion in spending for the Pentagon
and the weapons programs of the Department of Energy. Unfortunately,
this new spending comes at the expense of valuable programs for
America's families. Sadly, the Bush administration's tax cut for the
wealthy has blown the Clinton surplus and reduced our ability to fully
fund important programs like job training, prescription drug benefit,
conservation spending and much more.
{time} 1400
The one-sided priorities of this bill reflect the belief that
national security rests in occupying foreign capitals and overthrowing
regimes, as our Secretary of Defense told us in committee, rather than
in domestic tranquillity and quality of life for America's people.
In addition to the singular focus of our national security attention,
there are problems within the Pentagon that raise questions about such
immense spending.
On September 10, 2001, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that
``according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in
transactions.'' Such a lack of financial accountability undermines the
integrity of the Pentagon. How much more inefficiencies, financial loss
and wasteful spending can the American people tolerate?
In any other area of enterprise, people get more money when they
prove that they know what they do with what they have already got, what
they have gotten, but in the world of defense spending, the Secretary
can acknowledge the loss of $2.3 trillion and get an almost
unprecedented increase in funding.
Additionally, the basis for such a large increase in spending is
wholly unjustified.
The events of September 11 were a tragedy to the entire Nation.
However,
[[Page H2269]]
the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia were not prompted by
any failure of the United States military, but instead were the result
of a breakdown in our intelligence community. In fact, just last week
Yahoo News reported that CIA Deputy Director of Operation James Pavitt
``dismissed charges the CIA was caught unaware by September 11 suicide
attacks in the United States'' and that ``the CIA knew the network led
by Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden was planning a major strike.''
Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002, stated, ``Two
months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted
Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at
a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools
nationwide.'' The article continued, stating that ``law enforcement
officials said in retrospect the FBI believes it should have
accelerated the suggested check of U.S. flight schools.''
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by Secretary Rumsfeld's
cancellation of the Crusader program this week, and I was pleased to
receive a phone call from the Pentagon to that effect. However, it must
be noted that I had an amendment to cut the Crusader because, among
other things, it experienced cost overruns and was too heavy and too
large to get anywhere fast at any kind of rapid response.
I would also note that the Crusader is a weapons system that has
connections to the Carlyle Group which employs the President's father.
$475 million is a lot of money. Sadly, the President requested half a
billion dollars for the Crusader weapons system but cancelled our
commitment to pay high deployment overtime pay to our troops.
However, the fight to kill the Crusader is not over. Despite the
cancellation, language in this bill will seek to keep Crusader alive.
The Committee on Armed Services and the House should not allow that to
happen. The Crusader has been rightly cut. It should remain that way,
and the half billion dollars it has freed up should go to reinstating
the high deployment per diem that the President cancelled in October.
As by now my colleagues also know, this bill creates exemptions for
the Pentagon in the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, removes protections from public lands, and creates
horrendous precedent for wilderness areas. The Committee on Armed
Services is not where our country's environmental policy should be
made.
With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues development of
this dangerous, destabilizing and unreliable system. The authorization
provides $7.8 billion for missile defense following on the nearly $8
billion that was authorized last year. Yet the CIA's own national
intelligence estimate states that attacks are much more likely using
weapons of mass destruction via untraditional methods such as trucks,
ships or airplanes.
Rather than spending billions on a missile defense system, diplomacy
through arms control and disarmament agreements will be much more
effective in advancing peace and security in the days and years ahead
and will cost far less than a Star Wars system.
Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of our
President after declaring this war on terrorism was to sign an
executive order denying previously promised high deployment overtime
pay to our servicemen and women, the personnel and compensation section
of this bill takes important steps for our servicemen and women. Though
I am opposed to this act, I greatly respect the individual members of
our armed services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our
Nation.
However, Mr. Chairman, despite whatever good this bill does for our
servicemen and women and our veterans, it is still entirely too large
and takes us down the wrong policy track.
Additionally, as our defense spending increases year after year,
sacrifices made in domestic spending never seem to be corrected. From
resuming nuclear testing to advancing nuclear-tipped missile defense,
from the rollback of environmental laws, to pork-barreling weapons
systems, this bill is big, and it could have been a lot better.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of our
Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the Committee on Armed
Services.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding me the
time, and I want to start off again by thanking our chairman and our
ranking member, two of the great patriots of this institution, this
country, for their outstanding work in bringing us a defense bill that
all of us can get behind.
It is not a perfect bill. In fact, there are some amendments that I
would like to have seen offered that were not made in order, and that
is a part of the process, unfortunately, we go through. I am also not
happy with the dollar amount. Our chairman and ranking member made the
best possible good faith effort to increase funding, but it is woefully
underfunding our modernization.
Other Members who have spoken here have talked about too much for
defense. Our soldiers today are fighting in tactical fighters that are
17 years old on average. Our Navy that at one time was 555 ships is now
314 ships. Our shipbuilding account is taking us down to a 235-ship
Navy. The B-52 bomber will be 70 years old before it is retired. Our
Chinook helicopters will be 60 years old.
We have underfunded the military consistently in both Democrat and
Republican administrations for the past 10 years. This bill begins to
correct that, but it does not solve all of those problems. We are
asking for some relief in this bill. Nothing out of the ordinary.
We want to stop the encroachment that costs us more money that stops
our troops from training. This is in no way, shape, or form a rollback
of environmental laws. I would not support that, as a Republican proud
of my environmental voting record. It does say that when we take 85
percent of Red Beach at Camp Pendleton where our Marines have to train
and say 85 percent of that base or that training area, that beach
cannot be used because of an endangered species, is a little bit
ridiculous, especially when we consider if we look at the numbers of
all the Federal agencies that have land, the Pentagon controls the
smallest amount of land, yet has the largest number of endangered
species of any other Federal agency and, in my opinion, does the most
effective job possible in protecting wildlife and protecting endangered
species.
All we ask for is some limited relief to allow our military personnel
to be properly trained; nothing more. This is not an attempt to roll
back environmental laws in any way, shape, or form.
In the other areas of the bill, I think we make a good faith effort
in missile defense, in systems and programs. Again, it is not perfect,
but we do provide some great increases in assistance for our troops in
the personnel area, and I think we make a good down payment on
modernization and research for the future.
So I encourage my colleagues to work with us through this process. We
will be offering, I think, a very innovative series of amendments on
the nuclear posture of this country that will revolutionize our
relationship with Russia. I look forward to voting in a positive way on
this bill, and I ask our colleagues to vote yes on the final passage
and to work with us to get the largest vote possible in showing that
our military has the support of Democrats and Republicans.
In closing, I want to thank my colleague and ranking member, the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). He is one of the most tireless
advocates for the Navy in this Congress. He has fought hard and his
work has paid off in an additional ship being funded in this bill. I
thank my colleagues for their leadership.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague
and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for his kind
words and for his good work on the procurement portion of this bill.
Along with every other Member of this body, I want to compliment the
[[Page H2270]]
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for being a great human being and a
great American and a phenomenal chairman to our committee.
My colleagues have noticed a lot of anger on the floor today, which
is completely contrary to just one week ago in the Committee on Armed
Services where every single Member who wanted to offer an amendment to
that bill was allowed to do so. Today, there are a number of us who
felt like we could make a good bill a heck of a lot better and save
some American lives by offering amendments.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) actually went to the Committee
on Rules and told them he wanted most of those amendments put in order.
I thank the chairman for that, and I deeply regret that the Committee
on Rules chose not to make many of these amendments in order.
I thank the gentleman for his efforts, particularly from the day he
was 16 years old, serving in the United States Navy till now serving
us, and I also wish he would change his mind and stick around for a
while.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) talked on many of the
needs of our Nation, and we have incredible pressing needs, about 940
Huey helicopters in inventory, the newest of which was built in 1972,
that need to be replaced.
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) pointed out, the
fleet has now shrunk to 314 ships which is the smallest it has been
since 1933. That is unacceptable. The President only asked for 5 ships
this year which, incidentally, is 2 ships fewer than the Clinton
administration asked for. I am pleased Chairman Weldon chose to add an
additional destroyer to that. That will take a step towards keeping the
fleet at the bare minimum size, and hopefully, the Senate will do even
better.
I want to point out that the bill does contain almost a billion
dollars for the development of the next generation of destroyers, the
DDX. I want to point out the new attack submarine at $1.6 billion was
partially funded.
The committee, I think, wisely chose to fund the Crusader program at
about $475 million, and I do agree with General Shinseki, who is the
chief of staff of the United States Army, on the important need for
this program, and I have to take issue with the Secretary of Defense. I
think it is necessary. I hope the committee will stick by its guns.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for the way
they have handled this committee and put this bill together.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. While I support the
bill in its entirety and commend it to this body as must-pass
legislation, I want to especially emphasize the provisions in the bill
relating to morale, welfare and recreation activities of the Department
of Defense and the military services.
I have the honor to chair the Special Oversight Panel of Morale,
Welfare and Recreation which keeps a careful eye on some very important
quality-of-life benefits for our military families, such as
commissaries and child care centers. The MWR portion of H.R. 4546 is
truly nonpartisan and was approved unanimously by both the panel and
the full committee without any amendments.
I have found the defense programs that are not nourished by the
Congress or the Pentagon quickly die away. MWR programs are no
different. While I agree with most of what this administration is
doing, I believe the continued pressure to privatize commissaries is
misguided. The budget for the Defense Commissary Agency contained in
this bill is about as low as I am prepared to support without
persuasive evidence that customer savings and service will not suffer.
That said, I believe the budget before my colleagues is adequate. To
ensure the quality of customer service and continued savings, H.R. 4546
requires a GAO study of DECA's budget proposals as well as other
measures to protect the commissary benefit.
In addition, the package before the House will allow our deserving
National Guard soldiers called to State duty in time of national
emergency, like the present, to use commissary stores. We had provided
this privilege some years ago to guardsmen called to duty for natural
disasters and found that we should have added national emergencies as
well.
Of course, I thank our ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Guam (Mr.
Underwood), for his wise counsel and support in our shared
responsibilities to manage MWR matters for the committee, and I join
him in urging all Members to vote for H.R. 4546.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the
Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the job they have done on
this, and everybody on the committee.
We did have a good discussion last week with this bill. This bill
will help solders and their families put more money in their pockets by
reducing the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members
from the current 11.3 percent to 7\1/2\ percent in fiscal year 2003.
{time} 1415
Now, that might not mean much to us, but to people who are forced to
move every few years, it is a very important issue, this issue of the
cost of housing for them. So that puts us on the track to eliminate
some of this heavy burden for our families that have men and women in
uniform.
The bill, for the first time, fully funds Concurrent Receipt, and
establishes a program through which military retirees will receive
increasing compensation. And by the year 2007, retirees who are 60
percent or more disabled will receive their full retirement pay and
their disability. This is something that our military retirees
desperately need.
Unfortunately, this bill also contains provisions that undermine some
of our basic commitments to our Nation, including to try to reduce the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. The bill gives credence to the fact
that the United States should develop nuclear weapons capable of
destroying hard and buried targets and use nuclear-tipped missiles to
intercept nuclear warheads.
I do not need to remind anyone that nuclear weapons have only been
used twice in the history of warfare, and the United States has not
designed or built a new nuclear weapon since the Cold War. Mutually
Assured Destruction, or MAD, is a policy relic of the Cold War; and it
should not be resurrected. It should not be resurrected by us.
Furthermore, this bill furthers the development of national missile
defense with little congressional oversight. We may need a missile
defense; but we need a structured one, one where we as a Congress look
at it and take full responsibility for what is happening with its
development.
No bill is perfect. This one has a lack of acknowledgment by the
Department of Defense to the members of our Committee on Resources with
respect to environmental issues, and this is very shortsighted.
Aside from that, I will be voting for the recommit and for this bill.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Everett), a member of the committee.
(Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman, and
my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for yielding me
this time. I have served under him while he has been chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services and also when he was chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This House will miss him.
Let me speak about Army aviation training. The Army continues to
short fund the training budget of its helicopter pilots. To address
this shortfall,
[[Page H2271]]
the committee took steps last year to begin funding the Army Aviation
Institute Training Simulator program to enhance pilot training at the
Aviation War-fighting Center. Unfortunately, the committee did not add
funds for the program in this year's authorization bill due to the lack
of resources.
The Army is concerned with the crash rate of the OH-58C/D. It is four
times greater than all other helicopters in the fleet. The Army has an
immediate need for high-fidelity OH-58C/D simulators to improve the
crew training of emergency procedures and other techniques on the
aircraft. The Army has identified the AAITS program as the best way to
provide this training. It is my hope that the defense appropriators in
both Houses will give strong consideration to a $15 million add for six
high-definition OH-58C/D simulators.
Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more important responsibility than
to train Army Aviators in the best way possible, with the latest
technologies available. The AAITS program meets this challenge by using
commercially available technologies that are cost effective and ready
to be deployed today.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in spite of the best attempts of the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), this bill has become a political grab bag of extraneous
material that has nothing to do with defense authorization and has no
place in this bill.
I have time to cite just one example. Article 14 is a provision which
contains language that is destructive to our efforts to protect the
environment in this country, particularly issues that are destructive
to the 1964 Wilderness Act. That language undermines the issue of
wilderness as it is practiced by the Federal Government in areas all
across the country. It is a special provision. It is even a personal
provision. It has no business in this bill.
Furthermore, we were not given the opportunities to present
amendments which could give the House the opportunity to debate this
issue and to strike these unwarranted and destructive provisions from
the bill. That makes this bill unworthy of the House. It ought to be
withdrawn. We ought to have an opportunity to debate this issue and
those things ought to be brought before us.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), a member of the committee.
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the fiscal year 2003
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide
critical resources for our military to ensure that they have the
adequate training, modern equipment, and sufficient resources to do
their job in protecting our Nation.
I am proud of the work of the House Committee on Armed Services and
our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who has done an
excellent job in crafting a bill that will support our warfighters.
Chairman Stump is a hero of mine, and we will miss his great service in
this body.
This bill is important for our Nation. Our troops deserve a pay raise
and we provide that to them. We provide our troops and their families
quality health care and benefits which they have earned because of
their service and sacrifice for our Nation. We provide significant
funds for the development of technologies that are needed for our
missile defense systems so that we are better prepared to meet the
future threats this country faces.
We increase the resources available to combat terrorism, which is an
immediate threat to the people of the United States of America. We
increase key readiness accounts so that we continue to increase our
capabilities to support our warfighters who are actively engaged in
protecting American interests around the globe.
Let me say that this bill is also important for Georgia. We fund
critical military construction projects at Robins Air Force Base, Fort
Benning, Fort Stewart, and Kings Bay Navy submarine base. We fully
funded the President's budget request for vital modern aircraft for our
Air Force's F-22 Raptor advanced tactical fighter, the C-17, the C-130,
and JSTARS, all of which are important to my home State as well as our
long-term national defense priorities.
Mr. Chairman, terrorism and our national security are not fleeting
problems. This bill addresses our needs on terrorism from a force-
protection standpoint, and I urge the passage of this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of the defense authorization bill.
I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton),
for putting together a good bill. It will enable today's troops to
succeed in the war in Afghanistan and makes investments in the future
to assure the U.S. military retains its edge.
I commend the bill's shipbuilding initiative to fix the Pentagon's
paltry request in this area, and it sets an important marker for
restoring funding for a third DDG-51 destroyer. The Merchant Marine
panel, of which I am ranking member, does quiet but important work to
assure a healthy and viable U.S. maritime fleet. I thank the panel
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for his
leadership in restoring funding for the title XI loan guarantee
program, which gives life to our vital shipbuilding industrial base.
I also welcome the creative provision on ship scrapping, which helps
States acquire obsolete vessels for artificial reefs. There are,
however, parts of this bill that I do not support. First, it contains
three environmental provisions not under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Armed Services. They belong to the Committee on Resources,
which was denied the opportunity to consider them. These provisions are
a part of a last-minute stealth attempt by DOD to exempt itself from a
variety of landmark environmental laws.
The package was submitted just 4 days before committee markup,
denying time for proper review. In the only hearing, the majority
refused to invite State or local governments, environmental groups, or
any other nonadministration witnesses to testify.
Second, I disagree with the aggressive nuclear policy language in the
bill and report which endorses new nuclear weapons or new uses for such
weapons. I am afraid that money spent to revitalize and legitimize
nuclear weapons will divert funds from weapons our warfighters actually
need for combat. I believe it will be destabilizing and lead to new
arms races.
Finally, I am disappointed the committee did not make in order my
amendment to previous nuclear-tipped interceptors. The U.S. rejected
that idea decades ago.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the committee.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I too want to thank the chairman, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for all his years of service. We
will miss him very much, but I know he will always be in our hearts.
Mr. Chairman, in my home State of California, environmental
litigation may force the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate
critical habitat for endangered species on over 50 percent of the
125,000-acre Camp Pendleton in Southern California. Even though there
are 17 miles of coastline in Camp Pendleton, environmental restrictions
allow the Marines to use less than 1 mile of that coast, as designated
on this drawing. One mile. That is it. That small space.
And once they get ashore, Marines have to align everything and
everyone up single file to weed through the land that has been
designated critical habitat and cross Interstate 5 to another location
on the base to begin their maneuvers.
Mr. Chairman, our Marines should be training as they fight, not as if
they are going out on some field trip. Our military is one of the best
environmental stewards America has. They should not be forced to give
up realistic training on their own property to satisfy a few
environmental extremists.
[[Page H2272]]
Proper training saves lives. We must not sacrifice the safety of our
sons and daughters so that a gnatcatcher or a fairy shrimp can have an
undisturbed life.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
(Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in
support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2003. It will go a long way towards ensuring that our
troops get the support they need to win the war against terrorism as it
meets many of our military's modernization needs and provides every
servicemember with a pay raise they so richly deserve.
In particular, I want to address the provisions in the bill relating
to the morale, welfare and recreation activities of DOD. I want to
acknowledge the outstanding leadership of our panel chair, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and the active participation of
all the panel members. I am pleased that we were able to address many
of the urgent MWR issues that will sustain this important benefit,
including the bill's acknowledgment of our concern and expression of
our appreciation for the contributions of the National Guard during
this period of national crisis by making it possible for them to use
the commissary, even though they are under State control.
In addition to the MWR provisions, I am also pleased to note that a
number of measures included within the bill will support Guam in its
strategic role to U.S. national security. Guam's military installations
and facilities stand to benefit from over $75 million of military
construction and improvements. Most notable are the projects for a new
on-base water system at Andersen Air Force Base and the continued
construction of the Guam Army Guard Readiness Center. The people of
Guam welcome this significant boost in military construction and
appreciate the recognition this bill provides to our people in uniform.
Further, the bill before us today restores a balance between
protecting the environment and sustaining military readiness,
particularly in the case of the Farallon de Medinlla, FDM, bombing
range north of Guam in the Northern Marianas. Last month, a Federal
Court here in Washington, D.C. ruled that the Navy was in violation of
the Migratory Bird Treaty because of the incidental taking of
nonendangered birds while conducting critical training activities. This
bill narrowly fixes this. We are in support of this provision.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me
this time, and I want to acknowledge the excellent and noble work that
our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), has done over the
years.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, the 106th Congress took the first steps
toward addressing the inequity that provides for an offset between
military retired pay and VA disability, which unfairly penalizes more
than 500,000 disabled military retirees nationwide by authorizing a
monthly allowance to certain severely disabled military retirees. Last
year, Congress took an additional step towards eliminating the offset
by authorizing my Concurrent Receipt legislation, H.R. 303.
The bill we are considering today follows the fiscal year 2003 budget
and includes a provision to authorize military retirees who are 60
percent or greater disabled to receive their full retired pay and VA
disability compensation benefit on a transitional basis by fiscal year
2007.
So I say to all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, support America and its
veterans, vote for H.R. 4546. And I would also offer in closing my
compliments to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for being a great
patriot and a great chairman.
Some military retirees--individuals who are eligible for military
retirement benefits as a result of a full service career--are also
eligible for disability compensation from the VA based on a medical
problem they incurred while in the service. Under present law, these
service-disabled retirees must surrender a portion of their retired pay
if they want to receive the disability compensation to which they are
entitled. Congress enacted this unjust law in 1891. Nationwide, more
than 500,000 disabled military retirees must give up their retired pay
in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they
must pay for their VA disability our of their military retirement--
something no other federal retiree must do
I have been trying to repeal this unfair offset for more than 17
years. My legislation, H.R. 303, has received strong bipartisan support
with more than 390 cosponsors in the House. More than 80 members have
cosponsored similar legislation in the Senate. Moreover, every major
veterans and military organization strongly support the concurrent
receipt of military retired pay and VA disability compensation. The
106th Congress took the first steps toward addressing this inequity by
authorizing the military to pay a monthly allowance to military
retirees with severe service-connected disabilities rated by the
Department of Veterans' Affairs at 70 percent or greater. These
provisions were recently expanded to include retirees with ratings of
60 percent.
Last year, Congress took an additional step towards repealing the
offset by authorizing H.R. 303. However, under the provisions of the
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, this authorization
requires the President to submit legislation in his annual budget
request and Congress to enact this legislation to offset the cost of
this initiative. Since the enactment of last year's defense
authorization act, I have been working to secure the money needed to
fund ``concurrent receipt.'' I was very pleased that the Budget
Committee included almost $6 billion in the FY 2002 Budget Resolution
for a partial repeal of the dollar-for-dollar offset between retired
pay and VA disability compensation.
I am also pleased that the bill we are considering today follows the
FY 2002 budget resolution and includes a provision to authorize
military retirees who are 60 percent or greater disabled to receive
their full retired pay and VA disability compensation benefit by Fiscal
Year 2007. Until the program is fully implemented, the bill establishes
a transition program through which retirees will receive increasing
amounts of their retired pay. I want to thank Chairman Bob Stump,
Ranking Member Ike Skelton, Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman
John McHugh and Ranking Member Vic Snyder for their continued support
and interest in this issue.
While H.R. 4546 does not allow for the complete elimination of the
current offset, it does provide for a substantial concurrent receipt
benefit and it is a tremendous step forward in our fight to repeal the
current inequitable offset. I urge my colleagues to support the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act.
{time} 1430
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).
(Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act, which will support all of our men
and women in uniform and also the Crusader program.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill today is one of the most important pieces of
legislation that this Congress will consider, and I want to recognize
the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump), for his
leadership, as well as the leadership of our ranking member, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The bipartisan approach that
this committee has utilized to craft this bill exemplifies our
bipartisan and our unwavering commitment to winning our Nation's war
against terrorists.
[[Page H2273]]
We also in this bill take major steps forward in providing our Armed
Forces with the tools and the resources they need to protect our
national security interests around the world. Earlier this year our
military chiefs testified before our committee and identified over $25
billion in unfunded requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. Our
committee was not able to address every need on the chiefs' list, but I
am pleased that we addressed many of the issues, particularly in the
areas of quality of life, readiness and modernization, as well as the
deficiencies that the Department identified necessary to wage our war
on terrorism.
Over the last few years, one area of particular concern to me has
been the continued reduction in troop end strength. In the post-Vietnam
War era, the active duty military peaked at 2.2 million personnel.
Today it is less than 1.5 million. Last year, each of our military
services entered the war on terrorism with personnel shortages, a
situation that has only worsened due to the heightened operational
tempo required around the globe.
I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), for his leadership in advocating an increase in troop
strength; and I am pleased that this bill contains an increase of
13,000 in troop authorization above last year's level.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is an important piece of legislation
that deserves the support of the entire Congress. I urge adoption of
this legislation.
Lastly, this legislation strengthens our national security interests
both at home and abroad by authorizing $7.8 billion for ballistic
missile defense programs. The development of medium and long range
ballistic missiles by North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and other rogue
countries underscores the importance of developing a fielding theater
missile defenses capable of defeating these threats as soon as
possible. Protecting our country and troops deployed in theater from a
ballistic missile attack should continue to be a priority, and I
applaud the commitment that is being shown to field this technology in
the near term. Mr. Chairman, I especially want to emphasize the
importance of fielding the Department of Defense's highest theater
missile defense system, the PAC-3. When you look at spectrum of known
threats around the world, and focus on those areas where we either have
personnel or could likely have troops deployed, it's hard to ignore the
fact that most credible ballistic missile threats would be thwarted by
the PAC-3 system. Consequently, amendments will be offered by Mr.
Spratt and Mr. Hunter a little later that seek to add money to this
program. I am hopeful that you will support this effort and join with
us in ensuring that our troops are adequately protected against these
emerging threats.
Mr. Chairman, we are at an important juncture with respect to funding
our military and providing them with the resources necessary to
effectively wage our war on terrorism. This bill acknowledges the
challenges we face and seeks to respond. I urge my colleagues to
support this bipartisan bill.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, May marks National Military Appreciation
Month, and I can think of no appropriate way to recognize it than to
rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003. I especially commend for my colleagues' consideration
and support the military personnel provisions of the bill that address
continuing realities and challenges by making improvements in the end
strength, compensation, personnel and health care systems of the
Department of Defense.
Let me highlight three of those most important areas. First, while
fully supporting the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to reduce
operational and mission requirements, this bill reflects the view that
the war on terrorism will be a long-term effort and that some growth in
military manpower is prudent at this time.
Therefore, the bill represents the bipartisan views of all of us,
including the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who was a leader
on this, and recommends an increase in active duty end strength of
nearly 1 percent, or 12,650, above fiscal year 2002 levels. That is the
largest single year growth in active end strength since 1985 and 1986.
To support the added strength, the bill provides an additional $550
million as well as increasing National Guard and Reserve component
full-time manning by some 2,400 personnel.
Secondly, the bill provides a military pay raise, as proposed by the
President, of 4.1 percent across-the-board for all personnel, one-half
of 1 percent more than the average pay increase for private sector
employees.
In addition, it recommends targeted raises of 6.5 percent to critical
mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers,
as well as housing rates that will reduce the out-of-pocket housing
expenses from the current level of 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in
fiscal year 2003.
Finally, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) said moments
ago, the third major provision I want to highlight would ensure that by
2007 all retirees rated by the Veterans Administration with 60 percent
disabled or above will receive both their full military retired pay and
their full VA disability pay. This initiative, known widely as
concurrent receipts, represents the culmination of a multi-year,
bipartisan effort to restore justice in veterans' compensation using
the $5.8 billion provided by the House budget resolution for fiscal
year 2003.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his
leadership, for his very active involvement, as well as all members of
both sides of the aisle of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel who
have a good deal to be proud of in this fine mark and in this great
bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to join us in support of this very
fine measure.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. It is a personal privilege to stand in support of the piece of
legislation named in honor of a patriot, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Stump), who has served our country so very well. I am honored to
support this bill in his name, and thank the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) for his contribution.
America stands today as perhaps the greatest military power in global
history; but as we have learned in the last 7 months, even great powers
are faced with great challenges. I support this bill because I believe
it affirms two of our greatest strengths, and it begins to deal with
two of our greatest challenges.
First of all, it affirms the strength that is the most premium
strength of the American military structure, the men and women who
serve their country. By raising the pay of those men and women by 4.1
percent, by supplementing their medical and other benefits
considerably, although not enough, this bill is a good step in the
right direction.
Second, as a member of the Subcommittee on Research and Development,
I am particularly pleased that we have before us today a bill that will
make the greatest investment in research and development in our
Nation's history. In particular, I am pleased with the 20 percent
increase in the DARPA funding accounts, which I think bring out the
very best of America's university sector, private sector and government
sector.
With respect to challenges, I believe that the new Northern Command
structure that is implemented in this bill is a positive step toward
meaningful homeland security. I look forward to working with the
Pentagon and my fellow members of the committee in making that command
structure effective in homeland security.
Finally, the bill begins to grapple with the very real problem with
missile defense. There are those of us who believe that missile defense
is necessary and appropriate, but there are some disagreements over how
to implement it. Because of the bipartisan leadership of this
committee, I believe that we have a constructive approach to bridging
those differences and managing this challenge.
In short, I believe this is a bill that every Member of both
political parties can support with pride that will help us carry
forward in meeting the very great challenges our country faces today. I
urge support of the bill.
[[Page H2274]]
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it was the Roman orator Cicero who once said that the
greatest of all virtues is gratitude, and let me again express
gratitude to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his tireless
and skillful efforts in leading our committee, and in his contributions
to the United States Congress through the years. We are very proud of
him and thank him for what he has done for us, and the role model he
has been for the rest of the Members, both Democrat and Republican.
Let me also say a word of thanks and gratitude to the Committee on
Armed Services, which I believe is the most bipartisan committee in
this body. There are times we have partisan disagreements, but we do
attack the various issues as professionals and as representatives of
different parts of our country.
But most of all, I think we as a body need to express thanks and
gratitude to the young men and young women in uniform. That is the
purpose of our being here today. It is the United States Constitution
that charges us here in Congress to raise and maintain the military of
the United States. The military of the United States is reflected by
young people in various colors of uniform all wearing the American flag
on their sleeve. So we thank them, we thank their families, and we hope
that the piece of legislation that we pass today will be a benefit to
them, encouraging them to keep doing a good job and staying the course,
and just a word of thanks to them for their determination, dedication
and patriotism.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again a special thanks to the gentleman from
Arizona (Chairman Stump).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
(Mr. KIRK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I want to also thank the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and our other defense leader, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for this legislation. This bill supports
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, who commands our troops
currently in battle. It supports our Naval training at the Navy's only
boot camp at Great Lakes, Illinois.
It advances our efforts to combine Naval Hospital Great Lakes with
North Chicago VA to help out veterans and active duty health care.
It protects our air crews over Afghanistan and Iraq with improved
tactical Navy electronic warfare aircraft, and it supports our fellow
allies to meet the missile threat, especially giving early warning eyes
in the sky to Israel and Arrow anti-missiles to shoot down SCUDs. It is
a good piece of legislation; it deserves our support for the
fundamental mission of the Federal Government to defend our country.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act. This bill supports the efforts of President
Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld to modernize and strengthen our military.
The bill supports the needs of our men and women in uniform, ensuring
that they receive better pay, have better equipment at their disposal,
have a better quality of life, and are provided with all the tools
necessary to complete their missions. The effects of these initiatives
will be appreciated by servicemembers around the world, from the
recruits currently in my district at the Great Lakes Naval Training
Center to the Special Forces troops operating in the mountains of
Afghanistan.
Additionally, this bill strongly supports electronic warfare and the
EA-6B Prowler, our Nation's lone remaining electronic jamming aircraft.
The Prowler is integral to successful airborne strike operations and is
often the first aircraft in theater and the last aircraft to leave.
Without the Prowler, our aircrews would be vulnerable to a wide variety
of threats from integrated air defenses and advanced surface-to-air
missiles. In support of the aging Prowler fleet, this bill authorizes
$85.8 million to procure and install wing center sections and outer
wing panels, both of which have suffered from fatigue and forced the
grounding of eight aircraft.
$35 million is included to procure advanced USQ-113 jammers, which
will enhance that ability of the Prowler to cut off enemy
communications. I am also encouraged that $29 million are included to
procure band 9/10 transmitters, which will enhance Prowler
capabilities.
Perhaps most importantly, H.R. 4546 includes an increase of $10
million to continue efforts to develop a successor to the Prowler.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support our men and women in uniform, our
national defense, and this bill. I encourage my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller).
(Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, H.R.
4546.
The legislation remedies a long-committed wrong that has been used
against our retired military veterans for many years. By providing
$5.58 billion over 5 years towards retiree benefits, H.R. 4546 begins
full concurrent receipt for veterans suffering from a disabled rating
60 percent or greater. These individuals have given decades of their
life and service to this great country, and they will begin to receive
their earned retired pay along with their earned disability payment.
This agreement builds upon the work of the Committee on Veterans
Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services over the last couple years,
and finishes the work done last year that made the policy change.
Due to the meticulous work by the Committee on the Budget, the
requirement to have a full budget offset is no longer needed, and that
section has now been removed as a stipulation that claims must be made
within 4 years of military separation.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a member of the Committee on Armed
Services and proud to support this fiscal year 2003 defense
authorization, H.R. 4546.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) for all his hard work. I served with the gentleman when he
chaired the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I think it is
appropriate that this defense bill is named after him. And I would say
to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), you two together have put
before this Congress another quality product on behalf of the men and
women who serve our Nation.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), as chairman of
the Subcommittee on Procurement. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor) and I co-chaired the Guard and Reserve Caucus for many years,
and serve in that caucus, and a big part of our mark was accepted, just
like the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) used to do for us, and
there are so many Guard and Reserve. There are so many things for the
active force.
So it is not only the procurement mark, but also military
construction, and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) did
with regard to end strength, I thank the gentlemen. It is a very good
mark. I ask all Members to support the product of the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It
is quality work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546; the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
America is at war, our military personnel are in harm's way, and our
Nation is facing dangerous and difficult threats.
September 11, 2001, now marks the most lethal single attack on the
United States in our Nation's history.
The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act demonstrates strong
bipartisan commitment to America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines who are fighting the global war against terrorism.
President George W. Bush stated and I quote,
Nothing is more important than the national security of our country,
nothing is more important. So nothing is more important than our
defense budget.
I strong agree.
This National Defense Authorization Act goes beyond the President's
request to improve homeland security, support U.S. service members, and
increase military readiness and modernization.
It is fitting that this Defense Authorization Act; the largest real
increase to defense
[[Page H2275]]
spending since 1966; be named after my good friend, Chairman Bob Stump.
I have had the privilege of working along side Bob, and the
opportunity to witness his steadfast support of our Nation's military.
We share the same values and beliefs; duty, honor, courage, and
commitment to God, country, family, and our fellow man. His leadership
will be missed.
Equally fitting is the support H.R. 4546 provides to addressing the
needs of the National Guard and Reserves.
Today, there are over 80,000 Reservists and National Guard personnel
on active duty from 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico supporting the global war on terrorism. They are a critical
component of the total force and vital for our homeland's security.
On behalf of Congressman Taylor and myself as cochairs of the
National Guard & Reserve Components Caucus, we extend our thanks to the
subcommittee chairman and ranking members for their support to the
National Guard and Reserves.
The National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus, representing 158
Members of Congress, has organized member support for legislative
initiatives dealing with Reserve Components, operations, programs, and
policies.
Now in its seventh year, the Reserve Components Caucus, has a proven
history of working with and assisting the House Armed Services
Committee.
H.R. 4546 goes a long way to support National Guard and Reserve
personnel, readiness, modernization, and military construction.
National Guard and Reserve Force personnel strength is increased by
adding more than 2,450 full-time military personnel to support the Army
National Guard, Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and Air Force
Reserve. Additionally, it increases Naval Reserve unit strength by 800
part-time military personnel.
H.R. 4546 also addresses significant personnel, compensation and
benefits improvements including a minimum 4.1 percent pay raise for all
active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel.
It extends the eligibility period for Selected Reservists' use of the
Montgomery GI bill an additional 4 years.
H.R. 4546 also directs a comprehensive study of the rights, benefits
and entitlements of Reservists and their dependents.
National Guard and Reserve quality of life improvements in this
Defense Authorization Act also include over $510 million for military
construction.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment requirements still reflect a $9
billion shortfall, however, H.R. 4546 provides over $470 million for
Guard and Reserve equipment procurement above the President's Budget
submission.
On behalf of the Reserve Components Caucus, I thank Chairman Weldon
for his support in improving Guard and Reserve modernization.
This bill sends a strong signal to the world and recognizes the
sacrifice and unselfish commitment of our service men and women in
protecting America's cherished freedoms and liberties.
In short, this bill says to the American people that military
service; active and reserve service, is critical for our Nation's
security.
It is clearly another giant step in our continued efforts to improve
quality of life, modernize the force, and improve readiness.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
{time} 1445
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) on the outstanding work that he has done to make
America secure, but some of the rhetoric that I hear from the other
side gives me pause and what comes to mind is how quickly we forget.
Some of the environmental concerns that have been raised are
completely bogus, Mr. Chairman. When we have a situation where 16 or 17
miles of coastline cannot be used at Camp Pendleton, when we have a
situation where soldiers have to draw a circle in the sand and stand
there and pretend that it is a foxhole, we are not training our
soldiers realistically. The success that we have seen in Afghanistan is
the direct result of investment in training and personnel and in troops
and in equipment. But that training cannot continue under the current
environmental restrictions that we have.
This bill makes some commonsense reforms that allow our soldiers,
sailors and airmen to prepare to wage and win war. I commend him for
his leadership on this and his striking the delicate balance that
recognizes the stewardship of the Department of Defense and the
overarching mission that they have, which is to keep America secure.
For the past year, the Government Reform Committee has been
investigating the growing number of restrictions, or encroachments,
placed on training at military training ranges by environmental
regulations, urban sprawl, international treaties and competition for
limited airspace and frequency spectrum.
In May of last year the Government Reform Committee held it's first
hearing on this issue titled ``Challenges to National Security:
Constraints on Military Training''. In August of last year the
Government Reform Committee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and
International Relations, of which I am vice chairman, held a field
hearing in my district at the Avon Park, Fl, Air Force Bombing Range to
address the issue of military training range sustainability.
Our hearings have demonstrated that environmental regulations are
among the most pervasive and burdensome constraints on military
training. At a hearing last spring, for instance, the committee learned
that 16 of 17 miles of coastland at Camp Pendleton, California, are
off-limits for amphibious training due to a growing list of wildlife
protections. Witnesses also testified that soldiers are not allowed to
dig foxholes on some ranges, and instead must practice jumping onto
circles marked with tape.
As the Defense Department has been forced to expand the amount of
land set aside for protected species such as the fairy shrimp, the
gnat-catcher, and the checker-spot butterfly, training lanes have
become artificially narrow, Environmental laws and regulations have
inhibited training at bases across the country and on the waters
offshore. Fewer and fewer training areas are now available for
realistic combat live-fire training.
When combat drills become predictable and repetitive, readiness
declines. Our experience in Afghanistan has demonstrated that our
success on the battlefield is directly related to the quality of our
military training. We must ensure that well-intentioned environmental
regulations do not lead to shortfalls on the proving ground that later
become disasters on the battlefield. The changes proposed in H.R. 4546
are intended to save lives in real combat.
The issue is not readiness versus the environment. The issue is our
commitment to our military men and women and their families. When we
send our constituents or their sons, daughters, spouses, or parents
into harm's way, we should do so only in the complete confidence that
they are ready. They will only be ready if they are thoroughly and
realistically trained. Our military men and women,and their families,
have a right to expect that training, and we as a nation have an
obligation to provide it.
H.R 4546 provides a common-sense change to laws that have
overburdened the military and restricted training efforts. These are
not broad waivers. There are no exemptions and no rolling back of
decades of environmental law.
The committee mark is a good start, but more may need to be done. The
current hair-trigger application of broadly defined environmental
regulations has profoundly affected vital military research and
development efforts as well. For example, a scientific study funded by
the Pentagon showed that a new long-range, lower-frequency sonar
designed to detect ultra-quiet enemy submarines would ``harass'' marine
mammals under the existing definition. The Navy is now waiting for a
letter of authorization from the Fisheries Service to allow use of the
sonar. If the definition of harassment were changed, the Navy likely
would have greater leeway in using the sonar without seeking permits or
exposure to lawsuits.
The Navy should not need to get permits every time an aircraft
carrier changes position and the military should not be exposed to
lawsuits for allegedly ``annoying'' a marine mammal.
More than anything else, military readiness depends on realistic
training. Constraints on military training and research are a growing
challenge to our national security. To perform a constantly expanding
range of missions--from peacekeeping to assaulting and holding a
hostile beachhead--the men and women of our armed forces must train as
they fight. They must train under conditions as much like the real
thing as possible.
The issue is not readiness versus the environment. Our military men
and women have all volunteered to go into harm's way--we owe it to
them, and their families, to send them there trained to win. Training
saves lives. In this time of war I urge my colleagues to make
protecting the lives of our military men and women our highest
priority. Supporting this legislation will do that. I urge passage of
the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to the
choir of opposition the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2003.
This bill provides appropriations for an increase in pay for our armed
[[Page H2276]]
services personnel, which I believe is very important for the security
of our great Nation. However, I rise to oppose this legislation because
it provides appropriations for an unproven ballistic missile defense.
This is a flawed policy. If the United States was attacked by a long
range nuclear missile, any feasible ballistic missile defense system
would have less than 15 minutes to detect, track, and attempt to
intercept the missile. Thus, this is a technologically daunting task. A
top defense official has said that a successful U.S. missile defense
system test, which was completed recently, did not realistically
duplicate conditions of an actual attack. If our top military leaders
think that this is a flawed policy, then we as elected officials should
follow their recommendation.
The Defense Department has tested and retested this ballistic missile
defense system, and each time the desired results have not been
achieved. But yet, The President wants to continue funding this flawed
policy. Therefore, I want to strongly support the Tierney amendment,
which states that no funds for FY 2003 for the Department of Defense
may be used for space-based national missile defense programs.
Additionally, I also strongly support Congressman Markey's amendment,
which prohibits the use of funds to develop and test a nuclear earth
penetrator weapon and also prohibits the use of funds in fiscal year
2003 for a feasibility study of a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.
In almost every case, post-test doubts regarding missile defense have
been raised. Critics have charged that test results over the past two
decades have been exaggerated by false claims of success and promises
of performance that later proved false. Many tests were proven to have
had their targets significantly enhanced to ensure the likelihood of
success.
Furthermore, kinetic kill as a concept for destroying long-range
ballistic missiles is even more problematic at this stage. There is no
empirical evidence to support the contention that kinetic kill for ICBM
defense will work. Despite the prowess of American technology, there
are no quick, cheap or easy solutions in missile defense. Therefore, we
should allocate funds for more pressing defense needs and spend our
funds on systems that work and will enhance real security for all
Americans.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this Defense
authorization bill. With the President's war on terrorism continuing
and with budget deficits rising, why are we spending money on so many
unnecessary programs? Just yesterday the administration admitted that
some of these programs are no longer necessary, yet the Republican
leadership would rather waste billions of dollars on defense projects
that keep defense contractors swimming in money.
Earlier this week, I submitted an amendment to this bill that would
have cut the $475 million to further research and develop the Crusader
mobile howitzer project. Unfortunately, the Republicans refused to
allow this amendment to be considered on the House floor. These
Republicans are more interested in looking like they are strong on
defense than they are in funding projects that can actually be used to
defend our country. Even the Department of Defense has said it doesn't
want the Crusader. If you don't believe me, look at the front page of
today's Washington Post: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says, ``We are
going to cancel the Crusader.'' Rather than falling in line behind
President Bush, as they have on virtually every other initiative
proposed by this administration, the Republican leadership wouldn't
even allow a debate about this program.
Why do I agree with the administration on a defense project? Let's
look at some details. To date, we have spent $3.5 billion on an
artillery system that doesn't have a prototype, fails to meet the
operability requirements of the army, and would cost another $11
billion if we decided to purchase the system. Fully loaded, the
Crusader weighs over 80 tons, so heavy that only the largest cargo
plane we have could carry it, and just one at a time! Finally,
howitzers like the Crusader are outdated weapons of warfare that are
really only effective against large massed armies, such as those that
were maintained by the former Soviet Union. There are few armies left
in the world who use such WWII era tactics, and if in the future we
happen to need these weapons again, the GAO has found that we can
either upgrade the existing Paladin howitzer or purchase a German made
system that fits the operational requirements of the Crusader.
But the Crusader is not the only program that shouldn't be funded in
this bill. This bill also authorizes continued funding of the F-22, the
Joint Strike Fighter, and an upgraded version of the F/A 18. With the
upgrades of our existing F-15s and F-16s, our Air Force has air-
superiority over any existing air force. While some argue that we need
upgraded fighter aircraft to counteract improvements in surface to air
defense systems, do we really need three different planes? The cost
savings of just going with one of these systems instead of three would
be astronomical. Not only would we stop throwing billions more dollars
at defense contractors, we would save billions more by not having to
purchase parts for three different planes and to hire three different
sets of mechanics to service them. Finally, cutting these extraneous
programs will further integrate our armed forces, a goal specifically
mentioned by Secretary Rumsfeld in his speech at the Pentagon
yesterday.
This bill spends too much money on programs that will do nothing to
protect our citizens. Instead, it lines the pockets of defense
contractors and sends our nation's financial health into further
disarray. In the interest of national defense and fiscal security, I am
voting against this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is no function of our national
government more fundamental than defense of the Nation. Today, our
national defense is more important than ever, and with this
authorization bill, we are spending more on national defense than ever.
In fact, the $393 billion this bill authorizes means the United States
will be spending more on our military than do the next 25 nations
combined.
There is no question this bill spends enough to do the job. The
question is whether the money is being spent in ways that will do the
right job. There is a great debate abroad in the land about the nature
of the threats our Nation faces, and the best approaches to dealing
with those threats. There is a robust discussion about honoring our
responsibilities to those who have served this country; about the
responsibility of the military, like the rest of the Federal
Government, to play by the rules this Congress has established; and
about the military's duty to clean up after itself by returning the
lands it no longer needs to productive use for America.
However, that discussion and debate is not occurring in this House.
The leadership has so tightly managed the rule for debate on this
measure that the House will authorize the largest increase in defense
spending since 1966.
We have failed our duty to the people to ask and answer the most
fundamental questions: what unnecessary, wasteful systems and programs
should be eliminated from this bill because they do nothing to enhance
the security of the United States? What should be added in their place,
to ensure that we uphold our duty to those who have served and ensure
that we strengthen America with our defense investments?
On the first question, the answer is clear. We need to right-size the
military for the security needs of the United States today.
Unfortunately, in this $393 billion, there is too much money being
spent on the wrong stuff.
Three examples, of many, should suffice to make the point. First, we
should not be continuing to fund three tactical aircraft programs
concurrently at a time when we have the pre-eminent fighter jet in the
world--the F-15.
Second, the bill contains $7.8 billion for missile defense, including
funding for initial deployment of a national missile defense system
based in Alaska. We should be alarmed that we are not taking the time
as a nation to have a thoughtful dialogue on all the potential
ramifications of a national missile defense system before rushing ahead
with deployment. Since President Ronald Reagan's famous 1983 ``Star
Wars'' speech, the United States has spent roughly $100 billion on
ballistic missile defenses. We should not be throwing good money after
bad. September 11 showed us that there are many threats that are more
realistic than that of a ballistic missile streaking across the ocean
to land on our shores.
The third is perhaps the most outrageous example. Yesterday,
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld informed members of Congress of his
decision to cancel the $11 billion Crusader program. This is a weapons
system that Napolean would have loved that was designed for a war from
an age long past.
The Army plans to create a mobile force capable of being deployed
anywhere in the world in 96 hours, but the Crusader Mobile Howitzer is
still too heavy to be lifted by any transport aircraft in our fleet.
Neither of the two largest military cargo transports in operation--the
C-5 and the C-17--is capable of carrying a complete Crusader. The
weapon's designers say they have reduced the total weight of the system
from 90 tons to ``only'' 73, but that was accomplished by removing the
fuel and ammunition.
The Congressional Budget Office recommends killing the Crusader and
purchasing a suitable alternative. The General Accounting Office has
identified a German-made howitzer as a viable alternative to the
Crusader. According to CBO, acquiring this off-the-shelf weapon would
save $6.7 billion over 10 years.
The Crusader is more suitable for fighting Adolf Hitler than meeting
the challenges of today. As one Bush adviser remarked, ``Why would you
buy the same artillery pieces that
[[Page H2277]]
Napoleon would understand? It's all Industrial Age equipment.''
I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee to transfer funds from
the Crusader to the cleanup of unexploded ordnance (UXO). These
amendments would have supported Secretary Rumsfeld's decision on the
Crusader and addressed a serious problem for the military, UXO, which
is both a long-term liability and a short-term operational and public
relations nightmare.
In addition to these examples of unwise and wasteful expenditure,
this bill authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important
environmental protections essential to Americans' health and the health
of America's land and water. During my time in Congress, I have worked
to compel the Federal Government to lead by example. This bill goes
against everything I have been working toward. If we exempt the largest
landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how can we
expect anyone else to follow our laws?
The Department of Defense wants to exempt itself from many
environmental laws. This is an important decision, and should involve
debate and consideration by all stakeholders. Unfortunately, the
Department and their congressional supporters have circumvented the
committee process to give us the provisions in this bill.
This bill contains sweeping new exemptions for activities under the
Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the
Wilderness Act, important environmental protections that took years and
much debate to put in place. This action should at least warrant a
debate in the relevant committees. I am also disappointed that the rule
on this bill does not even allow for discussion of these significant
environmental exemptions.
No one will argue that the U.S. military does not provide an
important service, and that its ability to operate is imperative.
However, in preparing itself to protect this country, the Department of
Defense should not be allowed to destroy the environment that American
public cherishes and the clean and healthy communities that it demands.
The second question we should have more productively discussed in
this House is what we could better have done with the enormous
resources committed by this legislation. One answer is to better
provide for the needs of those who have served our country. Our
priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable
retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their
deserved retirement pay and disability payments. That is the number one
issue I hear about from military retirees in my district. I am pleased
that this bill starts that process by compensating retirees who are 60
percent or greater disabled, but I firmly believe we could have done
more.
A second example, a special area of interest to me and one that has
been neglected by all of us for too long, is unexploded ordance. For 2
years now, I have been pursuing remedies to the problem of unexploded
ordnance--the bombs and other munitions that didn't go off as intended
and are subsequently buried or litter the landscape. There are some
2,000 former military properties in every state and nearly every
congressional district where these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime
example of the need for the Federal Government to be a better partner
and clean up after itself.
Last year, we succeeded in requiring a prioritized nationwide
inventory of UXO-contaminated sites. This year's directs the Department
of Defense to designate a single point of contact for UXO. That
authority may be delegated no further than the Under Secretary of one
of the military departments. In addition, this bill contains language
calling for an independent advisory and review panel for UXO matters.
All of these provisions are part of the legislation Representative
Riley and I introduced last year, the Ordnance and Explosive Risk
Management Act (H.R. 2605).
The Defense Department has put forward a preliminary estimated cost-
to-complete of $15 billion for munitions response at Formerly Used
Defense Sites. Neutral observers say this cost could in fact run into
the hundreds of billions of dollars. At the FY03 proposed funding level
of $70 million, it will take 200 years to complete the job, even
accepting the low DOD cost estimate. It is more realistic to assume
costs over a hundred billion dollars and more than a thousand years to
finish the job. The delay is absolutely unacceptable for the
environment and the American people.
Those 2,000 sites are at locations nationwide, including Spring
Valley right here in the District of Columbia which has munitions
remnants left over from World War I weapons testing, and Five Points
Outlying Field in Arlington, TX, where people in a new housing
development are finding live ordnance in their gardens.
These sites are a legacy of past military activities; it is our
nation's responsibility to clean them up. They not only constitute an
environmental hazard; documentation has been found detailing at least
65 deaths in this country by accidents with UXO.
We are all profoundly aware of the broader implications of UXO across
the globe. As we address the problem at home, we have the potential of
sharing our technology and helping to solve UXO problems around the
world. Placing greater emphasis on the problem of UXO and focusing a
small portion of federal defense spending on it can truly have a
transformational effect on the cleanup of tens of millions of acres in
the United States. Such action can also impact the development and
deployment of new technologies that will save millions of innocent
civilians from death and dismemberment in some of the most distressed
areas of the world.
There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect
America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are
many things authorized in this bill that threaten Americans' health and
safety or waste tax dollars with no benefit to our country. We must do
better in shaping our Nation's defense policy.
I vote ``no.''
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
H.R. 4546.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday, in Pensacola, FL, the Navy suffered an air
training accident whereby seven military and civilian contractor
personnel are missing at sea. And while the search continues, and we
pray for a successful recovery, this event is a reminder of the risks
our uniformed men and women endure--either at home or away. I believe
this legislation does much to honor and reward military service and I
am proud to be a member of the House Armed Services Committee and proud
to have contributed to the work before us.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation remedies a wrong, long committed
against our retired military veterans. By providing $5.58 billion, over
5 years, toward retiree benefits, H.R. 4546 begins full concurrent
receipt for veterans suffering from a disabled rating 60 percent or
greater. These individuals, who have given decades of their life,
serving this great country, will begin to receive their earned retired
pay along with their earned disability pay.
This agreement builds upon the work of many people, the least not the
veterans who walk these halls, write letters or otherwise make the
effort to contact their Member of Congress. Due to the meticulous work
of the budget committee, the requirement to have a full budget offset
is no longer needed. Additionally, this legislation eliminates a
stipulation that disability claims must be made within four years of
military separation, effectively enacting my bill, H.R. 3620.
Navy training, an important function in my district, is supported in
this bill by the authorization of 10 additional Joint Primary Air
Training Systems, also known as JPATS. The Navy and Air Force will sue
this system, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a ground-based
training system, for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both
the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer, more
economical and more effective training for future student pilots.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to thank Chairman Stump for his
service to this committee, to the men and women in uniform and to his
country. It is my honor to have had the opportunity to serve under his
leadership.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4546, the Bob
Stump National Defense Act of Fiscal Year 2003 and I ask my colleagues
to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, September 11 highlighted the fact that our military
must remain the best trained and best equipped in the world. Our
ability to stage Operation Enduring Freedom in South Asia is not the
result of anything that happened since the attacks but are a result of
years of training and management, tens of thousands of man-hours of
research and development, and billions of dollars in testing and
manufacturing. The defense budget pays not only for the fuel,
munitions, and soldiers' salaries, but it pays for the investment in
the weapons needed to fight and win the wars of the future, against any
potential enemy in any part of the world.
For over 13 years, we have downsized our military because of cuts in
our defense budget. We have decommissioned vessels rather than upgrade
them and retired aircraft rather than build new ones. Our military was
asked to do more with less. Our servicemen and women were asked to do
more with less. We closed bases and gave up training areas, both
irreversible and in many cases at great cost. It is no wonder that
several years ago our soldiers and airmen began to leave the services
in record numbers.
This strong and bipartisan legislation addresses many of these issues
and reverses the trend of years past. It looks forward to the
challenges of the future. this bill contains a 4.1 percent increase in
basic pay with additional increases for mid-grade and senior
noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers.
[[Page H2278]]
It also works to honor the commitment our nation has to its veterans by
eliminating current law provisions that cause military retirees who are
eligible for veteran's disability compensation to have their retirement
pay reduced. Veterans who are 60 percent or greater disabled will begin
to receive concurrent pay phased in fully by 2007. As a veteran and
having spent 30 years as an Army Reservist, I know that investments in
our people are as important as any other aspect of our national
defense.
This bill also addresses security and quality of life issues. It
conveys almost $8.0 million to the Naval Submarine Base in Groton for
base security; and $24 million for a 100 units of Navy housing for
personnel and their families. This is a wise investment for the future.
Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing the Second
District of Connecticut here in Congress. The ``Submarine Capital of
the World,'' Groton, is in my district. For over a century, designers
and manufacturers in Groton have built submarines. Our nuclear ``silent
service'' is made up of the most sophisticated and complex systems ever
created by man. In the 1980s, workers in my district built on average
over 5 submarines a year, establishing American dominance of the seas
around the world and providing the backbone of our strategic nuclear
deterrence with the Trident-class ballistic missile submarines. My
district also is home to an assembly plant for military aircraft
engines that power the aircraft that make our air force second to none
in the world. Just as important are hundreds of competitive small
businesses and high-tech firms that keep our military on the cutting
edge.
While I worked for a higher level of procurement funding, I am
satisfied with what this bill does for our military and what it does
for the State of Connecticut. Connecticut fares especially well with
the procurement provisions authorizing funds for another Virginia class
submarine, the Trident Class to SSGN conversion program, additional
engine modifications of F-15s, and F-16 fighter aircraft, and the
acquisition of thirty-nine H-60 variant helicopters for the National
Guard and Navy. Important research programs at University of
Connecticut will continue to bring new technology to the warfighter,
and better equipment and medicine to assist and protect our troops in
the field.
I am also pleased with the language in the bill that authorizes the
Department of Defense, pending settlement of an outstanding legal case,
to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of Virginia
Class nuclear attack submarines. Using modern and innovative design and
manufacturing techniques, the Virginia Class submarine program is using
methods and processes that are likely to make it a model for future
large-system acquisition programs. Multiyear procurement promises to
save both jobs and taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, testimony received by the House Armed Services
committee by both the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, other DOD officials and respected defense analysts have
warned us of the impending force structure problem we are heading as
our submarines begin to reach the end of their service lives or require
refueling overhauls. Without increasing the procurement rate to two per
year, our submarine force will not meet the mission and operational
requirements determined as necessary by our military. Carrier and
amphibious groups will not have the required protection and firepower
of our submarine fleet. The smartest and most cost-effective way to
rebuild our submarine force is multiyear contracting. It is good for
the workforce, it is good for the taxpayer, and it is good for our men
and women in the military.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a well-crafted bill to meet many of the
needs of our military. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and
wanted to briefly comment as one of the Chairs of the Speaker's Task
Force on a Drug Free America and chairman of the Drug Policy
Subcommittee on the counterdrug provisions of the bill.
First, I want to commend the Armed Services Committee for its work on
the bill and support for counterdrug programs. The Department of
Defense plays a critical role in our nation's efforts to keep drugs off
our streets, particularly with respect to interdiction programs in
narcotics source and transit zones in the Caribbean and South America
and in providing training and resources to our allies. There has been
concern that the Department intended to substantially reduce its
support for these programs, and I very much want to thank the committee
for its continued careful attention to ensure that the Defense
Department continues its important involvement. My subcommittee and the
Speaker's Task Force will continue to follow this carefully, and we
look forward to continuing to work with the Department and the
Committee.
Second, I wanted to emphasize and associate myself with the guidance
contained in the committee's report on this bill with respect to
narcotics in Afghanistan. John Walters, the Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, recently stated in an interview that our
military involvement in Afghanistan has given us the first meaningful
opportunity to address the global heroin trade. Ninety percent of the
world supply of heroin is grown in Afghanistan, and this huge supply
inevitably affects the entire world market. I am concerned at public
reports and briefings obtained by my staff which suggest that the
Defense Department and the Central Command have been unwilling to
participate vigorously in drug interdiction and eradication efforts.
While I agree that the protection of our forces must be the paramount
concern, it also seems apparent that the Defense Department can make
some important contributions not only to drug eradication, but also to
the military goal of cutting off the source of economic support for
potential enemies. As we know, the Taliban received substantial
financial support from the drug trade. It makes no sense to leave as
potentially lucrative a source of funding for future terrorists as the
poppy crop in Afghanistan.
I also want to support the committee's report language on this issue
with respect to targeting. It expressed concern with the lack of
targeting of opium storage facilities in Afghanistan that were
identified early in the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. The
committee shared our understanding that U.S. Central Command had deemed
that opium in any form did not constitute a credible military target. I
agree strongly with its conclusion that the Department of Defense
should review and revise its policy in this regard to ensure that such
targets are properly prosecuted in Afghanistan and any future
conflicts.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense must continue to play an
active role in our drug control efforts, particularly in Afghanistan,
and I hope that this bill will encourage it to do so.
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the FY03
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act and appreciate all the
hard work my colleagues and my chairman did to produce a bill in
support of our national defense.
One area of particular concern for me is the Maritime
Administration's Title XI Vessel Loan Guarantee Program. I am pleased
to see that we have decided to authorize $50 million to continue this
valuable program, which sustains our national shipbuilding industrial
base by supporting commercial shipbuilding. This is necessary in the
face of foreign competition and subsidies and is good for all U.S.
shipyards, large and small. In addition, this will also serve to
maintain a skilled labor force critical to our defense industrial base.
I note that the committee expects that the Maritime Administration
will place a priority on providing loan guarantees under the Title XI
Ship Loan Guarantee Program for the construction of commercially viable
vessels that are militarily useful, such as for highspeed sealift, or
that meet specific requirements of Federal law, such as the requirement
for double-hull tankers. These types of commercial projects would be
the highest priority for continuing this program. There are many
laudable projects, including the FastShip project in my congressional
district, which should be supported by the Department of Defense and
the Department of Transportation. Military useful projects, like
FastShip, have always been a key element of the Title XI program. High-
speed sealift vessels are particularly important in light of the modern
military's need for rapid logistical support.
I urge the Maritime Administration to fairly consider these projects
for which applications have been filed so that these shipbuilding
projects can go forward in our U.S. shipyards and built by our skilled
American labor force. The Maritime Administration must consider all
both the commercial and the military benefits of these projects by
fairly and fully reviewing all available documents on current and
future applications. The Maritime Administration is obligated to ensure
the strength of our national security through the support of a strong
merchant marine.
Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Bob Stump for all his years
of service to our country and for his hard work on this important bill.
It has been an honor to serve with him and I am proud to call him my
chairman. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill
and the Title XI vessel loan guarantee authorization.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill.
Now more than ever, it is clear that cold war era thinking will not
meet the security needs of today. But it is cold war thinking that
continues to fuel our defense budget.
It is misguided thinking that seeks to put the United States back on
the path toward renewed nuclear testing, when instead we would all be
made safer if we would work toward nuclear nonproliferation.
It is misguided thinking that seeks to spend billions on the
Crusader, a weapons system that the Secretary of State himself does not
want, when we have so many profound needs here at home.
[[Page H2279]]
It is misguided thinking that seeks to allow the Department of
Defense to ignore our existing environmental laws. The American public
doesn't want fewer environmental protections. They want more.
It is misguided thinking to underfund important programs to destroy
chemical weapons in Russia.
And, it is misguided thinking that pours billions into a missile
defense system that we are rushing to deploy without fully considering
either the enormous technical problems or the serious international
repercussions.
As we abandon treaties and international agreements, we work against
our own best interests by spurring on nuclear arms races and
undermining proliferation and cooperation efforts.
I urge you, then, to oppose another $7.8 billion for missile defense
and to oppose this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I think an
admonition about the budget is in order. We actually have one bill
before us, while holding another in abeyance. The President requested a
total of $396 billion for national security, primarily for the
Department of Defense (DoD) and the nuclear weapons program run by the
Department of Energy (DoE). The President asked us to set aside $10
billion of the DoD budget as a ``war reserve'' for actions in
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism. For DoD, he
requested a total of $379 billion, of which $10 billion is for the war
reserve and $369 billion is the regular request.
There are two reasons for keeping separate the $10 billion request.
One is to earmark funds for the war on terrorism, the other is not to
merge into the base budget funding that may be non-recurring.
One of the bills approved by the House Armed Services Committee
authorizes $3.8 billion, which is to be drawn from the $10 billion war
reserve. But the $3.8 billion we are authorizing is actually part of
the regular $369 billion request. In the main bill, we are authorizing
DoD activities at the $369 billion level, but since $3.8 billion of the
regular request is now being provided for in the other bill, we have
$3.8 billion more in the main bill to be used for ships and other
procurement needs, research and development, and member-interest items.
Here are the problems with this approach. One, we are actually
authorizing $3.8 billion more than the President requested for regular
DoD appropriations, and DoD will eventually need that money for the war
on terrorism. I met with the DoD Comptroller, Secretary Zakheim, and he
acknowledged that while the $10 billion war reserve was a good faith
effort to account for the likely budgetary effect of the war, it is a
low-ball estimate. So, if we use $3.8 billion of the $10 billion
reserve for regular items, we will have to make up the $3.8 billion by
adding that amount to the supplementals that are likely to come later
to fully fund the war on terrorism. If the appropriators follow our
lead, we will spend $3.8 billion more on defense than the President has
requested, and add $3.8 billion more to the deficit and national debt.
Second, what happens if the appropriators do not follow suit, or if
they are not allowed to do so by the House leadership? Then, we will
have $3.8 billion in hollow BA (Budget Authority). We will authorize
$3.8 billion worth of items that never get appropriated. This is not an
idle concern because the White House and the Speaker are both resisting
efforts by the Appropriations Committee to take up this $3.8 billion
shift.
Another shift of funds comes in the military personnel account. This
account is reduced by $810 million, and the money is shifted to other
purposes. The DoD actuaries are likely in the next month to conclude
that the military personnel budget overestimates the accrual payment
for the Tricare-for-Life program. This is a program this committee
established, and along with it, we instituted the accrual system to
make sure the costs of this program are accounted for over the long
term. If the actuaries do reduce it by that amount, the effect is
minimal. But what if they reduce it by only $400 million? Then we will
be shorting the military personnel accounts by $410 million, unless we
shift the money back from the items to which it is transferred.
Committee staff asked DoD for a likely estimate of this adjustment
and took the high end of the range indicated by DoD. If the actuaries
come in lower, the adjustments will have to be made. Certain items now
funded will have to be de-funded or cut. Congress should not get in the
habit of trying to jump ahead of actuarial estimates in order to find
savings to be used for other items.
There is a widespread sentiment that DoD needs more funding, even
though the President's request for next year is the largest increase in
twenty years. I share the sentiment, but question quite a few of the
allocations in this bill. For example, if we took $70,000,000 out of
projects like the space-based kinetic interceptor (on which we have
spent millions already, to no avail), we could buy 24 PAC-3s and lower
the purchase cost from $6.5 to $5.6 million per missile. The PAC-3 is
the only missile defense system that we will deploy in the next five
years, and it is a theater system, where the threat is clear and
present. With only 20 PAC-3s deployed, and 72 in process of being
procured, 24 additional PAC-3's could make a major difference to the
defense of our troops in some conceivable scenarios in the very near
future. Moving from the tactical to the strategic. I have long been
concerned that we are under-funding the DOE's nuclear complex both for
stockpile stewardship and environmental cleanup. The bill we are
reporting does little to address these important areas.
I have always supported a strong defense, but we should bear in mind
that our economy is the first instrument of our national defense. The
federal budget constitutes 20 percent of our economy and has a great
impact on it, as we saw during the 1990s. Each year for eight years, we
reduced the budget deficit and then moved the budget into surplus; and
every year for 120 straight months, the economy grew. In passing this
bill, we take the first step in a defense budget that will cost $557
billion more than inflation over the next ten years. I recognize the
need and the primacy we must give the defense of our country, and I do
not think that we can be stinting about the cost of our war against
terrorism. But I am concerned as to whether we can sustain over the
long run all that we are supporting in this bill.
As we pass the bill authorizing a $48 billion increase in defense,
the budget overall is moving toward a unified deficit of $150 billion
this year. In other words, the federal budget in fiscal year 2002 will
borrow and spend all of the Medicare surplus, all of the Social
Security surplus, and still need to borrow $150 billion more. Revenue
collections this year are lagging last year by $130 billion. For the
first time since 1995, the Treasury must borrow money to make it
through the first calendar quarter of 2002. These signs are all the
more ominous when we remember that the first of 77 million baby boomers
will retire in 2008; and when all are retired, the number of
beneficiaries on Social Security and Medicare will double.
I agree that the defense budget takes precedence for now, but the
federal budget has a rendez-vous with destiny that we cannot dodge. By
shifting regular DoD funds to the war reserve and second-guessing
actuarial payments, the bill we report sets precedents that I am not
eager to establish, and it begs a big question: for how long can we
sustain what we have started?
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman today, the House is considering
H.R. 4546, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. At a
time when the men and women of our armed forces are spread across the
globe defending our nation and helping to combat terrorism, this is a
critically important piece of legislation that deserves to have a full
debate on a wide range of issues that affect our fighting men and women
and will determine how we defend America in the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the majority has once again rigged the
system to prevent the minority from offering the American people a real
debate on these critically important issues. Even more unfortunately,
Mr. Chairman, is the sad fact that I'm not really surprised any more
when the majority presents us with so few choices. This isn't the first
time we've had sham rules on the floor, and most certainly, it won't be
the last. Repeatedly, we are given fewer opportunities to offer
amendments on the important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, today, once again I am saddened that the majority has
prevented us from offering important amendments to improve this bill on
a wide range of issues.
We won't have a real debate on whether or not we should change our
national nuclear policy. I find it amazing that the Administration
seems to be steering our nation towards expanding nuclear weapons, and
we seem to be allowing this without any debate.
We also don't have a chance to debate the impact this legislation
will have on the environment. We won't debate the Administration's
attempt to gut our national environmental protection laws by exempting
the Department of Defense from the Migratory Bird and Endangered
Species Acts and by waiving protections found in the Wilderness Act.
As many of my colleagues have stated, these issues and many others
are of such national significance, it's unconscionable that we aren't
having an open and fair debate on them. This sorry excuse for a Rule
provided for by the majority is patently unfair. And it's patently
undemocratic.
These issues are too important to allow the majority to gag us once
again.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly on
section 312 which says that an approved Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP) that addresses the conservation needs of listed
threatened or endangered species obviates the need to designate
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. I would like to
remind my colleagues of congressional intent
[[Page H2280]]
and statutory direction when we established INRMPs in the 1997
Amendments to the Sikes Act.
I strongly believe that we need to provide our men and women being
sent ``in harm's way'' the most thorough and realistic readiness
training as possible on our military installations. Let me also express
my firm belief that military preparedness and sound stewardship of our
natural resources, is not mutually exclusive, they are mutually
beneficial. Appropriate land and natural resource management of our
installations provides not only for sustainable use for military
readiness, but for conservation of our natural resources on public
lands under military department jurisdiction. This is the underlying
philosophy of the amendments I sponsored to the Sikes Act in 1997 that
directed the Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement INRMP's in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and respective
State fish and wildlife agencies.
Specifically, the Sikes Act directs the Secretary of each military
department to prepare and implement an INRMP for each military
installation in the United States under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Defense unless the Secretary determines that the absence
of significant natural resources on a particular installation makes
preparation of such a plan inappropriate. Section 670a(a)(2) directs
that each INRMP shall be prepared ``in cooperation'' with the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and with the head of each appropriate State fish and wildlife
agency for the State in which the military installation is located.
This section further provides that the resulting INRMP for the military
installation ``shall reflect the mutual agreement of the parties
concerning conservation, protection and management of fish and wildlife
resources.''
I understand that DOD has, in practice, not always involved the other
statutory parties in development of an INRMP at an early stage, but
instead sought their concurrence to a completed draft. While such a
policy might comport with the statutory direction as to ``mutual
agreement of the parties,'' it does not comport with the ``preparation
in cooperation with'' directive. Cooperation of the statutory parties,
begun at the earliest stages of development of an INRMP, is the
contemplation of the statute. Such cooperation should go far to
reconcile potential differences, and I would like to remind the
Department of Defense that we expect the process explicitly
contemplated in the Sikes Act to be undertaken by the Department. While
there are exemplary INRMPs reflecting this sincere level of
involvement, the Department needs to re-commit itself to Congress'
direction in the 1997 amendments to the Sikes Act by involving all
three parties at the beginning, during development, and during
implementation of INRMPs. Consensus building and problem solving
throughout the process will most likely facilitate the ``mutual
agreement'' required by the statute of the three parties.
Finally, I would like to express my strong concerns about the
evolution of environmental management practices. I'm strongly against
INRMPs becoming something like the environmental impact studies that
are required today. Today, EIS documents have become a black hole of
time, money and bureaucracy. EIS documents were once two-page documents
of environmental consequences. Now EIS documents are thousands of pages
long, cost millions of dollars and take years to prepare. Even when
good faith efforts have been made to address the minutiae of endless
environmental issues in the EIS process, the documents are often
subject to litigation, being overturned or disregarded. I want to make
it very clear that the creation of the INRMPs where not intended to
become a continual EIS process, or as a justification for endless
studies on environmental stewardship and management.
Proposal for Western Alaska Workforce Development
1. Contact Information--a. Alaska Contact: Wendy Redman,
University of Alaska, Box 755000, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775.
b. Congressional Office Contact: Ann Gibson, Congressman
Don Young's Office, 2111 Rayburn, Washington, DC 20515, 225-
5765.
2. Describe the organization's main activities and whether
it is a public, private or non-profit entity. The University
of Alaska is Alaska's land grant postsecondary institution
and the largest public post-secondary institution in the
state.
3. A brief description of the proposal: This is a proposal
to continue workforce training in an area of Alaska
economically devastated by the failure of the salmon
industry. The training effort is to re-train former fisheries
workers in other fields where there is employment available.
The training areas are office occupations, construction,
computer repair and nursing assistants.
The primary private economic base in Western Alaska was the
salmon fishery. Beginning several years ago, the salmon runs
have failed to materialize leaving a dire economic situation.
This program is to train workers in new areas and lift their
dependence from public assistance.
4. Project costs: The request is for $2.5 million which is
all for training equipment, instructors and student stipends.
5. Other funding sources: The University of Alaska
contributes approximately $500,000 to the existing training.
6. Federal funding sources: The program did not receive
federal funding in FY02.
7. National significance: This program addresses the
federal responsibilities when a disaster occurs to assist in
economic recovery. It accomplishes this by training workers
in new fields where there is employment. The program could be
a model for other areas of the nation experiencing similar
economic devastation, particularly rural areas.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, although I am disappointed in the rule
before this body, I rise in strong support of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, and urge my colleagues to
support this important measure. I deeply regret the decision of the
Rules Committee to prohibit several critical amendments from being
considered here today.
I would first like to recognize our committee leadership, Chairman
Stump and Ranking Member Skelton, for the bipartisan bill they have
crafted to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our
committee has a long tradition of working across party lines to ensure
the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am greatly
pleased to have participated in yet another cooperative effort with my
Armed Services colleagues.
We all know that Chairman Stump has announced this intention to
retire at the end of this Congress. His steadfast leadership,
acknowledged in the title of this bill, will be missed, and I know that
the entire House wishes him the best of luck in the future.
I would also like to commend my very good friend, Jim Saxton,
Chairman of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee,
whom I have been so fortunate to work closely with, both on Armed
Services and the Resources Committees. His sincere concern for the
quality of life of our troops, as well as his truly bipartisan,
cooperative leadership, have guaranteed an equitable bill that directly
answers the pressing needs for our military infrastructure.
I would like to thank the committee staff for their tireless work and
invaluable expertise. These professionals have been working day in and
day out, weekends included, for the past two months, to put together
the best bill possible. I would especially like to thank the Military
Installations and Facilities Subcommittee professional staff, George
Withers and Tom Hawley. No subcommittee is better served than ours with
dedicated, smart, and consummate staff.
As ranking member of the Military Installations and Facilities
Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the effect this bill will
have on our military housing and infrastructure. Our Subcommittee
labored hard to compensate for an anemic construction budget proposed
by the President--a budget $1.7 billion lower than that put forward
last year. From this highly unsatisfactory starting point, our
Subcommittee added $425 million to fund projects vital to the Services.
An ongoing campaign against global terrorism is not an excuse to
abandon our campaign against substandard facilities and housing.
Funding for military construction must match the rhetoric; otherwise,
we will lose the battle for quality people willing to serve. Our
people, and their living and working conditions, must continue to be
our number one priority.
Given the military's current operational tempo, it is imperative that
we show our appreciation for those who volunteer to go in harm's way.
These men and women pledge to support and defend American democracy,
both at home and abroad, often at great personal sacrifice and for
significant periods of time. We owe it to them, and to their families,
to keep our promise of increased safety and morale in the home and in
the workplace.
In pursuit of such a goal, this bill authorizes $678.4 million--$17.7
million more than the President's request--for construction and
improvement of 3,447 family housing units and the privatization of over
30,000 units. Privatization authorities, extended in last year's
defense bill, provide our military accelerated opportunities to
renovate and build vastly improved family housing developments with
private sector capital and I applaud the continuation of this important
program. Our committee also included $1.2 billion for construction of
49 new barracks and dormitories in the FY03 authorization and $8.6
million in H.R. 4547, the Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization
Act, for unaccompanied personnel housing in Qatar. Once again,
attention to the living conditions of our single soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines has been a high priority for our committee, and I
sincerely hope that we can bring all of our barracks up to the same
excellent standard set by the Army's Whole Barracks Renewal at
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. I am especially pleased to note the $17.6
million provided to build Child Development Centers. This represents
funding for four such
[[Page H2281]]
centers, $6.9 million and one more than recommended by the President's
budget, and acknowledges the emphasis this Congress and the military
places on the needs of service members with children. Military couples
and single parents alike benefit when the military recognizes their
specific needs and eases their child-care burdens.
Our achievements in military construction will be an ongoing effort
aimed at providing quality living and working facilities for our entire
military family, stationed at home and overseas. I know that under Mr.
Saxton's excellent stewardship, the Subcommittee on Military
Installations and Facilities will continue to focus on raising the
living and working standards for our Armed Forces. They have
volunteered to protect our freedom. Now we must protect them by
building safe, modern facilities for the 21st century military.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4546, the
Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This
important piece of legislation is consistent with the levels
established in H. Con. Res. 353, the House-passed budget resolution. On
March 20, this body passed a budget resolution that made available the
budgetary resources for the largest increase in defense spending in two
decades. We provided $393.8 billion in budget authority for national
defense, including $10 billion for the expected war costs.
The principal reason for that increase, of course, was our unwavering
commitment to win the war against terrorism. But in addition to
combating terrorism, we provided a blueprint in the resolution to give
every service member a 4.1-percent pay rise, increased housing
allowances, and increased incentive pay. Also, and I believe this
deserves particularly to be noted, under Republican leadership we kept
our promises to America' veterans: For the first time in decades we
broke the legislative logjam over concurrent receipt of military
retirement pay and veterans disability compensation. The budget
resolution provided the resources to phase in full concurrent receipt
for retirees with 60 percent or greater VA disabilities. I am happy to
say that the defense authorization bill under consideration today is
completely consistent with the approach we took on concurrent receipt
in the budget resolution.
Finally, section 201 of the budget resolution provided for a $10-
billion reserve fund to continue military operations in fiscal year
2003. I am advised that the Armed Services Committee has opted to deal
with that subject matter later in a separate bill, H.R. 4547, when the
Pentagon provides more budgetary detail about how it plans to spend the
$10 billion.
I close in noting that the House Budget Committee completed its work
on schedule and provided a framework for timely consideration of the
vital bill on the floor today. But as we all know, the other body still
has not passed a budget resolution for fiscal year 2003. Given the
other body's glacial slowness in doing the public's business, it is all
the more important that the House show leadership and pass a resolution
deeming the provisions of H. Con. Res. 353 to be in force.
I express my support for H.R. 4546.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, as many people are now aware, the largest
increase in defense spending in two decades, is not really an
`increase' so much as it is a `payment past due' on a defense budget
that was significantly under-funded in the 1990s. This outstanding debt
is most easily seen in the Navy. It was the Navy that brought the
Marine Expeditionary Units to the Afghanistan theater of operations,
and it is the Navy that conducted 75% of the strike sorties flown in
Afghanistan. As we speak, Navy assets are not just in the Indian Ocean,
but also off the coasts of Somalia, Yemen, and the Philippines. The
Carrier Battle Group was the force enabler in Afghanistan--and it will
be the force enabler in the next theater of operations in the war on
terror.
America's defense requires a combat credible expeditionary force.
America's aircraft carriers with 2.5 acres of sovereign territory are
just that. In the early part of the last century, President Theodore
Roosevelt sent his `Big Stick' fleet around the world to deter other
nations from developing an aggressive stance towards the U.S. In the
year 2002, we have sent our `Big Stick' around the world to keep those
that would terrorize America on the run. Now is the time for a `Big
Stick' budget and investments in carrier battle groups are crucial to
maintaining our superiority over America's enemies--conventional, and
unconventional.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, this could be such a better bill if the
committee had made many more amendments in order. There are major
changes in defense policy in this bill that may become law without
debate. The rule to stifle debate is not just a procedural outrage, it
is contrary to our national security. I offered an amendment to the
Rules Committee that was not made in order that would have eliminated
funding for a program in the bill that does not merit the support of
this Congress. My amendment would remove $7.5 million added to this
bill for the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite--also known as the KE-ASAT--
program. Like a giant fly swatter in space, this weapon would knock out
enemy satellites.
The Department of Defense does not support KE-ASAT. President Bush
requested no money for it. Former President Clinton line item vetoed
funding for it in 1998. Defense Secretaries, Pentagon weapons advisory
boards and independent defense analysts have all called KE-ASAT a
horrendous waste. The GAO, in its examination of this program called
KE-ASAT a program ``in disarray.''
Yet we continue to fund it. This money was added to the bill without
debate, and, unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to debate
it today. I ask my colleagues: How many other meritorious defense needs
could benefit from that $7.5 million? Any one of us could write a
laundry list of other, better uses for this money, both in and out of
the defense budget.
At this time, when our nation's military is facing so many
challenges, it is simply unconscionable to waste money on systems like
this. I respectfully urge my colleagues to make my amendment in order
and give the Members of the House the opportunity to work their will on
this subject.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most
important measures that the House will consider this year. It is
intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the
years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities.
Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can
endorse, and so I cannot vote for it.
There is no doubt that September 11th changed the way we view our
national defense. There is no doubt that more than ever, we must focus
on defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our
military personnel, and we must give our military the training,
equipment, and weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.
Like all of my colleagues, I remain steadfastly committed to our
fight against terrorism. And yet, as this nation faces the most
difficult threat it has faced in decades, I believe it is essential
that we understand how our defense capabilities need to change to
reflect new 21st century threats. I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is
trying to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along those
lines, but clearly he isn't being assisted by some of our colleagues
here in the House, who seem content to address new threats with Cold
War-era technologies.
So my first objection to this bill is that although it funds defense
programs at their highest levels since 1966, it doesn't present a
coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. We need to
make clear decisions about our defense spending, and this bill doesn't
begin to consider the choices that must be made.
I have other objections to the bill. It 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 that Committee had no opportunity to
consider. There is broad-based support for existing environmental
laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case
flexibility to protect national security. I find it simply unacceptable
that neither our Committee nor the full House will have the opportunity
to consider whether the changes that would be made by this bill are
necessary or appropriate.
The bill also includes an entire title--Title XIV--that not only
includes provisions dealt with in a bill referred to the Resources
Committee, but also goes further to include matters within our
Committee's exclusive jurisdiction. Many Armed Services Committee
members themselves have said this was ``a procedural foul,'' but once
again the Rules Committee has made it impossible for the House to
consider changes. That is another reason I must oppose the bill.
I am also concerned that the bill endorses the President's recent
review of the U.S. nuclear posture. That review includes some troubling
provisions, such as the one to increase the speed at which nuclear
testing could resume if needed. Another provision would reduce the U.S.
nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,200 weapons, but without destroying the
weapons removed. I worry that simply storing weapons would encourage a
similar move in Russia, where the government's control over its nuclear
stockpile is considered less than secure. I also worry that the bill
includes a minimum requirement of operationally deployed weapons at
1,700, which would not give the president flexibility in his current
negotiations with Russia.
The bill would also urge the Administration to develop nuclear earth-
penetrating weapons and nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptors.
I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding
applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the
deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I fear the language in
this bill could
[[Page H2282]]
begin to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons
and thus increase the likelihood of nuclear use.
Finally, I am concerned that this bill would give the Pentagon's
National Missile Agency exemptions from regulations for controlling and
monitoring new weapons programs. Giving the Pentagon this exemption
effectively eliminates the checks and balances that are so necessary in
weapons development, and especially given the past technical failures
and cost overruns in missile defense programs to date, I can't support
a bill that includes this provision.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I don't question the urgent need to provide
for this country's defense--I just think we need to do it right. This
bill doesn't do it right, and so I can't support it.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 4546
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Representative Bob Stump of Arizona was elected to the
House of Representatives in 1976 for service in the 95th
Congress, after serving in the Arizona legislature for 18
years and serving as President of the Arizona State Senate
from 1975 to 1976, and he has been reelected to each
subsequent Congress.
(2) A World War II combat veteran, Representative Stump
entered service in the United States Navy in 1943, just after
his 16th birthday, and served aboard the USS LUNGA POINT and
the USS TULAGI, which participated in the invasions of Luzon,
Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
(3) Representative Stump was elected to the Committee on
Armed Services in 1978 and has served on nearly all of its
subcommittees and panels during 25 years of distinguished
service on the committee. He has served as chairman of the
committee during the 107th Congress and has championed United
States national security as the paramount function of the
Federal Government.
(4) Also serving on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of
the House of Representatives, chairing that committee from
1995 to 2000, and serving on the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, including
service as the ranking minority member in 1985 and 1986,
Representative Stump has dedicated his entire congressional
career to steadfastly supporting America's courageous men and
women in uniform both on and off the battlefield.
(5) Representative Stump's tireless efforts on behalf of
those in the military and veterans have been recognized with
numerous awards for outstanding service from active duty and
reserve military, veterans' service, military retiree, and
industry organizations.
(6) During his tenure as chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives, Representative
Stump has--
(A) overseen the largest sustained increase to defense
spending since the Reagan administration;
(B) led efforts to improve the quality of military life,
including passage of the largest military pay raise since
1982;
(C) supported military retirees, including efforts to
reverse concurrent receipt law and to save the Armed Forces
Retirement Homes;
(D) championed military readiness by defending military
access to critical training facilities such Vieques, Puerto
Rico, expanding the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin,
California, and working to restore balance between
environmental concerns and military readiness requirements;
(E) reinvigorated efforts to defend America against
ballistic missiles by supporting an increase in fiscal year
2002 of nearly 50 percent above the fiscal year 2001 level
for missile defense programs; and
(F) honored America's war heroes by expanding Arlington
National Cemetery, establishing a site for the Air Force
Memorial, and assuring construction of the World War II
Memorial.
(7) In recognition of his long record of accomplishments in
enhancing the national security of the United States and his
legislative victories on behalf of active duty service
members, reservists, guardsmen, and veterans, it is
altogether fitting and proper that this Act be named in honor
of Representative Bob Stump of Arizona, as provided in
subsection (a).
SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Divisions.--This Act is organized into three divisions
as follows:
(1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; findings.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees defined.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 101. Army.
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide activities.
Sec. 105. Defense Inspector General.
Sec. 106. Chemical demilitarization program.
Sec. 107. Defense health programs.
Subtitle B--Navy Programs
Sec. 111. Shipbuilding initiative.
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs
Sec. 121. Multiyear procurement authority for C-130J aircraft program.
Subtitle D--Other Programs
Sec. 141. Revisions to multiyear contracting authority.
Sec. 142. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of
homeland security.
Sec. 143. Destruction of existing stockpile of lethal chemical agents
and munitions.
Sec. 144. Report on unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
Sec. 145. Report on impact of Army Aviation Modernization Plan on the
Army National Guard.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Amount for defense science and technology.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Sec. 211. RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program.
Sec. 212. Extension of requirement relating to management
responsibility for naval mine countermeasures programs.
Sec. 213. Extension of authority to carry out pilot program for
revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation
centers of the Department of Defense.
Sec. 214. Revised requirements for plan for Manufacturing Technology
Program.
Sec. 215. Technology Transition Initiative.
Sec. 216. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
Sec. 231. Limitation on obligation of funds for procurement of Patriot
(PAC-3) missiles pending submission of required
certification.
Sec. 232. Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for research,
development, test, and evaluation related to system
improvements of programs transferred to military
departments.
Sec. 233. Amendments to reflect change in name of Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 302. Working capital funds.
Sec. 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
Sec. 311. Incidental taking of migratory birds during military
readiness activity.
Sec. 312. Military readiness and the conservation of protected species.
Sec. 313. Single point of contact for policy and budgeting issues
regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded military
munitions, and munitions constituents.
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Sec. 321. Authority for each military department to provide base
operating support to fisher houses.
Sec. 322. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities by members
of National Guard serving in national emergency.
Sec. 323. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and
recreation programs.
Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues
Sec. 331. Notification requirements in connection with required studies
for conversion of commercial or industrial type functions
to contractor performance.
Sec. 332. Waiver authority regarding prohibition on contracts for
performance of security-guard functions.
Sec. 333. Exclusion of certain expenditures from percentage limitation
on contracting for performance of depot-level maintenance
and repair workloads.
Sec. 334. Repeal of obsolete provision regarding depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads that were performed at
closed or realigned military installations.
Sec. 335. Clarification of required core logistics capabilities.
[[Page H2283]]
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education
Sec. 341. Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department
of Defense civilian employees.
Sec. 342. Availability of quarters allowance for unaccompanied defense
department teacher required to reside on overseas
military installation.
Sec. 343. Provision of summer school programs for students who attend
defense dependents' education system.
Subtitle F--Information Technology
Sec. 351. Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract.
Sec. 352. Annual submission of information on national security and
information technology capital assets.
Sec. 353. Implementation of policy regarding certain commercial off-
the-shelf information technology products.
Sec. 354. Installation and connection policy and procedures regarding
Defense Switch Network.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Sec. 361. Distribution of monthly reports on allocation of funds within
operation and maintenance budget subactivities.
Sec. 362. Minimum deduction from pay of certain members of the Armed
Forces to support Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Sec. 363. Condition on conversion of Defense Security Service to a
working capital funded entity.
Sec. 364. Continuation of Arsenal support program initiative.
Sec. 365. Training range sustainment plan, Global Status of Resources
and Training System, and training range inventory.
Sec. 366. Amendments to certain education and nutrition laws relating
to acquisition and improvement of military housing.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Sec. 401. End strengths for active forces.
Sec. 402. Revision in permanent end strength minimum levels.
Sec. 403. Authority for military department Secretaries to increase
active-duty end strengths by up to 1 percent.
Sec. 404. General and flag officer management.
Sec. 405. Extension of certain authorities relating to management of
numbers of general and flag officers in certain grades.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Sec. 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
Sec. 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the
Reserves.
Sec. 413. End strengths for military technicians (dual status).
Sec. 414. Fiscal year 2003 limitation on non-dual status technicians.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Sec. 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities
Sec. 501. Increase in number of Deputy Commandants of the Marine Corps.
Sec. 502. Extension of good-of-the-service waiver authority for
officers appointed to a Reserve Chief or Guard Director
position.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Sec. 511. Reviews of National Guard strength accounting and management
and other issues.
Sec. 512. Courts-martial for the National Guard when not in Federal
service.
Sec. 513. Matching funds requirements under National Guard Youth
Challenge Program.
Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy
Sec. 521. Exemption from active status strength limitation for reserve
component general and flag officers serving on active
duty in certain joint duty assignments designated by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Sec. 522. Eligibility for consideration for promotion to grade of major
general for certain reserve component brigadier generals
who do not otherwise qualify for consideration for
promotion under the one-year rule.
Sec. 523. Retention of promotion eligibility for reserve component
general and flag officers transferred to an inactive
status.
Sec. 524. Authority for limited extension of medical deferment of
mandatory retirement or separation for reserve officers.
Subtitle D--Education and Training
Sec. 531. Authority for phased increase to 4,400 in authorized
strengths for the service academies.
Sec. 532. Enhancement of reserve component delayed training program.
Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards
Sec. 541. Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations
to certain persons.
Sec. 542. Option to convert award of Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service
Medal.
Subtitle F--Administrative Matters
Sec. 551. Staffing and funding for Defense Prisoner of War/Missing
Personnel Office.
Sec. 552. Three-year freeze on reductions of personnel of agencies
responsible for review and correction of military
records.
Sec. 553. Department of Defense support for persons participating in
military funeral honors details.
Sec. 554. Authority for use of volunteers as proctors for
administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery test.
Sec. 555. Annual report on status of female members of the Armed
Forces.
Subtitle G--Benefits
Sec. 561. Voluntary leave sharing program for members of the Armed
Forces.
Sec. 562. Enhanced flexibility in medical loan repayment program.
Sec. 563. Expansion of overseas tour extension benefits.
Sec. 564. Vehicle storage in lieu of transportation when member is
ordered to a nonforeign duty station outside continental
United States.
Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters
Sec. 571. Right of convicted accused to request sentencing by military
judge.
Sec. 572. Report on desirability and feasibility of consolidating
separate courses of basic instruction for judge
advocates.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Sec. 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 602. Expansion of basic allowance for housing low-cost or no-cost
moves authority to members assigned to duty outside
United States.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Sec. 611. One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces.
Sec. 612. One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for certain health care professionals.
Sec. 613. One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for
nuclear officers.
Sec. 614. One-year extension of other bonus and special pay
authorities.
Sec. 615. Minimum levels of hardship duty pay for duty on the ground in
Antarctica or on Arctic icepack.
Sec. 616. Increase in maximum rates for prior service enlistment bonus.
Sec. 617. Retention incentives for health care providers qualified in a
critical military skill.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Sec. 631. Extension of leave travel deferral period for members
performing consecutive overseas tours of duty.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits
Sec. 641. Phase-in of full concurrent receipt of military retired pay
and veterans disability compensation for military
retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher.
Sec. 642. Change in service requirements for eligibility for retired
pay for non-regular service.
Sec. 643. Elimination of possible inversion in retired pay cost-of-
living adjustment for initial COLA computation.
Sec. 644. Technical revisions to so-called ``forgotten widows'' annuity
program.
Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill
Sec. 651. Extension of Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve eligibility
period.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Sec. 661. Addition of definition of continental United States in title
37.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements
Sec. 701. Elimination of requirement for TRICARE preauthorization of
inpatient mental health care for medicare-eligible
beneficiaries.
Sec. 702. Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for certain dependents.
Sec. 703. Enabling dependents of certain members who died while on
active duty to enroll in the TRICARE dental program.
Sec. 704. Improvements regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund.
Sec. 705. Certification of institutional and non-institutional
providers under the TRICARE program.
Sec. 706. Technical correction regarding transitional health care.
Subtitle B--Reports
Sec. 711. Comptroller General report on TRICARE claims processing.
Sec. 712. Comptroller General report on provision of care under the
TRICARE program.
Sec. 713. Repeal of report requirement.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Sec. 801. Plan for acquisition management professional exchange pilot
program.
[[Page H2284]]
Sec. 802. Evaluation of training, knowledge, and resources regarding
negotiation of intellectual property arrangements.
Sec. 803. Limitation period for task and delivery order contracts.
Sec. 804. One-year extension of program applying simplified procedures
to certain commercial items; report.
Sec. 805. Authority to make inflation adjustments to simplified
acquisition threshold.
Sec. 806. Improvement of personnel management policies and procedures
applicable to the civilian acquisition workforce.
Sec. 807. Modification of scope of ball and roller bearings covered for
purposes of procurement limitation.
Sec. 808. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.
Sec. 809. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.
Sec. 810. Report on development of anti-cyberterrorism technology.
Sec. 811. Contracting with Federal Prison Industries.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 901. Change in title of Secretary of the Navy to Secretary of the
Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 902. Report on implementation of United States Northern Command.
Sec. 903. National defense mission of Coast Guard to be included in
future Quadrennial Defense Reviews.
Sec. 904. Change in year for submission of Quadrennial Defense Review.
Sec. 905. Report on effect of noncombat operations on combat readiness
of the Armed Forces.
Sec. 906. Conforming amendment to reflect disestablishment of
Department of Defense Consequence Management Program
Integration Office.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Sec. 1001. Transfer authority.
Sec. 1002. Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year
2002.
Sec. 1003. Uniform standards throughout Department of Defense for
exposure of personnel to pecuniary liability for loss of
Government property.
Sec. 1004. Accountable officials in the Department of Defense.
Sec. 1005. Improvements in purchase card management.
Sec. 1006. Authority to transfer funds within a major acquisition
program from procurement to RDT&E.
Sec. 1007. Development and procurement of financial and nonfinancial
management systems.
Subtitle B--Reports
Sec. 1011. After-action reports on the conduct of military operations
conducted as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sec. 1012. Report on biological weapons defense and counter-
proliferation.
Sec. 1013. Requirement that Department of Defense reports to Congress
be accompanied by electronic version.
Sec. 1014. Strategic force structure plan for nuclear weapons and
delivery systems.
Sec. 1015. Report on establishment of a joint national training complex
and joint opposing forces.
Sec. 1016. Repeal of various reports required of the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 1017. Report on the role of the Department of Defense in
supporting homeland security.
Sec. 1018. Study of short-term and long-term effects of nuclear earth
penetrator weapon.
Sec. 1019. Study of short-term and long-term effects of nuclear-tipped
ballistic missile interceptor.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Sec. 1021. Sense of Congress on maintenance of a reliable, flexible,
and robust strategic deterrent.
Sec. 1022. Time for transmittal of annual defense authorization
legislative proposal.
Sec. 1023. Technical and clerical amendments.
Sec. 1024. War risk insurance for vessels in support of NATO-approved
operations.
Sec. 1025. Conveyance, Navy drydock, Portland, Oregon.
Sec. 1026. Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Sec. 1101. Eligibility of Department of Defense nonappropriated fund
employees for long-term care insurance.
Sec. 1102. Extension of Department of Defense authority to make lump-
sum severance payments.
Sec. 1103. Common occupational and health standards for differential
payments as a consequence of exposure to asbestos.
Sec. 1104. Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits program
eligibility.
Sec. 1105. Triennial full-scale Federal wage system wage surveys.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
Sec. 1201. Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and
monitor Iraqi weapons activities.
Sec. 1202. Strengthening the defense of Taiwan.
Sec. 1203. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison
officers.
Sec. 1204. Additional countries covered by loan guarantee program.
Sec. 1205. Limitation on funding for Joint Data Exchange Center in
Moscow.
Sec. 1206. Limitation on number of military personnel in Colombia.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
Sec. 1301. Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and
funds.
Sec. 1302. Funding allocations.
Sec. 1303. Prohibition against use of funds until submission of
reports.
Sec. 1304. Report on use of revenue generated by activities carried out
under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
Sec. 1305. Prohibition against use of funds for second wing of fissile
material storage facility.
Sec. 1306. Sense of Congress and report requirement regarding Russian
proliferation to Iran.
Sec. 1307. Prohibition against use of Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds outside the States of the former Soviet Union.
Sec. 1308. Limited waiver of restriction on use of funds.
Sec. 1309. Limitation on use of funds until submission of report on
defense and military contacts activities.
TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE
Sec. 1401. Definition of Utah Test and Training Range.
Sec. 1402. Military operations and overflights at Utah Test and
Training Range.
Sec. 1403. Designation and management of lands in Utah Test and
Training Range.
Sec. 1404. Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness.
Sec. 1405. Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2001. Short title; definition.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
Sec. 2101. Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2102. Family housing.
Sec. 2103. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army.
Sec. 2105. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2002 projects.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
Sec. 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2202. Family housing.
Sec. 2203. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy.
Sec. 2205. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2002 project.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
Sec. 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects.
Sec. 2302. Family housing.
Sec. 2303. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
Sec. 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2402. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2403. Energy conservation projects.
Sec. 2404. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies.
Sec. 2405. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2000 project.
Sec. 2406. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
1999 project.
Sec. 2407. Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
1997 project.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Sec. 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Sec. 2601. Authorized guard and reserve construction and land
acquisition projects.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law.
Sec. 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2000
projects.
Sec. 2703. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999
projects.
Sec. 2704. Effective date.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Sec. 2801. Changes to alternative authority for acquisition and
improvement of military housing.
[[Page H2285]]
Sec. 2802. Modification of authority to carry out construction projects
as part of environmental response action.
Sec. 2803. Leasing of military family housing in Korea.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Sec. 2811. Agreements with private entities to limit encroachments and
other constraints on military training, testing, and
operations.
Sec. 2812. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource
conservation purposes.
Sec. 2813. National emergency exemption from screening and other
requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
for property used in support of response activities.
Sec. 2814. Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility
maintenance costs.
Sec. 2815. Expanded authority to transfer property at military
installations to be closed to persons who construct or
provide military family housing.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
Sec. 2821. Land conveyances, lands in Alaska no longer required for
National Guard purposes.
Sec. 2822. Land conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Sec. 2823. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center, Buffalo,
Minnesota.
Sec. 2824. Land conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas
Sec. 2825. Land conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Sec. 2831. Land conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, San
Diego, California.
Sec. 2832. Boundary adjustments, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, and
Prince William Forest Park, Virginia.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Sec. 2841. Land conveyances, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field,
Nevada.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Sec. 2861. Easement for construction of roads or highways, Marine Corps
Base, Camp Pendleton, California.
Sec. 2862. Sale of excess treated water and wastewater treatment
capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina.
Sec. 2863. Ratification of agreement regarding Adak Naval Complex,
Alaska, and related land conveyances.
Sec. 2864. Special requirements for adding military installation to
closure list.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Sec. 3101. National Nuclear Security Administration.
Sec. 3102. Environmental and other defense activities.
Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
General Provisions
Sec. 3120. Short title; definitions.
Sec. 3121. Reprogramming.
Sec. 3122. Minor construction projects.
Sec. 3123. Limits on construction projects.
Sec. 3124. Fund transfer authority.
Sec. 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
Sec. 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities.
Sec. 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
Sec. 3128. Availability of funds.
Sec. 3129. Transfer of defense environmental management funds.
Sec. 3130. Transfer of weapons activities funds.
Sec. 3131. Scope of authority to carry out plant projects.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Sec. 3141. One-year extension of panel to assess the reliability,
safety, and security of the United States nuclear
stockpile.
Sec. 3142. Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of
Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction
program relating to elimination of weapons grade
plutonium in Russia.
Sec. 3143. Repeal of requirement for reports on obligation of funds for
programs on fissile materials in Russia.
Sec. 3144. Annual certification to the President and Congress on the
condition of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile.
Sec. 3145. Plan for achieving one-year readiness posture for resumption
by the United States of underground nuclear weapons
tests.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to
Defense Environmental Management
Sec. 3151. Defense environmental management cleanup reform program.
Sec. 3152. Report on status of environmental management initiatives to
accelerate the reduction of environmental risks and
challenges posed by the legacy of the Cold War.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Sec. 3201. Authorization.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
Sec. 3301. Authorized uses of National Defense Stockpile funds.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
Sec. 3401. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 3501. Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2003.
Sec. 3502. Authority to convey vessel USS SPHINX (ARL-24).
Sec. 3503. Financial assistance to States for preparation of
transferred obsolete ships for use as artificial reefs.
Sec. 3504. Independent analysis of title XI insurance guarantee
applications.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``congressional defense
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 101. ARMY.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for procurement for the Army as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $2,300,327,000.
(2) For missiles, $1,693,896,000.
(3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
$2,372,958,000.
(4) For ammunition, $1,320,026,000.
(5) For other procurement, $6,119,447,000.
SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.
(a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the Navy as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $8,971,555,000.
(2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes,
$1,916,617,000.
(3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $9,279,494,000.
(4) For other procurement, $4,527,763,000.
(b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for procurement for the
Marine Corps in the amount of $1,351,983,000.
(c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for
procurement of ammunition for the Navy and the Marine Corps
in the amount of $1,104,453,000.
SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $12,522,755,000.
(2) For missiles, $3,482,639,000.
(3) For ammunition, $1,176,864,000.
(4) For other procurement, $10,907,730,000.
SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of
$2,621,009,000.
SEC. 105. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for procurement for the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense in the amount of $2,000,000.
SEC. 106. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 the amount of $1,490,199,000 for--
(1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions
in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and
(2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the
United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such
Act.
SEC. 107. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for the Department of Defense for procurement for
carrying out health care programs, projects, and activities
of the Department of Defense in the total amount of
$278,742,000.
SEC. 111. SHIPBUILDING INITIATIVE.
(a) Use of Specified Shipbuilding Authorization Amount
Subject to Contractor Agreement.--Of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated by section 102(a)(3) for fiscal year 2003,
$810,000,000 shall be available for shipbuilding programs of
the Navy either in accordance with subsection (b) or in
accordance with subsection (c).
(b) DDG-51 Authorization if Agreement Reached.--If as of
the date of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of the
Navy has submitted to Congress a certification described in
subsection (d), then the amount referred to in subsection (a)
shall be available for procurement of one Arleigh Burke class
(DDG-51) destroyer.
(c) Authorization if Agreement Not Reached.--If as of the
date of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of the Navy
has not submitted to Congress a certification described in
subsection (d), then the amount referred to in subsection (a)
shall be available as follows:
(1) $415,000,000 shall be available for advance procurement
for Virginia class submarines.
(2) $210,000,000 shall be available for advance procurement
for cruiser conversion.
(3) $185,000,000 shall be available for nuclear-powered
submarine (SSN) engineered refueling overhaul.
[[Page H2286]]
(d) Certification.--A certification referred to in
subsections (b) and (c) is a certification by the Secretary
of the Navy that the prime contractor for the Virginia class
submarine program has entered into a binding agreement with
the United States to expend from its own funds an amount not
less than $385,000,000 for economic order quantity
procurement of nuclear and nonnuclear components for Virginia
class submarines beginning in fiscal year 2003.
(e) Multiyear Procurement Authority.--(1) If the terms of
an agreement described in subsection (d) between the United
States and the prime contractor for the Virginia class
submarine program include a requirement for the Secretary of
the Navy to seek to acquire Virginia class submarines through
a multiyear procurement contract, the Secretary of the Navy
may, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, enter into a multiyear contract for procurement
of Virginia class submarines, beginning with the fiscal year
2003 program year.
(2)(A) In the case of a contract authorized by paragraph
(1), a certification under subsection (i)(1)(A) of section
2306b of title 10, United States Code, with respect to that
contract may only be submitted if the certification includes
an additional certification that each of the conditions
specified in subsection (a) of that section has been
satisfied with respect to that contract.
(B) Upon transmission to Congress of a certification
referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to a contract
authorized by paragraph (1), the contract may then be entered
into only after a period of 30 days has elapsed after the
date of the transmission of such certification.
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs
SEC. 121. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR C-130J AIRCRAFT
PROGRAM.
(a) Multiyear Authority.--Beginning with the fiscal year
2003 program year, the Secretary of the Air Force may, in
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of C-
130J aircraft.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary of Defense may not enter
into a contract authorized by subsection (a) until--
(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees a certification described in subsection (c); and
(2) a period of 30 days has expired after such
certification is submitted.
(c) Required Certification as to Progress Toward Successful
Operational Test and Evaluation.--A certification under
subsection (b)(1) is a certification by the Secretary of
Defense that the C-130J program is making satisfactory
progress towards a successful operational test and
evaluation.
(d) Required Certification With Respect to Multiyear
Contracting Conditions.--(1) In the case of a contract
authorized by subsection (a) of this section, a certification
under subsection (i)(1)(A) of section 2306b of title 10,
United States Code, with respect to that contract may only be
submitted if the certification includes an additional
certification that each of the conditions specified in
subsection (a) of that section has been satisfied with
respect to that contract.
(2) Upon transmission to Congress of a certification
referred to in paragraph (1) with respect to a contract
authorized by subsection (a), the contract may then be
entered into only after a period of 30 days has elapsed after
the date of the transmission of such certification.
Subtitle D--Other Programs
SEC. 141. REVISIONS TO MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.
(a) Use of Procurement and Advance Procurement Funds.--
Section 2306b(i) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary
of Defense may obligate funds for procurement of an end item
under a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only
for procurement of a complete and usable end item.
``(B) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of
Defense may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year
for advance procurement under a multiyear contract for the
purchase of property only for the procurement of those long-
lead items necessary in order to meet a planned delivery
schedule for complete major end items that are programmed
under the contract to be acquired with funds appropriated for
a subsequent fiscal year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (4) of section 2306b(i) of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall not apply with respect to any multiyear contract
authorized by law before the date of the enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 142. TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY ITEMS AND EQUIPMENT IN
SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 148 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in
support of homeland security
``The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement
with an independent, nonprofit, technology-oriented entity
that has demonstrated the ability to facilitate the transfer
of defense technologies, developed by both the private and
public sectors, to aid Federal, State, and local first
responders. Under the agreement the entity shall develop and
deploy technology items and equipment, through coordination
between Government agencies and private sector, commercial
developers and suppliers of technology, that will enhance
public safety and shall--
``(1) work in coordination with the InterAgency Board for
Equipment Standardization and Interoperability;
``(2) develop technology items and equipment that meet the
standardization requirements established by the Board;
``(3) evaluate technology items and equipment that have
been identified using the standards developed by the Board
and other state-of-the-art technology items and equipment
that may benefit first responders;
``(4) identify and coordinate among the public and private
sectors research efforts applicable to national security and
homeland security;
``(5) facilitate the timely transfer of technology items
and equipment between public and private sources;
``(6) eliminate redundant research efforts with respect to
technologies to be deployed to first responders;
``(7) expedite the advancement of high priority projects
from research through implementation of initial
manufacturing; and
``(8) establish an outreach program, in coordination with
the Board, with first responders to facilitate awareness of
available technology items and equipment to support crisis
response.''.
(b) Deadline for Agreement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
enter into the agreement required by section 2520 of title
10, United States Code (as added by subsection (a)) not later
than January 15, 2003.
(c) Strategic Plan.--The entity described in section 2520
of such title shall develop a strategic plan to carry out the
goals described in such section, which shall include
identification of--
(1) the initial technology items and equipment considered
for development; and
(2) the program schedule timelines for such technology
items and equipment.
(d) Report Required.--Not later than March 15, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on--
(1) the actions taken to carry out such section 2520;
(2) the relationship of the entity described in such
section to the InterAgency Board for Equipment
Standardization and Interoperability; and
(3) the strategic plan of such entity to meet the goals
described in such section.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter III of chapter 148 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of
homeland security.''.
SEC. 143. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS.
(a) Program Management.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that the program for destruction of the United States
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions is managed
as a major defense acquisition program (as defined in section
2430 of title 10, United States Code) in accordance with the
essential elements of such programs as may be determined by
the Secretary.
(b) Requirement for Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) Annual Certification.--Beginning with respect
to the budget request for fiscal year 2004, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall submit to the
congressional defense committees on an annual basis a
certification that the budget request for the chemical agents
and munitions destruction program has been submitted in
accordance with the requirements of applicable Federal laws.
SEC. 144. REPORT ON UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS.
(a) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2003, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on unmanned
aerial vehicle systems of the Department of Defense.
(b) Matters To Be Included Concerning Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle Systems.--The Secretary shall include in the report
under subsection (a) the following, shown for each system
referred to in that subsection:
(1) A description of the infrastructure that the Department
of Defense has (or is planning) for the system.
(2) A description of the operational requirements document
(ORD) for the system.
(3) A description of the physical infrastructure of the
Department for training and basing.
(4) A description of the manner in which the Department is
interfacing with the industrial base.
(5) A description of the acquisition plan for the system.
(c) Suggestions for Changes in Law.--The Secretary shall
also include in the report under subsection (a) such
suggestions as the Secretary considers appropriate for
changes in law that would facilitate the way the Department
acquires unmanned aerial vehicle systems.
SEC. 145. REPORT ON IMPACT OF ARMY AVIATION MODERNIZATION
PLAN ON THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.
(a) Report by Chief of the National Guard Bureau.--Not
later than February 1, 2003, the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the
requirements for Army National Guard aviation. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An analysis of the impact of the Army Aviation
Modernization Plan on the ability of the Army National Guard
to conduct its aviation missions.
(2) The plan under that aviation modernization plan for the
transfer of aircraft from the active component of the Army to
the Army reserve components, including a timeline for those
transfers.
(3) The progress, as of January 1, 2003, in carrying out
the transfers under the plan referred to in paragraph (2).
[[Page H2287]]
(4) An evaluation of the suitability of existing Commercial
Off The Shelf (COTS) light-twin engine helicopters for
performance of Army National Guard aviation missions.
(b) Views of the Chief of Staff of the Army.--If, before
the report under subsection (a) is submitted, the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau receives from the Chief of Staff of
the Army the views of the Chief of Staff on the matters to be
covered in the report, the Chief of the Bureau shall include
those views with the report as submitted under subsection
(a).
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for the use of the Department of Defense for
research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:
(1) For the Army, $6,933,319,000.
(2) For the Navy, $13,274,540,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $18,803,184,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $17,413,291,000, of which
$222,054,000 is authorized for the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation.
SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Fiscal Year 2003.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by section 201, $10,023,658,000 shall be
available for the Defense Science and Technology Program,
including basic research, applied research, and advanced
technology development projects.
(b) Basic Research, Applied Research, and Advanced
Technology Development Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``basic research, applied research, and
advanced technology development'' means work funded in
program elements for defense research and development under
Department of Defense category 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
SEC. 211. RAH-66 COMANCHE AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
(a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for engineering and
manufacturing development for the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft
program may be obligated until the Secretary of the Army
submits to the congressional defense committees a report,
prepared in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, containing an
accurate estimate of funds required to complete engineering
and manufacturing development for that aircraft and the new
time line and plan for bringing that aircraft to initial
operational capability, as called for in the joint
explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the
bill S. 1438 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress (at page 535
of House Report 107-333, submitted December 12, 2001).
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Engineering and
Manufacturing Development.--The total amount obligated or
expended for engineering and manufacturing development under
the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft program may not exceed
$6,000,000,000.
(c) Adjustment of Limitation Amounts.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Army shall adjust the
amount of the limitation set forth in subsection (b) by the
following amounts:
(A) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs
attributable to economic inflation after September 30, 2002.
(B) The amounts of increases or decreases in costs
attributable to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or
local laws enacted after September 30, 2002.
(2) Before making any adjustment under paragraph (1) in an
amount greater than $20,000,000, the Secretary of the Army
shall submit to the congressional defense committees notice
in writing of the proposed increase.
(d) Annual DOD Inspector General Review.--(1) Not later
than March 1 of each year, the Department of Defense
Inspector General shall review the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft
program and submit to Congress a report on the results of the
review.
(2) The report submitted on the program each year shall
include the following:
(A) The extent to which engineering and manufacturing
development under the program is meeting the goals
established for engineering and manufacturing development
under the program, including the performance, cost, and
schedule goals.
(B) The status of modifications expected to have a
significant effect on cost, schedule, or performance of RAH-
66 aircraft.
(C) The plan for engineering and manufacturing development
(leading to production) under the program for the fiscal year
that begins in the following year.
(D) A conclusion regarding whether the plan referred to in
subparagraph (C) is consistent with the limitation in
subsection (a).
(E) A conclusion regarding whether engineering and
manufacturing development (leading to production) under the
program is likely to be completed at a total cost not in
excess of the amount specified in subsection (a).
(3) No report is required under this subsection after the
RAH-66 aircraft has completed engineering and manufacturing
development.
(e) Limitation on Obligation of Funds.--Of the total amount
authorized to be appropriated for the RAH-66 Comanche
aircraft program for research, development, test, and
evaluation for a fiscal year, not more than 90 percent of
that amount may be obligated until the Department of Defense
Inspector General submits to Congress the report required to
be submitted in that fiscal year under subsection (d).
SEC. 212. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT RELATING TO MANAGEMENT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR NAVAL MINE COUNTERMEASURES
PROGRAMS.
Section 216(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat.
1317), as most recently amended by section 211 of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1946), is amended by
striking ``through 2003'' and inserting ``through 2008''.
SEC. 213. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT PILOT PROGRAM
FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES AND TEST AND
EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
Section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
112 Stat. 1955; 10 U.S.C. 2358 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, and to demonstrate improved
efficiency in the performance of the research, development,
test, and evaluation functions of the Department of
Defense'';
(2) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``for a period'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``until March 1, 2008.'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``Promptly after''
and all that follows through ``The report shall contain'' and
inserting ``Not later than December 31 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the activities of the pilot
program during the preceding fiscal year. Each such report
shall contain, for each laboratory or center in the pilot
program,''; and
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the committees referred to in
paragraph (2) the Secretary's recommendation as to whether,
and to what extent, the authority to carry out the pilot
program should be extended.''.
SEC. 214. REVISED REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN FOR MANUFACTURING
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) Streamlined Contents of Plan.--Subsection (e) of
section 2521 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``prepare a five-year plan'' in paragraph (1) and
all that follows through the end of subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (2) and inserting the following: ``prepare and
maintain a five-year plan for the program.
``(2) The plan shall establish the following:
``(A) The overall manufacturing technology objectives,
milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
program.
``(B) The specific objectives of, and funding for the
program by, each military department and each Defense Agency
participating in the program.''.
(b) Biennial Report.--Such subsection is further amended in
paragraph (3)--
(1) by striking ``annually'' and inserting ``biennially'';
and
(2) by striking ``for a fiscal year'' and inserting ``for
each even-numbered fiscal year''.
SEC. 215. TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION INITIATIVE.
(a) Establishment and Conduct.--Chapter 139 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2359 the following new section:
``Sec. 2359a. Technology Transition Initiative
``(a) Initiative Required.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall carry out an
initiative, to be known as the Technology Transition
Initiative (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`Initiative'), to facilitate the rapid transition of new
technologies from science and technology programs of the
Department of Defense into acquisition programs of the
Department for the production of such technologies.
``(b) Objectives.--The Initiative shall have the following
objectives:
``(1) To accelerate the introduction of new technologies
into appropriate acquisition programs.
``(2) To successfully demonstrate new technologies in
relevant environments.
``(3) To ensure that new technologies are sufficiently
mature for production.
``(c) Management of Initiative.--(1) The Initiative shall
be managed by a senior official in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense designated by the Secretary (hereinafter
in this section referred to as the `Manager'). In managing
the Initiative, the Manager shall report directly to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
``(2) The Secretary shall establish a board of directors
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Board'),
composed of the acquisition executive of each military
department, the members of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces Command. The
Board shall assist the Manager in managing the Initiative.
``(3) The Secretary shall establish, under the auspices of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, a panel of highly qualified scientists and
engineers. The panel shall advise the Under Secretary on
matters relating to the Initiative.
``(d) Duties of Manager.--The Manager shall have following
duties:
``(1) To identify, in consultation with the Board,
promising technologies that have been demonstrated in science
and technology programs of the Department.
``(2) To identify potential sponsors in the Department to
undertake the transition of such technologies into
production.
``(3) To work with the science and technology community and
the acquisition community to develop memoranda of agreement,
joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements
to provide for the transition of such technologies into
production.
[[Page H2288]]
``(4) Provide funding support for projects selected under
subsection (e).
``(e) Jointly Funded Projects.--(1) The acquisition
executive of each military department shall identify
technology projects of that military department to recommend
for funding support under the Initiative and shall submit to
the Manager a list of such recommended projects, ranked in
order of priority. Such executive shall identify such
projects, and establish priorities among such projects, using
a competitive process, on the basis of the greatest potential
benefits in areas of interest identified by the Secretary of
that military department.
``(2) The Manager, in consultation with the Board, shall
select projects for funding support from among the projects
on the lists submitted under paragraph (1). From the funds
made available to the Manager for the Initiative, the Manager
shall provide funds for each selected project in an amount
determined by mutual agreement between the Manager and the
acquisition executive of the military department concerned,
but not less than 50 percent of the total cost of the
project.
``(3) The acquisition executive of the military department
concerned shall manage each project selected under paragraph
(2) that is undertaken by the military department. Memoranda
of agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative
arrangements between the science and technology community and
the acquisition community shall be used in carrying out the
project if the acquisition executive determines that it is
appropriate to do so to achieve the objectives of the
project.
``(f) Requirement for Program Element.--In the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of
the Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as
submitted with the budget of the President under section
1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for activities of
the Initiative shall be set forth in a separate program
element within amounts requested for research, development,
test, and evaluation for Defense-wide activities.
``(g) Definition of Acquisition Executive.--In this
section, the term `acquisition executive', with respect to a
military department, means the official designated as the
senior procurement executive for that military department
under section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2359 the following new item:
``2359a. Technology Transition Initiative.''.
SEC. 216. DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHALLENGE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 139 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2359a (as added
by section 215) the following new section:
``Sec. 2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program
``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
carry out a program to provide opportunities for the
increased introduction of innovative and cost-saving
technology in acquisition programs of the Department of
Defense. The program, to be known as the Defense Acquisition
Challenge Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as
the `Challenge Program'), shall provide any person or
activity within or outside the Department of Defense with the
opportunity to propose alternatives, to be known as challenge
proposals, at the component, subsystem, or system level of an
existing Department of Defense acquisition program that would
result in improvements in performance, affordability,
manufacturability, or operational capability of that
acquisition program.
``(b) Panel.--(1) In carrying out the Challenge Program,
the Secretary shall establish a panel of highly qualified
scientists and engineers (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the `Panel') under the auspices of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. The duty of the Panel shall be to carry out
evaluations of challenge proposals under subsection (c).
``(2) A member of the Panel may not participate in any
evaluation of a challenge proposal under subsection (c) if at
any time within the previous five years that member has, in
any capacity, participated in or been affiliated with the
acquisition program for which the challenge proposal is
submitted.
``(c) Evaluation by Panel.--(1) Under procedures prescribed
by the Secretary, a person or activity within or outside the
Department of Defense may submit challenge proposals to the
Panel.
``(2) The Panel shall carry out an evaluation of each
challenge proposal submitted under paragraph (1) to determine
each of the following criteria:
``(A) Whether the challenge proposal has merit.
``(B) Whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in
improvements in performance, affordability,
manufacturability, or operational capability at the
component, subsystem, or system level of the applicable
acquisition program.
``(C) Whether the challenge proposal could be implemented
rapidly in the applicable acquisition program.
``(3) If the Panel determines that a challenge proposal
satisfies each of the criteria specified in paragraph (2),
the person or activity submitting that challenge proposal
shall be provided an opportunity to submit such challenge
proposal for a full review and evaluation under subsection
(d).
``(d) Full Review and Evaluation.--(1) Under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary, for each challenge proposal
submitted for a full review and evaluation as provided in
subsection (c)(3), the office carrying out the applicable
acquisition program, and the prime system contractor carrying
out such program, shall jointly conduct a full review and
evaluation of the challenge proposal.
``(2) The full review and evaluation shall, independent of
the determination of the Panel under subsection (c)(2),
determine each of the matters specified in subparagraphs (A),
(B), and (C) of such subsection.
``(e) Action Upon Favorable Full Review and Evaluation.--
(1) Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, each
challenge proposal determined under a full review and
evaluation to satisfy each of the criteria specified in
subsection (c)(2) shall be considered by the prime system
contractor for incorporation into the applicable acquisition
program as a new technology insertion at the component,
subsystem, or system level.
``(2) The Secretary shall encourage the adoption of each
challenge proposal referred to in paragraph (1) by providing
suitable incentives to the office carrying out the applicable
acquisition program and the prime system contractor carrying
out such program.
``(f) Access to Technical Resources.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the Panel (in carrying out evaluations of
challenge proposals under subsection (c)) and each office and
prime system contractor (in conducting a full review and
evaluation under subsection (d)) have the authority to call
upon the technical resources of the laboratories, research,
development, and engineering centers, test and evaluation
activities, and other elements of the Department.
``(g) Elimination of Conflicts of Interest.--In carrying
out each evaluation under subsection (c) and full review
under subsection (d), the Secretary shall ensure the
elimination of conflicts of interest.
``(h) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress, with
the submission of the budget request for the Department of
Defense for each fiscal year during which the Challenge
Program is carried out, a report on the Challenge Program for
that fiscal year. The report shall include the number and
scope of challenge proposals submitted, evaluated, subjected
to full review, and adopted.
``(i) Sunset.--The authority to carry out this section
shall terminate on September 30, 2007.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2359a (as added by section 215) the following new item:
``2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.''.
(b) Initial Funding.--(1) Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by section 201(4) for Defense-wide research,
development, test, and evaluation for fiscal year 2003,
$25,000,000 shall be available in program element 0603826D8Z
for the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program required by
section 2359b of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a).
(2) The funds provided under paragraph (1) may be used only
for review and evaluation of challenge proposals, and not for
implementation of challenge proposals.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
SEC. 231. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT
OF PATRIOT (PAC-3) MISSILES PENDING SUBMISSION
OF REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.
None of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for
procurement of missiles for the Army may be obligated for the
Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missile program until the
Secretary of Defense has submitted to the congressional
defense committees the following:
(1) The criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a
missile defense program from the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military department, as
required by section 224(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
(2) The notice and certification with respect to the
transfer of responsibility for the Patriot Advanced
Capability (PAC-3) missile program from the Director to the
Secretary of the Army required by section 224(c) of such
title.
SEC. 232. RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY FOR
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
RELATED TO SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS OF PROGRAMS
TRANSFERRED TO MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.
Section 224(e) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``before a'' and inserting ``for each'';
(2) by striking ``is''; and
(3) by striking ``roles and responsibilities'' and all that
follows through the period at the end and inserting
``responsibility for research, development, test, and
evaluation related to system improvements for that program
remains with the Director.''.
SEC. 233. AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGE IN NAME OF BALLISTIC
MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION TO MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY.
(a) Title 10, United States Code.--Title 10, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Sections 203, 223, and 224 are each amended by striking
``Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Missile Defense Agency''.
(2)(A) The heading of section 203 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 203. Director of Missile Defense Agency''.
(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of subchapter II of chapter 8 is
amended to read as follows:
``203. Director of Missile Defense Agency.''.
(b) Public Law 107-107.--(1) Section 232 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law
107-107; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note) is amended by striking
``Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Missile Defense Agency''.
(2) The heading for such section is amended to read as
follows:
[[Page H2289]]
``SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.''.
(c) Public Law 106-398.--(1) Section 3132 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 10 U.S.C.
2431 note) is amended by striking ``Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization'' each place it appears and inserting ``Missile
Defense Agency''.
(2) Such section is further amended in subsection (c) by
striking ``BMDO'' and inserting ``MDA''.
(3) The section heading for such section is amended to read
as follows:
``SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY.''.
(d) Other Laws.--The following provisions are each amended
by striking ``Ballistic Missile Defense Organization'' each
place it appears and inserting ``Missile Defense Agency'':
(1) Section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 223 note).
(2) Section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2431
note).
(3) Sections 235 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note) and 243 (10 U.S.C.
2431 note) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160).
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and
maintenance, in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $24,159,733,000.
(2) For the Navy, $29,428,876,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, $3,588,512,000.
(4) For the Air Force, $27,299,404,000.
(5) For Defense-wide activities, $14,370,037,000.
(6) For the Army Reserve, $1,918,110,000.
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $1,233,759,000.
(8) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $185,532,000.
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $2,194,719,000.
(10) For the Army National Guard, $4,300,767,000.
(11) For the Air National Guard, $4,077,845,000.
(12) For the Defense Inspector General, $155,165,000.
(13) For the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, $9,614,000.
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Army, $395,900,000.
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, $256,948,000.
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force,
$389,773,000.
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide,
$23,498,000.
(18) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense
Sites, $212,102,000.
(19) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
programs, $58,400,000.
(20) For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities,
Defense-wide, $848,907,000.
(21) For the Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, $25,000,000.
(22) For Defense Health Program, $14,242,541,000.
(23) For Cooperative Threat Reduction programs,
$416,700,000.
(24) For Support for International Sporting Competitions,
Defense, $19,000,000.
SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
providing capital for working capital and revolving funds in
amounts as follows:
(1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $1,504,956,000.
(2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, $934,129,000.
SEC. 303. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund
the sum of $69,921,000 for the operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home.
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
SEC. 311. INCIDENTAL TAKING OF MIGRATORY BIRDS DURING
MILITARY READINESS ACTIVITY.
Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) Section 2 shall not apply to the incidental taking
of a migratory bird by a member of the Armed Forces during a
military readiness activity authorized by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of the military department
concerned.
``(2)(A) In this subsection, the term `military readiness
activity' includes--
``(i) all training and operations of the Armed Forces that
relate to combat; and
``(ii) the adequate and realistic testing of military
equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper
operation and suitability for combat use.
``(B) The term does not include--
``(i) the routine operation of installation operating
support functions, such as administrative offices, military
exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage
facilities, schools, housing, motor pools, laundries, morale,
welfare, and recreation activities, shops, and mess halls;
``(ii) the operation of industrial activities; or
``(iii) the construction or demolition of facilities used
for a purpose described in clause (i) or (ii).''.
SEC. 312. MILITARY READINESS AND THE CONSERVATION OF
PROTECTED SPECIES.
(a) Limitation on Designation of Critical Habitat.--Section
4(a)(3) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) The Secretary may not designate as critical
habitat any lands or other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for
its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act
(16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines that such plan
addresses special management considerations or protection (as
those terms are used in section 3(5)(A)(i)).
``(ii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the requirement
to consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency
action (as that term is defined in that section).
``(iii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the obligation
of the Department of Defense to comply with section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, including the prohibition
preventing extinction and taking of endangered species and
threatened species.''.
(b) Consideration of Effects of Designation of Critical
Habitat.--Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``the
impact on national security,'' after ``the economic
impact,''.
SEC. 313. SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT FOR POLICY AND BUDGETING
ISSUES REGARDING UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE, DISCARDED
MILITARY MUNITIONS, AND MUNITIONS CONSTITUENTS.
Section 2701 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(k) UXO Program Manager.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a program manager who shall serve as the
single point of contact in the Department of Defense for
policy and budgeting issues involving the characterization,
remediation, and management of explosive and related risks
with respect to unexploded ordnance, discarded military
munitions, and munitions constituents at defense sites (as
such terms are defined in section 2710 of this title) that
pose a threat to human health or safety.
``(2) The Secretary of Defense may delegate this authority
to the Secretary of a military department, who may delegate
the authority to the Under Secretary of that military
department. The authority may not be further delegated.
``(3) The program manager may establish an independent
advisory and review panel that may include representatives of
the National Academy of Sciences, nongovernmental
organizations with expertise regarding unexploded ordnance,
discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents, the
Environmental Protection Agency, States (as defined in
section 2710 of this title), and tribal governments. If
established, the panel would report annually to Congress on
progress made by the Department of Defense to address
unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or
munitions constituents at defense sites and make such
recommendations as the panel considered appropriate.''.
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
SEC. 321. AUTHORITY FOR EACH MILITARY DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE
BASE OPERATING SUPPORT TO FISHER HOUSES.
Section 2493(f) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(f) Base Operating Support.--The Secretary of a military
department may provide base operating support for Fisher
Houses associated with health care facilities of that
military department.''.
SEC. 322. USE OF COMMISSARY STORES AND MWR RETAIL FACILITIES
BY MEMBERS OF NATIONAL GUARD SERVING IN
NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
(a) Additional Basis for Authorized Use.--Section 1063a of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or national
emergency'' after ``federally declared disaster''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) National emergency.--The term `national emergency'
means a national emergency declared by the President or
Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail
facilities: members of National Guard serving in federally
declared disaster or national emergency''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 54 of
such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1063a and inserting the following new item:
``1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of
National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or
national emergency.''.
SEC. 323. UNIFORM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT OF MORALE, WELFARE,
AND RECREATION PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 147 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
[[Page H2290]]
``Sec. 2494. Uniform funding and management of morale,
welfare, and recreation programs
``(a) Authority for Uniform Funding and Management.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds
appropriated to the Department of Defense and available for
morale, welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as
nonappropriated funds and expended in accordance with laws
applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When
made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs
under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be
considered to be nonappropriated funds for all purposes and
shall remain available until expended.
``(b) Conditions on Availability.--Funds appropriated to
the Department of Defense may be made available to support a
morale, welfare, or recreation program only if the program is
authorized to receive appropriated fund support and only in
the amounts the program is authorized to receive.
``(c) Conversion of Employment Positions.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may identify positions of employees in
morale, welfare, and recreation programs within the
Department of Defense who are paid with appropriated funds
whose status may be converted from the status of an employee
paid with appropriated funds to the status of an employee of
a nonappropriated fund instrumentality.
``(2) The status of an employee in a position identified by
the Secretary under paragraph (1) may, with the consent of
the employee, be converted to the status of an employee of a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality. An employee who does
not consent to the conversion may not be removed from the
position because of the failure to provide such consent.
``(3) The conversion of an employee from the status of an
employee paid by appropriated funds to the status of an
employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be
without a break in service for the concerned employee. The
conversion shall not entitle an employee to severance pay,
back pay or separation pay under subchapter IX of chapter 55
of title 5, or be considered an involuntary separation or
other adverse personnel action entitling an employee to any
right or benefit under such title or any other provision of
law or regulation.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `an employee of a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality' means an employee
described in section 2105(c) of title 5.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and
recreation programs.''.
Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues
SEC. 331. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH
REQUIRED STUDIES FOR CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL
OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS TO CONTRACTOR
PERFORMANCE.
Subsection (c) of section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Submission of Analysis Results.--(1) Upon the
completion of an analysis of a commercial or industrial type
function described in subsection (a) for possible change to
performance by the private sector, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of
the analysis, including the results of the examinations
required by subsection (b)(3).
``(2) The report shall also contain the following:
``(A) The date when the analysis of the function was
commenced.
``(B) The Secretary's certification that the Government
calculation of the cost of performance of the function by
Department of Defense civilian employees is based on an
estimate of the most cost effective manner for performance of
the function by Department of Defense civilian employees.
``(C) The number of Department of Defense civilian
employees who were performing the function when the analysis
was commenced and the number of such employees whose
employment was or will be terminated or otherwise affected by
changing to performance of the function by the private sector
or by implementation of the most efficient organization of
the function.
``(D) The Secretary's certification that the factors
considered in the examinations performed under subsection
(b)(3), and in the making of the decision regarding changing
to performance of the function by the private sector or
retaining performance in the most efficient organization of
the function, did not include any predetermined personnel
constraint or limitation in terms of man years, end strength,
full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of
employees.
``(E) A statement of the potential economic effect of
implementing the decision regarding changing to performance
of the function by the private sector or retaining
performance in the most efficient organization of the
function on each affected local community, as determined in
the examination under subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii).
``(F) A schedule for completing the change to performance
of the function by the private sector or implementing the
most efficient organization of the function
``(G) In the case of a commercial or industrial type
function performed at a Center of Industrial and Technical
Excellence designated under section 2474(a) of this title or
an Army ammunition plant, a description of the effect that
the manner of performance of the function, and administration
of the resulting contract if any, will have on the overhead
costs of the center or ammunition plant, as the case may be.
``(H) The Secretary's certification that the entire
analysis is available for examination.
``(3)(A) If a decision is made to change the commercial or
industrial type function that was the subject of the analysis
to performance by the private sector, the change of the
function to contractor performance may not begin until after
the submission of the report required by paragraph (1).
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a
commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center
of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under
section 2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant,
the change of the function to contractor performance may not
begin until at least 60 days after the submission of the
report.''.
SEC. 332. WAIVER AUTHORITY REGARDING PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS
FOR PERFORMANCE OF SECURITY-GUARD FUNCTIONS.
Section 2465 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department may waive the prohibition under
subsection (a) regarding contracting for the performance of
security-guard functions at a military installation or
facility under the jurisdiction of the Secretary if such
functions--
``(1) are or will be performed by members of the armed
forces in the absence of a waiver; or
``(2) were not performed at the installation or facility
before September 11, 2001.''.
SEC. 333. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PERCENTAGE
LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF
DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS.
Section 2474(f)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``for fiscal years 2002 through 2005''.
SEC. 334. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE PROVISION REGARDING DEPOT-LEVEL
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS THAT WERE
PERFORMED AT CLOSED OR REALIGNED MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS.
(a) Repeal.--Section 2469a of title 10, United States Code,
is repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 146 of such title is amended by striking
the item relating to section 2469a.
SEC. 335. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIRED CORE LOGISTICS
CAPABILITIES.
Section 2464(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``those capabilities that are necessary
to maintain and repair the weapon systems'' and inserting
``those logistics capabilities (including acquisition
logistics, supply management, system engineering,
maintenance, and modification management) that are necessary
to sustain the weapon systems''.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education
SEC. 341. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT
BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES.
(a) Continuation of Department of Defense Program for
Fiscal Year 2003.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5) for operation and
maintenance for Defense-wide activities, $30,000,000 shall be
available only for the purpose of providing educational
agencies assistance to local educational agencies.
(b) Notification.--Not later than June 30, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense shall notify each local educational
agency that is eligible for educational agencies assistance
for fiscal year 2003 of--
(1) that agency's eligibility for the assistance; and
(2) the amount of the assistance for which that agency is
eligible.
(c) Disbursement of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense shall
disburse funds made available under subsection (a) not later
than 30 days after the date on which notification to the
eligible local educational agencies is provided pursuant to
subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``educational agencies assistance'' means
assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(2) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)).
SEC. 342. AVAILABILITY OF QUARTERS ALLOWANCE FOR
UNACCOMPANIED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TEACHER
REQUIRED TO RESIDE ON OVERSEAS MILITARY
INSTALLATION.
(a) Authority to Provide Allowance.--Subsection (b) of
section 7 of the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and
Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 905) is amended by adding
at the end the following new sentence: ``If the teacher is
unaccompanied by dependents and is required to reside on a
United States military installation in an overseas area, the
teacher may receive a quarters allowance to reside in excess
family housing at the installation notwithstanding the
availability single room housing at the installation.''.
(b) Technical Correction to Reflect Codification.--Such
section is further amended by striking ``the Act of June 26,
1930 (5 U.S.C. 118a)'' both places it appears and inserting
``section 5912 of title 5, United States Code''.
SEC. 343. PROVISION OF SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS
WHO ATTEND DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION
SYSTEM.
Section 1402(d) of the Defense Dependents' Education Act of
1978 (20 U.S.C. 921(d)) is
[[Page H2291]]
amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
new paragraph (2):
``(2) Individuals eligible to receive a free public
education under subsection (a) may enroll without charge in a
summer school program offered under this subsection. Students
who are required under section 1404 to pay tuition to enroll
in a school of the defense dependents' education system shall
also be charged a fee, at a rate established by the
Secretary, to attend a course offered as part of the summer
school program.''.
Subtitle F--Information Technology
SEC. 351. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET CONTRACT.
(a) Authorized Duration of Contract.--Section 814 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001, as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398 (114
Stat. 1654A-215) and amended by section 362 of Public Law
107-107 (115 Stat. 1065), is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection (i):
``(i) Duration of Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract.--
Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States
Code, the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term
in excess of five years, but not more than seven years.''.
(b) Clarification of Phased Implementation Requirements.--
Subsection (b) of such section is amended in paragraphs (2)
and (3) by striking ``provided'' each place it appears and
inserting ``ordered''.
SEC. 352. ANNUAL SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION ON NATIONAL
SECURITY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL
ASSETS.
(a) Requirement To Submit Information.--Not later than the
date that the President submits the budget of the United
States Government to Congress each year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a description of, and
relevant budget information on, each information technology
and national security capital asset of the Department of
Defense that--
(1) has an estimated life cycle cost (as computed in fiscal
year 2003 constant dollars), in excess of $120,000,000; and
(2) has a cost for the fiscal year in which the description
is submitted (as computed in fiscal year 2003 constant
dollars) in excess of $30,000,000.
(b) Information To Be Included.--The description submitted
under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to each such
capital asset and national security system--
(1) the name and identifying acronym;
(2) the date of initiation;
(3) a summary of performance measurements and metrics;
(4) the total amount of funds, by appropriation account,
appropriated and obligated for prior fiscal years, with a
specific breakout of such information for the two preceding
fiscal years;
(5) the funds, by appropriation account, requested for that
fiscal year;
(6) each prime contractor and the work to be performed;
(7) a description of program management and management
oversight;
(8) the original baseline cost and most current baseline
information; and
(9) a description of compliance with the provisions enacted
in the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-62; 107 Stat. 285) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
(division D of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 642).
(c) Additional Information To Be Included For Certain
Systems.--(1) For each information technology and national
security system of the Department of Defense that has a cost
for the fiscal year in excess of $2,000,000, the Secretary
shall identify that system by name, function, and total funds
requested for the system.
(2) For each information technology and national security
system of the Department of Defense that has a cost for the
fiscal year in excess of $10,000,000, the Secretary shall
identify that system by name, function, and total funds
requested (by appropriation account) for that fiscal year,
the funds appropriated for the preceding fiscal year, and the
funds estimated to be requested for the next fiscal year.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``information technology'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5002 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401(3)).
(2) The term ``capital asset'' has the meaning given that
term in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11.
(3) The term ``national security system'' has the meaning
given that term in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).
SEC. 353. IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY REGARDING CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PRODUCTS.
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that--
(1) the Department of Defense implements the policy
established by the Committee on National Security Systems
(formerly the National Security Telecommunications and
Information Systems Security Committee) that limits the
acquisition by the Federal Government of all commercial off-
the-shelf information assurance and information assurance-
enabled information technology products to those products
that have been evaluated and validated in accordance with
appropriate criteria, schemes, or programs; and
(2) implementation of such policy includes uniform
enforcement procedures.
SEC. 354. INSTALLATION AND CONNECTION POLICY AND PROCEDURES
REGARDING DEFENSE SWITCH NETWORK.
(a) Establishment of Policy and Procedures.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Defense shall establish clear and uniform policy
and procedures, applicable to the military departments and
Defense Agencies, regarding the installation and connection
of telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network.
(b) Elements of Policy and Procedures.--The policy and
procedures shall address at a minimum the following:
(1) Clear interoperability and compatibility requirements
for certifying, installing, and connecting telecom switches
to the Defense Switch Network.
(2) Current, complete, and enforceable testing, validation,
and certification procedures needed to ensure the
interoperability and compatibility requirements are
satisfied.
(c) Exceptions.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may specify
certain circumstances in which--
(A) the requirements for testing, validation, and
certification of telecom switches may be waived; or
(B) interim authority for the installation and connection
of telecom switches to the Defense Switch Network may be
granted.
(2) Only the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence, after consultation
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may approve a
waiver or grant of interim authority under paragraph (1).
(d) Inventory of Defense Switch Network.--The Secretary of
Defense shall prepare and maintain an inventory of all
telecom switches that, as of the date on which the Secretary
issues the policy and procedures--
(1) are installed or connected to the Defense Switch
Network; but
(2) have not been tested, validated, and certified by the
Defense Information Systems Agency (Joint Interoperability
Test Center).
(e) Telecom Switch Defined.--In this section, the term
``telecom switch'' means hardware or software designed to
send and receive voice, data, and video signals across a
network.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
SEC. 361. DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY REPORTS ON ALLOCATION OF
FUNDS WITHIN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET
SUBACTIVITIES.
(a) Designation of Recipients.--Subsection (a) of section
228 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``to Congress'' and inserting ``to the congressional defense
committees''.
(b) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--Subsection
(e) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking ``(e) O&M Budget Activity Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the'' and inserting the following:
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The term `congressional defense committees' means the
Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.''.
SEC. 362. MINIMUM DEDUCTION FROM PAY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES TO SUPPORT ARMED FORCES
RETIREMENT HOME.
Section 1007(i) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``an amount (determined
under paragraph (3)) not to exceed $1.00.'' and inserting
``an amount equal to $1.00 and such additional amount as may
be determined under paragraph (3).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``the amount'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``the additional amount''; and
(B) by striking ``The amount'' in the second sentence and
inserting ``The additional amount''.
SEC. 363. CONDITION ON CONVERSION OF DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE
TO A WORKING CAPITAL FUNDED ENTITY.
The Secretary of Defense may not convert the Defense
Security Service to a working capital funded entity of the
Department of Defense unless the Secretary submits, in
advance, to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate a certification that the Defense Security Service has
the financial systems in place to fully support operation of
the Defense Security Service as a working capital funded
entity under section 2208 of title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 364. CONTINUATION OF ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE.
(a) Extension Through Fiscal Year 2004.--Subsection (a) of
section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-65) is amended by
striking ``and 2002'' and inserting ``through 2004''.
(b) Reporting Requirements.--Subsection (g) of such section
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2004''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following new sentence: ``Not later than July
1, 2003, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the results of
the demonstration program since its implementation, including
the Secretary's views regarding the benefits of the program
for Army manufacturing arsenals and the Department of the
Army and the success of the program in achieving the purposes
specified in subsection (b).''.
[[Page H2292]]
SEC. 365. TRAINING RANGE SUSTAINMENT PLAN, GLOBAL STATUS OF
RESOURCES AND TRAINING SYSTEM, AND TRAINING
RANGE INVENTORY.
(a) Plan Required.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
develop a comprehensive plan for using existing authorities
available to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
the military departments to address problems created by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and
airspace reserved, withdrawn, or designated for training and
testing activities by, for, or on behalf of the Armed Forces.
(2) The plan shall include the following:
(A) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and
measuring progress.
(B) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned
actions.
(C) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and each of the military departments that will
have lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the
plan.
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan to
Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget
for fiscal year 2004 and shall submit an annual report to
Congress describing the progress made in implementing the
plan and any additional encroachment problems.
(b) Readiness Reporting Improvement.--Not later than June
30, 2003, the Secretary of Defense, using existing measures
within the authority of the Secretary, shall submit to
Congress a report on the plans of the Department of Defense
to improve the Global Status of Resources and Training
System--
(1) to better reflect the increasing challenges units of
the Armed Forces must overcome to achieve training
requirements; and
(2) to quantify the extent to which encroachment and other
individual factors are making military lands, marine areas,
and airspace less available to support unit accomplishment of
training plans and readiness goals.
(c) Training Range Inventory.--The Secretary of Defense
shall develop and maintain a training range data bank for
each of the Armed Forces--
(1) to identify all available operational training ranges;
(2) to identify all training capacities and capabilities
available at each training range;
(3) to identify all current encroachment threats or other
potential limitations on training that are, or are likely to,
adversely affect training and readiness; and
(4) to provide a point of contact for each training range.
(d) GAO Evaluation.--(1) With respect to each report
submitted under this section, the Comptroller General shall
submit to Congress, within 60 days after receiving the
report, an evaluation of the report.
(e) Armed Forces Defined.--In this section, the term
``Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine
Corps.
SEC. 366. AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EDUCATION AND NUTRITION LAWS
RELATING TO ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING.
(a) Eligibility for Heavily Impacted Local Educational
Agencies Affected by Privatization of Military Housing.--
Section 8003(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(H) Eligibility for heavily impacted local educational
agencies affected by privatization of military housing.--
``(i) Eligibility.--For any fiscal year beginning with
fiscal year 2003, a heavily impacted local educational agency
that received a basic support payment under subparagraph (A)
for the prior fiscal year, but is ineligible for such payment
for the current fiscal year under subparagraph (B) or (C), as
the case may be, by reason of the conversion of military
housing units to private housing described in clause (iii),
shall be deemed to meet the eligibility requirements under
subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case may be, for the period
during which the housing units are undergoing such
conversion.
``(ii) Amount of payment.--The amount of a payment to a
heavily impacted local educational agency for a fiscal year
by reason of the application of clause (i), and calculated in
accordance with subparagraph (D) or (E) (as the case may be),
shall be based on the number of children in average daily
attendance in the schools of such agency for the fiscal year.
``(iii) Conversion of military housing units to private
housing described.--For purposes of clause (i), `conversion
of military housing units to private housing' means the
conversion of military housing units to private housing units
pursuant to subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United
States Code, or pursuant to any other related provision of
law.''.
(b) Exclusion of Certain Military Basic Allowances for
Housing for Determination of Eligibility for Free and Reduced
Price Meals.--Section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(3)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``For the one-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this sentence, the
amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of
title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an individual who
is a member of the uniformed services for housing that is
acquired or constructed under the authority of subchapter IV
of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, or any other
related provision of law, shall not be considered to be
income for purposes of determining the eligibility of a child
of the individual for free or reduced price lunches under
this Act.''.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.
The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty
personnel as of September 30, 2003, as follows:
(1) The Army, 484,800.
(2) The Navy, 379,457.
(3) The Marine Corps, 175,000.
(4) The Air Force, 360,795.
SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH MINIMUM LEVELS.
(a) Revised End Strength Floors.--Section 691(b) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``480,000'' and inserting
``484,800'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``376,000'' and inserting
``379,457';
(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``172,600'' and inserting
``175,000''; and
(4) in paragraph (4), by striking ``358,800'' and inserting
``360,795''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002, or the date of the
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
SEC. 403. AUTHORITY FOR MILITARY DEPARTMENT SECRETARIES TO
INCREASE ACTIVE-DUTY END STRENGTHS BY UP TO 1
PERCENT.
(a) Service Secretary Authority.--Section 115 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection
(e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Upon determination by the Secretary of a military
department that such action would enhance manning and
readiness in essential units or in critical specialties or
ratings, the Secretary may increase the end strength
authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year
for the armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary
or, in the case of the Secretary of the Navy, for any of the
armed forces under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any
such increase for a fiscal year--
``(1) shall be by a number equal to not more than 1 percent
of such authorized end strength; and
``(2) shall be counted as part of the increase for that
armed force for that fiscal year authorized under subsection
(c)(1).''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of section 115 of title
10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall
take effect on October 1, 2002, or the date of the enactment
of this Act, whichever is later.
SEC. 404. GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MANAGEMENT.
(a) Exclusion of Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary
of Defense from Limitation on Active Duty Officers in Grades
Above Major General and Rear Admiral.--Effective on the date
specified in subsection (e), section 525(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(8) An officer while serving in a position designated by
the Secretary of Defense as Senior Military Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense, if serving in the grade of lieutenant
general or vice admiral, is in addition to the number that
otherwise would be permitted for that officer's armed force
for that grade under paragraph (1) or (2). Only one officer
may be designated as Senior Military Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense for purposes of this paragraph.''.
(b) Increase in Number of Lieutenant Generals Authorized
for the Marine Corps.--Effective on the date specified in
subsection (e), paragraph (2)(B) of such section is amended
by striking ``16.2 percent'' and inserting ``17.5 percent''.
(c) Grade of Chief of Veterinary Corps of the Army.--(1)
Effective on the date specified in subsection (e), chapter
307 of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade
``The Chief of the Veterinary Corps of the Army serves in
the grade of brigadier general. An officer appointed to that
position who holds a lower grade shall be appointed in the
grade of brigadier general.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade.''.
(d) Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and Flag
Officer Authorizations.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing any recommendations of
the Secretary (together with the rationale of the Secretary
for the recommendations) concerning the following:
(A) Revision of the limitations on general and flag officer
grade authorizations and distribution in grade prescribed by
sections 525, 526, and 12004 of title 10, United States Code.
(B) Statutory designation of the positions and grades of
any additional general and flag officers in the commands
specified in chapter 1006 of title 10, United States Code,
and the reserve component offices specified in sections 3038,
5143, 5144, and 8038 of such title.
(2) The provisions of subsection (b) through (e) of section
1213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2694) shall apply to
the report under paragraph (1) in the same manner as they
applied to the report required by subsection (a) of that
section.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall take effect on the date of the
receipt by Congress of the report required by subsection (d).
SEC. 405. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES RELATING TO
MANAGEMENT OF NUMBERS OF GENERAL AND FLAG
OFFICERS IN CERTAIN GRADES.
(a) Senior Joint Officer Positions.--Section 604(c) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
(b) Distribution of Officers on Active Duty in General and
Flag Officer Grades.--
[[Page H2293]]
Section 525(b)(5)(C) of such title is amended by striking
``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
(c) Authorized Strength for General and Flag Officers on
Active Duty.--Section 526(b)(3) of such title is amended by
striking ``October 1, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31,
2004''.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.
(a) In General.--The Armed Forces are authorized strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as
of September 30, 2003, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 87,800.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,558.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,600.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 75,600.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 9,000.
(b) Adjustments.--The end strengths prescribed by
subsection (a) for the Selected Reserve of any reserve
component shall be proportionately reduced by--
(1) the total authorized strength of units organized to
serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component
which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end
of the fiscal year; and
(2) the total number of individual members not in units
organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such
component who are on active duty (other than for training or
for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their
consent at the end of the fiscal year.
Whenever such units or such individual members are released
from active duty during any fiscal year, the end strength
prescribed for such fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of
such reserve component shall be proportionately increased by
the total authorized strengths of such units and by the total
number of such individual members.
SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN
SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.
Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the
reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of
September 30, 2003, the following number of Reserves to be
serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the
case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the reserve components:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 24,562.
(2) The Army Reserve, 14,070.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 14,572.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 11,697.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 1,498.
SEC. 413. END STRENGTHS FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL
STATUS).
The minimum number of military technicians (dual status) as
of the last day of fiscal year 2003 for the reserve
components of the Army and the Air Force (notwithstanding
section 129 of title 10, United States Code) shall be the
following:
(1) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
24,102.
(2) For the Army Reserve, 6,599.
(3) For the Air National Guard of the United States,
22,495.
(4) For the Air Force Reserve, 9,911.
SEC. 414. FISCAL YEAR 2003 LIMITATION ON NON-DUAL STATUS
TECHNICIANS.
(a) Army.--The number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the reserve components of the Army as of
September 30, 2003, may not exceed the following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 995.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
1,600, to be counted within the limitation specified in
section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Air Force.--The number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the reserve components of the Army and the Air
Force as of September 30, 2003, may not exceed the following:
(1) For the Air Force Reserve, 90.
(2) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 350,
to be counted within the limitation specified in section
10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Non-Dual Status Technicians Defined.--In this section,
the term ``non-dual status technician'' has the meaning given
that term in section 10217(a) of title 10, United States
Code.
(d) Technical Amendments.--Effective October 1, 2002,
section 10217(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Effective October
1, 2002, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``after the
preceding sentence takes effect''.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
SEC. 421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY
PERSONNEL.
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year
2003 a total of $93,725,028,000. The authorization in the
preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of
appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for
fiscal year 2003.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
SEC. 501. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DEPUTY
COMMANDANTS OF THE MARINE CORPS.
Section 5045 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``five'' and inserting ``six''.
SEC. 502. EXTENSION OF GOOD-OF-THE-SERVICE WAIVER AUTHORITY
FOR OFFICERS APPOINTED TO A RESERVE CHIEF OR
GUARD DIRECTOR POSITION.
(a) Waiver of Requirement for Significant Joint Duty
Experience.--Sections 3038(b)(4), 5143(b)(4), 5144(b)(4),
8038(b)(4), and 10506(a)(3)(D) of title 10, United States
Code, are each amended by striking ``October 1, 2003'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2004''.
(b) Report on Future Implementation of Requirement.--Not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives a report setting
forth the steps being taken (and proposed to be taken) by the
Secretary, the Secretaries of the military departments, and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that no
further extension of the waiver authority under the sections
amended by subsection (a) is required and that after December
31, 2004, appointment of officers to serve in the positions
covered by those sections shall be made from officers with
the requisite joint duty experience.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
SEC. 511. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL GUARD STRENGTH ACCOUNTING AND
MANAGEMENT AND OTHER ISSUES.
(a) Comptroller General Assessments.--Not later than one
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on
management of the National Guard. The report shall include
the following:
(1) The Comptroller General's assessment of the
effectiveness of the implementation of Department of Defense
plans for improving management and accounting for personnel
strengths in the National Guard, including an assessment of
the process that the Department of Defense, the National
Guard Bureau, the Army National Guard and State-level
National Guard leadership, and leadership in the other
reserve components have for identifying and addressing in a
timely manner specific units in which nonparticipation rates
are significantly in excess of the established norms.
(2) The Comptroller General's assessment of the
effectiveness of the process for Federal recognition of
senior National Guard officers and recommendations for
improvement to that process.
(3) The Comptroller General's assessment of the process
for, and the nature and extent of, the administrative or
judicial corrective action taken by the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Air Force
as a result of Inspector General investigations or other
investigations in which allegations against senior National
Guard officers are substantiated in whole or in part.
(4) The Comptroller General's determination of the
effectiveness of the Federal protections provided for members
or employees of the National Guard who report allegations of
waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement and the nature and
extent to which corrective action is taken against those in
the National Guard who retaliate against such members or
employees.
(b) Secretary of Defense Report on Different Army and Air
Force Procedures.--Not later than six months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report on the differing Army and Air
Force policies for taking adverse administrative actions
against National Guard officers in a State status. The report
shall include the Secretary's determination as to whether
changes should be made in those policies, especially through
requiring the Air Force to adopt the same policy as the Army
for such administrative actions.
SEC. 512. COURTS-MARTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD WHEN NOT IN
FEDERAL SERVICE.
(a) Manner of Prescribing Punishments.--Section 326 of
title 32, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new sentence: ``Punishments shall be as
provided by the laws of the respective States and
Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.''.
(b) Convening Authority.--Section 327 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal
service: convening authority
``(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service,
general, special, and summary courts-martial may be convened
as provided by the laws of the States and Territories, Puerto
Rico, and the District of Columbia.
``(b) In addition to convening authorities as provided
under subsection (a), in the National Guard not in Federal
service--
``(1) general courts-martial may be convened by the
President;
``(2) special courts-martial may be convened--
``(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post,
camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where
troops are on duty; or
``(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade,
regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, separate squadron,
or other detached command; and
``(3) summary courts-martial may be convened--
``(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post,
camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place where
troops are on duty; or
``(B) by the commanding officer of a division, brigade,
regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, detached squadron,
detached company, or other detachment.''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service:
convening authority.''.
(c) Repeal of Superseded and Obsolete Provisions.--
[[Page H2294]]
(1) Sections 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, and 333 of title 32,
United States Code, are repealed.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of
such title is amended by striking the items relating to
sections 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, and 333.
(d) Preparation of Model State Code of Military Justice and
Model State Manual for Courts-Martial.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall prepare, for consideration for enactment by the
States, a model State code of military justice and a model
State manual of courts-martial for use with respect to the
National Guard not in Federal service. Both such models shall
be consistent with the recommendations contained in the
report, issued in 1998, by the panel known as the Department
of Defense Panel to Study Military Justice in the National
Guard not in Federal Service.
(2) The Secretary shall ensure that adequate support for
the preparation of such model State code and model State
manual (including the detailing of attorneys and other staff)
is provided by the General Counsel of the Department of
Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air
Force, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
(3) If the amounts available to the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau are not adequate for the costs required to
provide support under paragraph (2) (including costs for
increased pay when members of the National Guard are ordered
to active duty, cost of detailed attorneys and other staff,
allowances, and travel expenses), the Secretary shall, upon
request of the Chief of the Bureau, provide such additional
amounts as are necessary.
(4) Not later than one year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives a report on the
implementation of this subsection. The report shall include
proposals in final form of both the model State code and the
model State manual required by paragraph (1) and shall set
forth the efforts being made to present those proposals to
the States for their consideration for enactment.
(5) In this subsection, the term ``State'' includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, and Guam.
SEC. 513. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENTS UNDER NATIONAL GUARD
YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM.
Effective October 1, 2002, subsection (d) of section 509 of
title 32, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance
provided under this section to a State program of the
National Guard Challenge Program for a fiscal year may not
exceed 75 percent of the costs of operating the State program
during that fiscal year.''.
Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy
SEC. 521. EXEMPTION FROM ACTIVE STATUS STRENGTH LIMITATION
FOR RESERVE COMPONENT GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS
SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY IN CERTAIN JOINT DUTY
ASSIGNMENTS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.
Section 12004 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f)(1) A general or flag officer who is on active duty
but who is not counted under section 526(a) of this title by
reason of section 526(b)(2)(B) of this title shall also be
excluded from being counted under subsection (a).
``(2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the
date specified in section 526(b)(3) of this title.''.
SEC. 522. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION TO
GRADE OF MAJOR GENERAL FOR CERTAIN RESERVE
COMPONENT BRIGADIER GENERALS WHO DO NOT
OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR
PROMOTION UNDER THE ONE-YEAR RULE.
Section 14301(g) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(g) Brigadier Generals.--(1) An officer who is a reserve
component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who
is not eligible for consideration for promotion under
subsection (a) because the officer is not on the reserve
active status list (as required by paragraph (1) of that
subsection for such eligibility) is nevertheless eligible for
consideration for promotion to the grade of major general by
a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this
title if--
``(A) as of the date of the convening of the promotion
board, the officer has been in an inactive status for less
than one year; and
``(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had
continuously served on the reserve active status list or the
active-duty list (or a combination of the reserve active
status list and the active-duty list) for at least one year.
``(2) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier
general of the Army or the Air Force who is on the reserve
active status list but who is not eligible for consideration
for promotion under subsection (a) because the officer's
service does not meet the one-year-of-continuous-service
requirement under paragraph (2) of that subsection is
nevertheless eligible for consideration for promotion to the
grade of major general by a promotion board convened under
section 14101(a) of this title if--
``(A) the officer was transferred from an inactive status
to the reserve active status list during the one-year period
preceding the date of the convening of the promotion board;
``(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an active status, the officer had been in
an inactive status for less than one year; and
``(C) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had
continuously served for at least one year on the reserve
active status list or the active-duty list (or a combination
of the reserve active status list and the active-duty
list).''.
SEC. 523. RETENTION OF PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY FOR RESERVE
COMPONENT GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICERS TRANSFERRED
TO AN INACTIVE STATUS.
Section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Effect of Transfer of Officers in Pay Grade O-7 to
Inactive Status.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a
reserve officer on the active-status list in the grade of
brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) is transferred
to an inactive status after having been recommended for
promotion to the grade of major general or rear admiral under
this chapter, or after having been found qualified for
Federal recognition in the grade of major general under title
32, but before being promoted, the officer shall retain
promotion eligibility and, if otherwise qualified, may be
promoted to the higher grade after returning to an active
status.''.
SEC. 524. AUTHORITY FOR LIMITED EXTENSION OF MEDICAL
DEFERMENT OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION
FOR RESERVE OFFICERS.
(a) Deferment of Retirement or Separation for Medical
Reasons.--Chapter 1407 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for
medical reasons
``(a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned
determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of a
Reserve officer and determination of the officer's
entitlement to retirement or separation for physical
disability require hospitalization or medical observation and
that such hospitalization or medical observation cannot be
completed with confidence in a manner consistent with the
officer's well-being before the date on which the officer
would otherwise be required to be separated, retired, or
transferred to the Retired Reserve under this title, the
Secretary may defer the separation, retirement, or transfer
of the officer under this title.
``(b) A deferral under subsection (a) of separation,
retirement, or transfer to the Retired Reserve may not extend
for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation
requiring hospitalization or medical observation.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons.''.
Subtitle D--Education and Training
SEC. 531. AUTHORITY FOR PHASED INCREASE TO 4,400 IN
AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS FOR THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.
(a) Military Academy.--Section 4342 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at
the end of the first sentence the following: ``or such higher
number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army
under subsection (j)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Army may prescribe annual increases in the
cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any
academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 100
cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3)
for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until
the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may
be prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008
academic year.
``(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under
paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be
prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the
President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of
title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as
the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the
Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The
notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet
strength limit and the new cadet strength limit, as so
increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Army
Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under each of
sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
``(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the
total number of cadets enrolled in the Army Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this
title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104
or 2107 of this title.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `cadet strength limit'
means the authorized maximum strength of the Corps of Cadets
of the Academy.''.
(b) Naval Academy.--Section 6954 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at
the end of the first sentence the following: ``or such higher
number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy
under subsection (h)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Navy may prescribe
[[Page H2295]]
annual increases in the midshipmen strength limit in effect
under subsection (a). For any academic year, any such
increase shall be by no more than 100 midshipmen or such
lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for that year.
Such annual increases may be prescribed until the midshipmen
strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be
prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic
year.
``(2) Any increase in the midshipmen strength limit under
paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be
prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the
President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of
title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as
the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the
Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The
notice shall state the amount of the increase in the
midshipmen strength limit and the new midshipmen strength
limit, as so increased, and the amount of the increase in
Senior Navy Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under
each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
``(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
midshipmen strength limit for an academic year may not exceed
the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the
total number of midshipmen enrolled in the Navy Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of
this title who have entered into an agreement under section
2104 or 2107 of this title.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `midshipmen strength
limit' means the authorized maximum strength of the Brigade
of Midshipmen.''.
(c) Air Force Academy.--Section 9342 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting before the period at
the end of the first sentence the following: ``or such higher
number as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force
under subsection (j)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe annual increases in
the cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For
any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than
100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph
(3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed
until the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase
may be prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008
academic year.
``(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under
paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be
prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the
President is submitted to Congress under sections 1105 of
title 31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as
the year in which that academic year begins. Whenever the
Secretary prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The
notice shall state the amount of the increase in the cadet
strength limit and the new cadet strength limit, as so
increased, and the amount of the increase in Senior Air Force
Reserve Officers' Training Corps enrollment under each of
sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
``(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the
total number of cadets enrolled in the Air Force Senior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of
this title who have entered into an agreement under section
2104 or 2107 of this title.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `cadet strength limit'
means the authorized maximum strength of Air Force Cadets of
the Academy.''.
(d) Target for Increases in Number of ROTC Scholarship
Participants.--Section 2107 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) The Secretary of each military department shall seek
to achieve an increase in the number of agreements entered
into under this section so as to achieve an increase, by the
2006-2007 academic year, of not less than 400 in the number
of cadets or midshipmen, as the case may be, enrolled under
this section, compared to such number enrolled for the 2002-
2003 academic year. In the case of the Secretary of the Navy,
the Secretary shall seek to ensure that not less than one-
third of such increase in agreements under this section are
with students enrolled (or seeking to enroll) in programs of
study leading to a baccalaureate degree in nuclear
engineering or another appropriate technical, scientific, or
engineering field of study.''.
(e) Repeal of Limit on Number of ROTC Scholarships.--
Section 2107 of such title is further amended by striking the
first sentence of subsection (h)(1).
(f) Repeal of Obsolete Language.--Section 4342(i) of such
title is amended by striking ``(beginning with the 2001-2002
academic year)''.
SEC. 532. ENHANCEMENT OF RESERVE COMPONENT DELAYED TRAINING
PROGRAM.
(a) Increase in Time Following Enlistment for Commencement
of Initial Period of Active Duty for Training.--Section
12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``270 days'' in the last sentence and inserting
``one year''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to enlistments under section
12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, after the end of
the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Transition.--In the case of a person who enlisted under
section 12103(d) of title 10, United States Code, before the
date of the enactment of this Act and who as of such date has
not commenced the required initial period of active duty for
training under that section, the amendment made by subsection
(a) may be applied to that person, but only with the
agreement of that person and the Secretary concerned.
Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards
SEC. 541. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN
DECORATIONS TO CERTAIN PERSONS.
(a) Waiver.--Any limitation established by law or policy
for the time within which a recommendation for the award of a
military decoration or award must be submitted shall not
apply to awards of decorations described in this section, the
award of each such decoration having been determined by the
Secretary concerned to be warranted in accordance with
section 1130 of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Distinguished Flying Cross.--Subsection (a) applies to
the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (including
multiple awards to the same individual) in the case of each
individual concerning whom the Secretary of the military
department concerned (or a designated official acting on
behalf of the Secretary of the military department concerned)
submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate, during the period beginning on December 28, 2001, and
ending on the day before the date of the enactment of this
Act, a notice as provided in section 1130(b) of title 10,
United States Code, that the award of the Distinguished
Flying Cross to that individual is warranted and that a
waiver of time restrictions prescribed by law for
recommendation for such award is recommended.
SEC. 542. OPTION TO CONVERT AWARD OF ARMED FORCES
EXPEDITIONARY MEDAL AWARDED FOR OPERATION
FREQUENT WIND TO VIETNAM SERVICE MEDAL.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the military department
concerned shall, upon the application of an individual who is
an eligible Vietnam evacuation veteran, award that individual
the Vietnam Service Medal, notwithstanding any otherwise
applicable requirements for the award of that medal. Any such
award shall be made in lieu of the Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal awarded the individual for participation in Operation
Frequent Wind.
(b) Eligible Vietnam Evacuation Veteran.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``eligible Vietnam evacuation
veteran'' means a member or former member of the Armed Forces
who was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for
participation in military operations designated as Operation
Frequent Wind arising from the evacuation of Vietnam on April
29 and 30, 1975.
Subtitle F--Administrative Matters
SEC. 551. STAFFING AND FUNDING FOR DEFENSE PRISONER OF WAR/
MISSING PERSONNEL OFFICE.
(a) Requirement for Staffing and Funding At Levels Required
for Performance of Full Range of Missions.--Subsection (a) of
section 1501 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the
office is provided sufficient military and civilian personnel
levels, and sufficient funding, to enable the office to fully
perform its complete range of missions. The Secretary shall
ensure that Department of Defense programming, planning, and
budgeting procedures are structured so as to ensure
compliance with the preceding sentence for each fiscal year.
``(B) For any fiscal year, the number of military and
civilian personnel assigned or detailed to the office may not
be less than the number requested in the President's budget
for fiscal year 2003, unless a level below such number is
expressly required by law.
``(C) For any fiscal year, the level of funding allocated
to the office within the Department of Defense may not be
below the level requested for such purposes in the
President's budget for fiscal year 2003, unless such a level
of funding is expressly required by law.''.
(b) Name of Office.--Such subsection is further amended by
inserting after the first sentence of paragraph (1) the
following new sentence: ``Such office shall be known as the
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office.''.
SEC. 552. THREE-YEAR FREEZE ON REDUCTIONS OF PERSONNEL OF
AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEW AND CORRECTION
OF MILITARY RECORDS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 79 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1559. Personnel limitation
``(a) Limitation.--During fiscal years 2003, 2004, and
2005, the Secretary of a military department may not carry
out any reduction in the number of military and civilian
personnel assigned to duty with the service review agency for
that military department below the baseline number for that
agency until--
``(1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that--
``(A) describes the reduction proposed to be made;
``(B) provides the Secretary's rationale for that
reduction; and
``(C) specifies the number of such personnel that would be
assigned to duty with that agency after the reduction; and
``(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on
which the report is submitted.
``(b) Baseline Number.--The baseline number for a service
review agency under this section is--
``(1) for purposes of the first report with respect to a
service review agency under this section, the number of
military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with that
agency as of January 1, 2002; and
``(2) for purposes of any subsequent report with respect to
a service review agency under
[[Page H2296]]
this section, the number of such personnel specified in the
most recent report with respect to that agency under this
section.
``(c) Service Review Agency Defined.--In this section, the
term `service review agency' means--
``(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the Army
Review Boards Agency;
``(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the Board
for Correction of Naval Records; and
``(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force, the
Air Force Review Boards Agency.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``1559. Personnel limitation.''.
SEC. 553. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR PERSONS
PARTICIPATING IN MILITARY FUNERAL HONORS
DETAILS.
Section 1491(d) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``To provide a'' after ``Support.--'' and
inserting ``(1) To support a'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (1) as subparagraph (A) and
amending such subparagraph, as so redesignated, to read as
follows:
``(A) For a person who participates in a funeral honors
detail (other than a person who is a member of the armed
forces not in a retired status or an employee of the United
States), either transportation (or reimbursement for
transportation) and expenses or the daily stipend prescribed
under paragraph (2).'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (2) as subparagraph (B) and
in that subparagraph--
(A) by striking ``Materiel, equipment, and training for''
and inserting ``For''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end ``and for
members of the armed forces in a retired status, materiel,
equipment, and training'';
(4) by redesignating paragraph (3) as subparagraph (C) and
in that subparagraph--
(A) by striking ``Articles of clothing for'' and inserting
``For''; and
(B) by inserting ``, articles of clothing'' after
``subsection (b)(2)''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe annually a
flat rate daily stipend for purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
Such stipend shall be set at a rate so as to encompass
typical costs for transportation and other miscellaneous
expenses for persons participating in funeral honors details
who are members of the armed forces in a retired status and
other persons are not members of the armed forces or
employees of the United States.
``(3) A stipend paid under this subsection to a member of
the armed forces in a retired status is in addition to any
compensation to which the member is entitled under section
435(a)(2) of title 37 and any other compensation to which the
member may be entitled.''.
SEC. 554. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF VOLUNTEERS AS PROCTORS FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF ARMED SERVICES VOCATIONAL
APTITUDE BATTERY TEST.
Section 1588(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Voluntary services as a proctor for administration to
secondary school students of the test known as the `Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery'.''.
SEC. 555. ANNUAL REPORT ON STATUS OF FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 23 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 488. Status of female members of the armed forces:
annual report
``(a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress an annual report on the status of female members
of the armed forces. Information in the report shall be shown
for the Department of Defense as a whole and separately for
each of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
``(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report under subsection
(a) shall include, at a minimum, the following information
with respect to female members:
``(1) Access to health care.
``(2) Positions open.
``(3) Assignment policies.
``(4) Joint spouse assignments.
``(5) Deployment availability rates.
``(6) Promotion and retention rates.
``(7) Assignments in nontraditional fields.
``(8) Assignments to command positions.
``(9) Selection for service schools.
``(10) Sexual harassment.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report.''.
Subtitle G--Benefits
SEC. 561. VOLUNTARY LEAVE SHARING PROGRAM FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 40 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 709. Voluntary transfers of leave
``(a) Program.--The Secretary concerned shall, by
regulation, establish a program under which leave accrued by
a member of an armed force may be transferred to another
member of the same armed force who requires additional leave
because of a qualifying emergency. Any such transfer of leave
may be made only upon the voluntary written application of
the member whose leave is to be transferred.
``(b) Approval of Commanding Officer Required.--Any
transfer of leave under a program under this section may only
be made with the approval of the commanding officer of the
leave donor and the leave recipient.
``(c) Qualifying Emergency.--In this section, the term
`qualifying emergency', with respect to a member of the armed
forces, means a circumstance that--
``(1) is likely to require the prolonged absence of the
member from duty; and
``(2) is due to--
``(A) a medical condition of a member of the immediate
family of the member; or
``(B) any other hardship that the Secretary concerned
determines appropriate for purposes of this section.
``(d) Military Department Regulations.--Regulations
prescribed under this section by the Secretaries of the
military department shall be as uniform as practicable and
shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``709. Voluntary transfers of leave.''.
(b) Deadline for Implementing Regulations.--Regulations to
implement section 709 of title 10, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), shall be prescribed not later than
six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 562. ENHANCED FLEXIBILITY IN MEDICAL LOAN REPAYMENT
PROGRAM.
(a) Eligible Persons.--Subsection (d) of section 2173 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Participants'' and all that follows through ``and
students'' and inserting ``Students''.
(b) Loan Repayment Amounts.--Subsection (e)(2) of such
section is amended by striking the last sentence.
SEC. 563. EXPANSION OF OVERSEAS TOUR EXTENSION BENEFITS.
Section 705(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``recuperative'' and inserting
``recuperation''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, or to an alternate location at a cost not to
exceed the cost of transportation to the nearest port in the
48 contiguous States, and return''.
SEC. 564. VEHICLE STORAGE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION WHEN
MEMBER IS ORDERED TO A NONFOREIGN DUTY STATION
OUTSIDE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.
(a) Storage Costs Authorized.--Subsection (b) of section
2634 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the following:
``(b)(1) When a member receives a vehicle storage
qualifying order, the member may elect to have a motor
vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at the expense of
the United States at a location approved by the Secretary
concerned. In the case of a vehicle storage qualifying order
that is to make a change of permanent station, such storage
is in lieu of transportation authorized by subsection (a).
``(2) In this subsection, the term `vehicle storage
qualifying order' means any of the following:
``(A) An order to make a change of permanent station to a
foreign country in a case in which the laws, regulations, or
other restrictions imposed by the foreign country or by the
United States either--
``(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in
subsection (a) into that country; or
``(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle
as a condition to entry.
``(B) An order to make a change of permanent station to a
nonforeign area outside the continental United States in a
case in which the laws, regulations, or other restrictions
imposed by that area or by the United States either--
``(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in
subsection (a) into that area; or
``(ii) would require extensive modification of the vehicle
as a condition to entry.
``(C) An order under which a member is transferred or
assigned in connection with a contingency operation to duty
at a location other than the permanent station of the member
for a period of more than 30 consecutive days but which is
not considered a change of permanent station.''.
(b) Nonforeign Area Outside the Continental United States
Defined.--Subsection (h) of such section is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The term `nonforeign area outside the continental
United States' means any of the following: the States of
Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United
States.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to orders to make a change of permanent station to a
nonforeign area outside the continental United States (as
such term is defined in subsection (h)(3) of section 2634 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (b))
that are issued on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters
SEC. 571. RIGHT OF CONVICTED ACCUSED TO REQUEST SENTENCING BY
MILITARY JUDGE.
(a) Sentencing by Judge.--(1) Chapter 47 of title 10,
United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is
amended by inserting after section 852 (article 52) the
following new section:
``Sec. 852a. Art. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing
by military judge rather than by members
``(a) In the case of an accused convicted of an offense by
a court-martial composed of a military judge and members, the
sentence shall be tried before and adjudged by the military
judge
[[Page H2297]]
rather than the members if, after the findings are announced
and before evidence in the sentencing proceeding is
introduced, the accused, knowing the identity of the military
judge and after consultation with defense counsel, requests
orally on the record or in writing that the sentence be tried
before and adjudged by the military judge rather than the
members.
``(b) This section shall not apply with respect to an
offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless
the case has been previously referred to trial as a
noncapital case.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter
VII of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 852 (article 52) the following new item:
``852a. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge
rather than by members.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 852a of title 10, United
States Code (article 52a of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2003.
SEC. 572. REPORT ON DESIRABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF
CONSOLIDATING SEPARATE COURSES OF BASIC
INSTRUCTION FOR JUDGE ADVOCATES.
Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the desirability and feasibility
of consolidating the separate Army, Navy, and Air Force
courses of basic instruction for judge advocates into a
single course to be conducted at a single location. The
report shall include--
(1) an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of
such a consolidation;
(2) a recommendation as to whether such a consolidation is
desirable and feasible; and
(3) any proposal for legislative action that the Secretary
considers appropriate for carrying out such a consolidation.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
SEC. 601. INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003.
(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--The adjustment to
become effective during fiscal year 2003 required by section
1009 of title 37, United States Code, in the rates of monthly
basic pay authorized members of the uniformed services shall
not be made.
(b) Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on January 1, 2003,
the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed
services within each pay grade are as follows:
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\....................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............................................ 7,474.50 7,719.30 7,881.60 7,927.20 8,129.40
O-7............................................ 6,210.90 6,499.20 6,633.00 6,739.20 6,930.90
O-6............................................ 4,603.20 5,057.10 5,388.90 5,388.90 5,409.60
O-5............................................ 3,837.60 4,323.00 4,622.40 4,678.50 4,864.80
O-4............................................ 3,311.10 3,832.80 4,088.70 4,145.70 4,383.00
O-3 \3\........................................ 2,911.20 3,300.30 3,562.20 3,883.50 4,069.50
O-2 \3\........................................ 2,515.20 2,864.70 3,299.40 3,410.70 3,481.20
O-1 \3\........................................ 2,183.70 2,272.50 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\....................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............................................ 8,468.70 8,547.30 8,868.90 8,961.30 9,238.20
O-7............................................ 7,120.80 7,340.40 7,559.40 7,779.00 8,468.70
O-6............................................ 5,641.20 5,672.10 5,672.10 5,994.60 6,564.30
O-5............................................ 4,977.00 5,222.70 5,403.00 5,635.50 5,991.90
O-4............................................ 4,637.70 4,954.50 5,201.40 5,372.70 5,471.10
O-3 \3\........................................ 4,273.50 4,405.80 4,623.30 4,736.10 4,736.10
O-2 \3\........................................ 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20
O-1 \3\........................................ 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\....................................... $0.00 $12,077.70 $12,137.10 $12,389.40 $12,829.20
O-9............................................ 0.00 10,563.60 10,715.70 10,935.60 11,319.60
O-8............................................ 9,639.00 10,008.90 10,255.80 10,255.80 10,255.80
O-7............................................ 9,051.30 9,051.30 9,051.30 9,051.30 9,096.90
O-6............................................ 6,898.80 7,233.30 7,423.50 7,616.10 7,989.90
O-5............................................ 6,161.70 6,329.10 6,519.60 6,519.60 6,519.60
O-4............................................ 5,528.40 5,528.40 5,528.40 5,528.40 5,528.40
O-3 \3\........................................ 4,736.10 4,736.10 4,736.10 4,736.10 4,736.10
O-2 \3\........................................ 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20 3,481.20
O-1 \3\........................................ 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80 2,746.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the basic pay rates specified in this table, the actual rate of basic pay for commissioned
officers in pay grades 0-7 through O-10 may not exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule
and the actual rate of basic pay for all other officers may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the
Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the
Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, the rate of basic pay for this grade is $14,155.50, regardless
of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\ This table does not apply to commissioned officers in pay grade O-1, O-2, or O-3 who have been credited with
over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E........................................... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,883.50 $4,069.50
O-2E........................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,410.70 3,481.20
O-1E........................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,746.80 2,933.70
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E........................................... $4,273.50 $4,405.80 $4,623.30 $4,806.30 $4,911.00
O-2E........................................... 3,591.90 3,778.80 3,923.40 4,031.10 4,031.10
O-1E........................................... 3,042.00 3,152.70 3,261.60 3,410.70 3,410.70
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2298]]
O-3E........................................... $5,054.40 $5,054.40 $5,054.40 $5,054.40 $5,054.40
O-2E........................................... 4,031.10 4,031.10 4,031.10 4,031.10 4,031.10
O-1E........................................... 3,410.70 3,410.70 3,410.70 3,410.70 3,410.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARRANT OFFICERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............................................ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4............................................ 3,008.10 3,236.10 3,329.10 3,420.60 3,578.10
W-3............................................ 2,747.10 2,862.00 2,979.30 3,017.70 3,141.00
W-2............................................ 2,416.50 2,554.50 2,675.10 2,763.00 2,838.30
W-1............................................ 2,133.90 2,308.50 2,425.50 2,501.10 2,662.50
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............................................ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4............................................ 3,733.50 3,891.00 4,044.60 4,203.60 4,356.00
W-3............................................ 3,281.70 3,467.40 3,580.50 3,771.90 3,915.60
W-2............................................ 2,993.10 3,148.50 3,264.00 3,376.50 3,453.90
W-1............................................ 2,782.20 2,888.40 3,006.90 3,085.20 3,203.40
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............................................ $0.00 $5,169.30 $5,346.60 $5,524.50 $5,703.30
W-4............................................ 4,512.00 4,664.40 4,822.50 4,978.20 5,137.50
W-3............................................ 4,058.40 4,201.50 4,266.30 4,407.00 4,548.00
W-2............................................ 3,579.90 3,705.90 3,831.00 3,957.30 3,957.30
W-1............................................ 3,320.70 3,409.50 3,409.50 3,409.50 3,409.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the basic pay rates specified in this table, the actual rate of basic pay for warrant
officers may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
ENLISTED MEMBERS \1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\........................................ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E-8............................................ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-7............................................ 2,068.50 2,257.80 2,343.90 2,428.20 2,516.40
E-6............................................ 1,770.60 1,947.60 2,033.70 2,117.10 2,204.10
E-5............................................ 1,625.40 1,733.70 1,817.40 1,903.50 2,037.00
E-4............................................ 1,502.70 1,579.80 1,665.30 1,749.30 1,824.00
E-3............................................ 1,356.90 1,442.10 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80
E-2............................................ 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00
E-1............................................ \3\ 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80
1,150.80
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\........................................ $0.00 $3,564.30 $3,645.00 $3,747.00 $3,867.00
E-8............................................ 2,975.40 3,061.20 3,141.30 3,237.60 3,342.00
E-7............................................ 2,667.90 2,753.40 2,838.30 2,990.40 3,066.30
E-6............................................ 2,400.90 2,477.40 2,562.30 2,636.70 2,663.10
E-5............................................ 2,151.90 2,236.80 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,283.30
E-4............................................ 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00
E-3............................................ 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80
E-2............................................ 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00
E-1............................................ 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\........................................ $3,987.30 $4,180.80 $4,344.30 $4,506.30 $4,757.40
E-8............................................ 3,530.10 3,625.50 3,787.50 3,877.50 4,099.20
E-7............................................ 3,138.60 3,182.70 3,331.50 3,427.80 3,671.40
E-6............................................ 2,709.60 2,709.60 2,709.60 2,709.60 2,709.60
E-5............................................ 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,283.30
E-4............................................ 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00 1,824.00
E-3............................................ 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80 1,528.80
E-2............................................ 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00 1,290.00
E-1............................................ 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80 1,150.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the basic pay rates specified in this table, the actual rate of basic pay for enlisted
members may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer
of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty
Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is $5,732.70, regardless of cumulative years of service
computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\ In the case of members in pay grade E-1 who have served less than 4 months on active duty, the rate of basic
pay is $1,064.70.
[[Page H2299]]
SEC. 602. EXPANSION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING LOW-COST
OR NO-COST MOVES AUTHORITY TO MEMBERS ASSIGNED
TO DUTY OUTSIDE UNITED STATES.
Section 403(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) In the case of a member who is assigned to duty
outside of the United States, the location or the
circumstances of which make it necessary that the member be
reassigned under the conditions of low-cost or no-cost
permanent change of station or permanent change of
assignment, the member may be treated as if the member were
not reassigned if the Secretary concerned determines that it
would be inequitable to base the member's entitlement to, and
amount of, a basic allowance for housing on the cost of
housing in the area to which the member is reassigned.''.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
SEC. 611. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY
AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.
(a) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f )
of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(b) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(c) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain
High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of such title is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting
``December 31, 2003''.
(d) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(e) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
Section 308h(g) of such title is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(f) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f ) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
SEC. 612. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY
AUTHORITIES FOR CERTAIN HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONALS.
(a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31,
2003''.
(b) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section
16302(d) of such title is amended by striking ``January 1,
2003'' and inserting ``January 1, 2004''.
(c) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section
302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31,
2003''.
(d) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section
302e(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(e) Special Pay for Selected Reserve Health Professionals
in Critically Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f ) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(f) Accession Bonus for Dental Officers.--Section
302h(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking ``December
31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
SEC. 613. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY AND BONUS
AUTHORITIES FOR NUCLEAR OFFICERS.
(a) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(b) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(c) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d)
of such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002''
and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
SEC. 614. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF OTHER BONUS AND SPECIAL PAY
AUTHORITIES.
(a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g)
of such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002''
and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(c) Enlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 309(e) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 2002'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(d) Retention Bonus for Members With Critical Military
Skills.--Section 323(i) of such title is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
(e) Accession Bonus for New Officers in Critical Skills.--
Section 324(g) of such title is amended by striking
``December 31, 2002'' and inserting ``December 31, 2003''.
SEC. 615. MINIMUM LEVELS OF HARDSHIP DUTY PAY FOR DUTY ON THE
GROUND IN ANTARCTICA OR ON ARCTIC ICEPACK.
Section 305 of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a), the following new
subsection:
``(b) Duty in Certain Locations.--(1) In the case of duty
at a location described in paragraph (2) at any time during a
month, the member of a uniformed service performing that duty
is entitled to special pay under this section at a monthly
rate of not less than $240, but not to exceed the monthly
rate specified in subsection (a). For each day of that duty
during the month, the member shall receive an amount equal to
\1/30\ of the monthly rate prescribed under this subsection.
``(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to duty performed
on the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack.''.
SEC. 616. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM RATES FOR PRIOR SERVICE
ENLISTMENT BONUS.
Section 308i(b)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$8,000'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$2,500'' and
inserting ``$4,000''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$2,000'' and
inserting ``$3,500''.
SEC. 617. RETENTION INCENTIVES FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
QUALIFIED IN A CRITICAL MILITARY SKILL.
(a) Exception to Limitation on Maximum Bonus Amount.--
Subsection (d) of section 323 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A member''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) on the total bonus
payments that a member may receive under this section does
not apply with respect to an officer who is assigned duties
as a health care provider.''.
(b) Exception to Years of Service Limitation.--Subsection
(e) of such section is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A retention''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The limitations in paragraph (1) do not apply with
respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care
provider during the period of active duty for which the bonus
is being offered.''.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
SEC. 631. EXTENSION OF LEAVE TRAVEL DEFERRAL PERIOD FOR
MEMBERS PERFORMING CONSECUTIVE OVERSEAS TOURS
OF DUTY.
(a) Authorized Deferral Period.--Section 411b of title 37,
United States Code is amended by inserting after subsection
(a) the following new subsection:
``(b) Authority to Defer Travel; Limitations.--(1) Under
the regulations referred to subsection (a), a member may
defer the travel for which the member is paid travel and
transportation allowances under this section until anytime
before the completion of the consecutive tour at the same
duty station or the completion of the tour of duty at the new
duty station under the order involved, as the case may be.
``(2) If a member is unable to undertake the travel before
expiration of the deferral period under paragraph (1) because
of duty in connection with a contingency operation, the
member may defer the travel until not more than one year
after the date on which the member's duty in connection with
the contingency operation ends.''.
(b) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a) Allowances
Authorized.--''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(2) by striking ``(b) The allowances'' and inserting ``(c)
Limitation on Allowance Rate.--''.
(c) Application of Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section
411b of title 37, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a), shall apply with respect to members of the uniformed
services in a deferred leave travel status under such section
as of the date of the enactment of this Act or after that
date.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits
SEC. 641. PHASE-IN OF FULL CONCURRENT RECEIPT OF MILITARY
RETIRED PAY AND VETERANS DISABILITY
COMPENSATION FOR MILITARY RETIREES WITH
DISABILITIES RATED AT 60 PERCENT OR HIGHER.
(a) Concurrent Receipt.--Section 1414 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have
service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or
higher: concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation
``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--
Subject to subsection (b), a member or former member of the
uniformed services who is entitled for any month to retired
pay and who is also entitled for that month to veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability (hereinafter in this section referred to as a
`qualified retiree') is entitled to be paid both for that
month without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
For fiscal years 2003 through 2006, payment of retired pay to
such a member or former member is subject to subsection (c).
``(b) Special Rules for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees.--
``(1) Career retirees.--The retired pay of a member retired
under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or more of
service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title
at the time of the member's retirement is subject to
reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, but
[[Page H2300]]
only to the extent that the amount of the member's retired
pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the amount of
retired pay to which the member would have been entitled
under any other provision of law based upon the member's
service in the uniformed services if the member had not been
retired under chapter 61 of this title.
``(2) Disability retirees with less than 20 years of
service.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member retired
under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years of
service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this title
at the time of the member's retirement.
``(c) Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt.--For fiscal
years 2003 through 2006, retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree shall be determined as follows:
``(1) Fiscal year 2003.--For a month during fiscal year
2003, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the amount (if any) of retired pay in excess of
the current baseline offset plus the following:
``(A) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability rated as total, $750.
``(B) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability rated as 90 percent, $500.
``(C) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability rated as 80 percent, $250.
``(D) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability rated as 70 percent, $250.
``(E) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans'
disability compensation for a qualifying service-connected
disability rated as 60 percent, $125.
``(2) Fiscal year 2004.--For a month during fiscal year
2004, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
``(A) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for that
qualified retiree; and
``(B) 23 percent of the difference between (i) the current
baseline offset, and (ii) the amount specified in paragraph
(1) for that member's disability.
``(3) Fiscal year 2005.--For a month during fiscal year
2005, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
``(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for that
qualified retiree; and
``(B) 30 percent of the difference between (i) the current
baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under
paragraph (2) for that qualified retiree.
``(4) Fiscal year 2006.--For a month during fiscal year
2006, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
``(A) the amount determined under paragraph (3) for that
qualified retiree; and
``(B) 64 percent of the difference between (i) the current
baseline offset, and (ii) the amount determined under
paragraph (3) for that qualified retiree.
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Retired pay.--The term `retired pay' includes
retainer pay, emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval
pension.
``(2) Veterans' disability compensation.--The term
`veterans' disability compensation' has the meaning given the
term `compensation' in section 101(13) of title 38.
``(3) Service-connected.--The term `service-connected' has
the meaning given that term in section 101(16) of title 38.
``(4) Qualifying service-connected disability.--The term
`qualifying service-connected disability' means a service-
connected disability or combination of service-connected
disabilities that is rated as not less than 60 percent
disabling by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
``(5) Disability rated as total.--The term `disability
rated as total' means--
``(A) a disability, or combination of disabilities, that is
rated as total under the standard schedule of rating
disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
``(B) a disability, or combination of disabilities, for
which the scheduled rating is less than total but for which a
rating of total is assigned by reason of inability of the
disabled person concerned to secure or follow a substantially
gainful occupation as a result of service-connected
disabilities.
``(6) Current baseline offset.--
``(A) In general.--The term `current baseline offset' for
any qualified retiree means the amount for any month that is
the lesser of--
``(i) the amount of the applicable monthly retired pay of
the qualified retiree for that month; and
``(ii) the amount of monthly veterans' disability
compensation to which the qualified retiree is entitled for
that month.
``(B) Applicable retired pay.--In subparagraph (A), the
term `applicable retired pay' for a qualified retiree means
the amount of monthly retired pay to which the qualified
retiree is entitled, determined without regard to this
section or sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38), except that
in the case of such a retiree who was retired under chapter
61 of this title, such amount is the amount of retired pay to
which the member would have been entitled under any other
provision of law based upon the member's service in the
uniformed services if the member had not been retired under
chapter 61 of this title.''.
(b) Repeal of Special Compensation Authority.--Section 1413
of title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(c) Payment of Increased Retired Pay Costs Due to
Concurrent Receipt.--(1) Section 1465(b) of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes
the determination required by paragraph (1) for any fiscal
year, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the
Treasury contribution to be made to the Fund for the next
fiscal year under section 1466(b)(2)(D) of this title. That
amount shall be determined in the same manner as the
determination under paragraph (1) of the total amount of
Department of Defense contributions to be made to the Fund
during that fiscal year under section 1466(a) of this title,
except that for purposes of this paragraph the Secretary, in
making the calculations required by subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of that paragraph, shall use the single level percentages
determined under subsection (c)(4), rather than those
determined under subsection (c)(1).''.
(2) Section 1465(c) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, to be determined without regard
to section 1414 of this title'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, to be determined without regard to
section 1414 of this title''; and
(iii) in the sentence following subparagraph (B), by
striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting ``subsection
(b)(1)'';
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4) Whenever the Secretary carries out an actuarial
valuation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include as
part of such valuation the following:
``(A) A determination of a single level percentage
determined in the same manner as applies under subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of
section 1414 of this title.
``(B) A determination of a single level percentage
determined in the same manner as applies under subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (1), but based only upon the provisions of
section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes
of subsection (b)(3).''.
(3) Section 1466(b) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``sections 1465(a) and
1465(c)'' and inserting ``sections 1465(a), 1465(b)(3),
1465(c)(2), and 1465(c)(3)''; and
(B) by adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) The amount for that year determined by the Secretary
of Defense under section 1465(b)(3) of this title for the
cost to the Fund arising from increased amounts payable from
the Fund by reason of section 1414 of this title.''.
(d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 71 of such title is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 1413; and
(2) by striking the item relating to section 1414 and
inserting the following:
``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: concurrent
payment of retired pay and veterans' disability
compensation.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to retired pay payable for months
after September 2002.
SEC. 642. CHANGE IN SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR
RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE.
(a) Reduction in Requirement for Years of Reserve Component
Service Before Retired Pay Eligibility.--Section 12731(a)(3)
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``eight years'' and inserting ``six years''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2002.
SEC. 643. ELIMINATION OF POSSIBLE INVERSION IN RETIRED PAY
COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR INITIAL COLA
COMPUTATION.
(a) Elimination of Possible COLA Inversion.--Section 1401a
of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsections (c)(1), (d), and (e), by inserting ``but
subject to subsection (f)(2)'' after ``Notwithstanding
subsection (b)'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``(subject to
subsection (f)(2) as applied to other members whose retired
pay is computed on the current rates of basic pay in the most
recent adjustment under this section)'' after ``shall be
increased''; and
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) by designating the text after the subsection heading as
paragraph (1), indenting that text two ems, and inserting
``(1) Prevention of retired pay inversions.--'' before
``Notwithstanding''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Prevention of cola inversions.--The percentage of the
first adjustment under this section in the retired pay of any
person, as determined under subsection (c)(1), (c)(2), (d),
or (e), may not exceed the percentage increase in retired pay
determined under subsection (b)(2) that is effective on the
same date as the effective date of such first adjustment.''.
(b) Technical Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by inserting ``or on or after August
1, 1986, if the member or former member did not elect to
receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37'' after
``August 1, 1986,''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by inserting ``and elected to
receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37'' after
``August 1, 1986,''.
SEC. 644. TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO SO-CALLED ``FORGOTTEN
WIDOWS'' ANNUITY PROGRAM.
(a) Clarification of Eligibility.--Subsection (a)(1) of
section 644 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998
[[Page H2301]]
(Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 1448 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``(A)'' the
following: ``became entitled to retired or retainer pay
before September 21, 1972,''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``was a member of a
reserve component of the Armed Forces'' and inserting
``died''.
(b) Clarification of Interaction With Other Benefits.--(1)
Subsection (a)(2) of such section is amended by striking
``and who'' and all that follows through ``note)''.
(2) Subsection (b)(2) of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) The amount of an annuity to which a surviving spouse
is entitled under this section for any period shall be
reduced (but not below zero) by any amount paid to that
surviving spouse for the same period under any of the
following provisions of law:
``(A) Section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code
(relating to dependency and indemnity compensation payable by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
``(B) Chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code.
``(C) Section 4 of Public Law 92-425 (10 U.S.C. 1448
note).''.
(c) Clarification of Definition of Surviving Spouse.--
Subsection (d)(2) of such section is amended by striking
``the terms'' and all that follows through ``and (8)'' and
inserting ``such term in paragraph (9)''.
(d) Clarification of Effective Date of Benefits.--
Subsection (e) of such section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the month in which this
Act is enacted'' and inserting ``November 1997'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the first month that
begins after the month in which this Act is enacted'' and
inserting ``December 1997''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) In the case of a person entitled to an annuity under
this section who applies for the annuity after the date of
the enactment of this paragraph, such annuity shall be paid
only for months beginning after the date on which such
application is submitted.''.
(e) Specification in Law of Current Benefit Amount.--
Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$165'' and inserting
``$185.58''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking ``the date of the enactment of this Act''
and inserting ``May 1, 2002,''; and
(B) by striking the last sentence.
Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill
SEC. 651. EXTENSION OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL-SELECTED RESERVE
ELIGIBILITY PERIOD.
Section 16133(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``10-year'' and inserting ``14-year''.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
SEC. 661. ADDITION OF DEFINITION OF CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
IN TITLE 37.
(a) Definition.--Section 101(1) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
sentence: ``The term `continental United States' means the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Title 37, United States Code,
is amended as follows:
(1) Section 314(a)(3) is amended by striking ``the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia'' and
inserting ``the continental United States''.
(2) Section 403b(i) is amended by striking paragraph (6).
(3) Section 409 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(4) Section 411b(a) is amended by striking ``the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia'' both places
it appears and inserting ``the continental United States''.
(5) Section 411d is amended by striking subsection (d).
(6) Section 430 is amended by striking subsection (f) and
inserting the following new subsection (f):
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `formal education' means the following:
``(A) A secondary education.
``(B) An undergraduate college education.
``(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-time basis at
an institution of higher education.
``(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-time basis at
a postsecondary vocational institution.
``(2) The term `institution of higher education' has the
meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
``(3) The term `postsecondary vocational institution' has
the meaning given that term in section 102(c) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).''.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements
SEC. 701. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENT FOR TRICARE
PREAUTHORIZATION OF INPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH
CARE FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Elimination of Requirement.--Section 1079(i) of title
10, United States Code, is amended in paragraph (3) by
inserting ``or in the case of a person eligible for health
care benefits under section 1086(d)(2) of this title for whom
payment for such services is made under subsection 1086(d)(3)
of this title'' after ``an emergency''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2004.
SEC. 702. EXPANSION OF TRICARE PRIME REMOTE FOR CERTAIN
DEPENDENTS.
(a) Expansion of Eligibility.--Section 1079(p) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended in paragraph (1)--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'';
(2) by striking ``referred to in subsection (a) of a member
of the uniformed services referred to in 1074(c)(3) of this
title who are residing with the member'' and inserting
``described in subparagraph (B)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
``(i) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a member
of the uniformed services referred to in section 1074(c)(3)
of this title, who is residing with the member; or
``(ii) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a
member of the uniformed services with a permanent duty
assignment for which the dependent is not authorized to
accompany the member and one of the following circumstances
exists:
``(I) The dependent continues to reside at the location of
the former duty assignment of the member (or residence in the
case of a member of a reserve component ordered to active
duty for a period of more than 30 days), and that location is
more than 50 miles, or approximately one hour of driving
time, from the nearest military medical treatment facility
that can adequately provide needed health care.
``(II) There is no reasonable expectation the member will
return to the location of the former duty assignment, and the
dependent moves to a location that is more than 50 miles, or
approximately one hour of driving time, from the nearest
military medical treatment facility that can adequately
provide needed health care.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2002.
SEC. 703. ENABLING DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO DIED
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY TO ENROLL IN THE TRICARE
DENTAL PROGRAM.
Section 1076a(k)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``(or, if not enrolled, if the member
discontinued participation under subsection (f))'' after
``subsection (a)''.
SEC. 704. IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND.
(a) Source of Funds for Monthly Accrual Payments into the
Fund.--Section 1116(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall
be paid from funds available for the pay of members of the
participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of
the respective administering Secretaries.''.
(b) Mandatory Participation of Other Uniformed Services.--
Section 1111(c) of such title is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``may enter into an
agreement with any other administering Secretary'' and
inserting ``shall enter into an agreement with each other
administering Secretary''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Any'' and
inserting ``Each''.
SEC. 705. CERTIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONAL AND NON-
INSTITUTIONAL PROVIDERS UNDER THE TRICARE
PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 1079 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(q) For purposes of designating institutional and non-
institutional health care providers authorized to provide
care under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations (in consultation with the other
administering Secretaries) that will, to the extent
practicable and subject to the limitations of subsection (a),
so designate any provider authorized to provide care under
title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2003.
SEC. 706. TECHNICAL CORRECTION REGARDING TRANSITIONAL HEALTH
CARE.
Effective as of December 28, 2001, section 1145(a)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(and
the dependents of the member)'' after ``separated from active
duty as described in paragraph (2)''. The amendment made by
the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have been enacted
as part of section 736 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
Subtitle B--Reports
SEC. 711. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON TRICARE CLAIMS
PROCESSING.
Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the continuing
impediments to a cost effective and provider- and
beneficiary-friendly system for claims processing under the
TRICARE program. The evaluation shall include a discussion of
the following:
(1) The extent of progress implementing improvements in
claims processing, particularly regarding the application of
best industry practices.
(2) The extent of progress in simplifying claims processing
procedures, including the elimination of, or reduction in,
the complexity of the Health Care Service Record
requirements.
(3) The suitability of a medicare-compatible claims
processing system with the data requirements necessary to
administer the TRICARE program and related information
systems.
[[Page H2302]]
(4) The extent to which the claims processing system for
the TRICARE program impedes provider participation and
beneficiary access.
(5) Recommendations for improving the claims processing
system that will reduce processing and administration costs,
create greater competition, and improve fraud-prevention
activities.
SEC. 712. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON PROVISION OF CARE
UNDER THE TRICARE PROGRAM.
Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the nature of,
reasons for, extent of, and trends regarding network provider
instability under the TRICARE program, and the effectiveness
of efforts by the Department of Defense and managed care
support contractors to measure and mitigate such instability.
The evaluation shall include a discussion of the following:
(1) The adequacy of measurement tools of TRICARE network
instability and their use by the Department of Defense and
managed care support contractors to assess network adequacy
and stability.
(2) Recommendations for improvements needed in measurement
tools or their application.
(3) The relationship of reimbursement rates and
administration requirements (including preauthorization
requirements) to TRICARE network instability.
(4) The extent of problems under the TRICARE program and
likely future trends with and without intervention using
existing authority.
(5) Use of existing authority by the Department of Defense
and TRICARE managed care support contractors to apply higher
reimbursement rates in specific geographic areas.
(6) Recommendations for specific fiscally prudent measures
that could mitigate negative trends or improve provider and
network stability.
SEC. 713. REPEAL OF REPORT REQUIREMENT.
Notwithstanding subsection (f)(2) of section 712 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114
Stat. 1654A-179), the amendment made by subsection (e) of
such section shall not take effect and the paragraph amended
by such subsection is repealed.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
SEC. 801. PLAN FOR ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL
EXCHANGE PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) Plan Required.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
develop a plan for a pilot program under which--
(A) an individual in the field of acquisition management
employed by the Department of Defense may be temporarily
assigned to work in a private sector organization; and
(B) an individual in such field employed by a private
sector organization may be temporarily assigned to work in
the Department of Defense.
(2) In developing the plan under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall address the following:
(A) The benefits of undertaking such a program.
(B) The appropriate length of assignments under the
program.
(C) Whether an individual assigned under the program should
be compensated by the organization to which the individual is
assigned, or the organization from which the individual is
assigned.
(D) The ethics guidelines that should be applied to the
program and, if necessary, waivers of ethics laws that would
be needed in order to make the program effective and
attractive to both Government and private sector employees.
(E) An assessment of how compensation of individuals
suffering employment-related injuries under the program
should be addressed.
(b) Submission to Congress.--Not later than February 1,
2003, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives the
plan required under subsection (a).
SEC. 802. EVALUATION OF TRAINING, KNOWLEDGE, AND RESOURCES
REGARDING NEGOTIATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ARRANGEMENTS.
(a) Availability of Training, Knowledge, and Resources.--
The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the training,
knowledge, and resources needed by the Department of Defense
in order to effectively negotiate intellectual property
rights using the principles of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement and determine whether the
Department of Defense currently has in place the training,
knowledge, and resources available to meet those Departmental
needs.
(b) Report.--Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing--
(1) the results of the evaluation performed under
subsection (a);
(2) to the extent the Department does not have adequate
training, knowledge, and resources available, actions to be
taken to improve training and knowledge and to make resources
available to meet the Department's needs; and
(3) the number of Department of Defense legal personnel
trained in negotiating intellectual property arrangements.
SEC. 803. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER
CONTRACTS.
Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 2304a--
(A) in subsection (e)--
(i) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A task''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive
procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of
section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with
subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall
be used for making such a modification.
``(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided
in accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).''; and
(B) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Limitation on Contract Period.--The base period of a
task order contract or delivery order contract entered into
under this section may not exceed five years unless a longer
period is specifically authorized in a law that is applicable
to such contract. The contract may be extended for an
additional 5 years (for a total contract period of not more
than 10 years) through modifications, options, or
otherwise.''; and
(2) in section 2304b--
(A) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--A task order contract (as defined in
section 2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and
assistance services shall be subject to the requirements of
this section, sections 2304a and 2304c of this title, and
other applicable provisions of law.'';
(B) by striking subsections (b), (f), and (g) and
redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (h), and (i) as
subsections (b) through (f);
(C) by amending subsection (c) (as redesignated by
subparagraph (B)) to read as follows:
``(c) Required Content of Contract.--A task order contract
described in subsection (a) shall contain the same
information that is required by section 2304a(b) to be
included in the solicitation of offers for that contract.'';
and
(D) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B))--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``under this section''
and inserting ``described in subsection (a)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under this section''.
SEC. 804. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PROGRAM APPLYING SIMPLIFIED
PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL ITEMS; REPORT.
(a) Extension of Pilot Program.--Section 4202 of the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law
104-106; 110 Stat. 652; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is amended in
subsection (e) by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and inserting
``January 1, 2004''.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than January 15, 2003, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
whether the authority to issue solicitations for purchases of
commercial items in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold pursuant to the special simplified procedures
authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United States
Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, should be made
permanent.
SEC. 805. AUTHORITY TO MAKE INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO
SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD.
Section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)) is amended by inserting ``, except
that such amount may be adjusted by the Administrator every
five years to the amount equal to $100,000 in constant fiscal
year 2002 dollars (rounded to the nearest $10,000)'' before
the period at the end.
SEC. 806. IMPROVEMENT OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE CIVILIAN
ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.
(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
a plan for improving the personnel management policies and
procedures applicable to the Department of Defense civilian
acquisition workforce based on the results of the
demonstration project described in section 4308 of the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (division D of Public Law 104-106;
10 U.S.C. 1701 note).
(b) Submission to Congress.--Not later than February 15,
2003, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the plan
required under subsection (a) and a report including any
recommendations for legislative action necessary to implement
the plan.
SEC. 807. MODIFICATION OF SCOPE OF BALL AND ROLLER BEARINGS
COVERED FOR PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT LIMITATION.
Section 2534(a)(5) of title 10, United States Code is
amended--
(1) by striking ``225.71'' and inserting ``225.70'';
(2) by striking ``October 23, 1992'' and inserting ``April
27, 2002''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``In this section
the term `ball bearings and roller bearings' includes
unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearings and cam
follower bearings, ball screws, and other derivatives of ball
and roller bearings.''.
SEC. 808. RAPID ACQUISITION AND DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES.
(a) Requirement To Establish Procedures.--Chapter 141 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
section 2396 the following new section:
``Sec. 2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish tailored rapid acquisition and deployment
procedures for items urgently needed to react to an enemy
threat or to respond to significant and urgent safety
situations.
``(b) Procedures.--The procedures established under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
``(1) A process for streamlined communications between the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the acquisition
community, and the testing community.
[[Page H2303]]
``(2) A process for expedited technical, programmatic, and
financial decisions.
``(3) An expedited procurement and contracting process.
``(c) Specific Steps To Be Included.--The procedures
established under subsection (a) shall provide for the
following:
``(1) The commander of a unified combatant command may
notify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the need
for an item described in subsection (a) that is currently
under development.
``(2) The Chairman may request the Secretary of Defense to
use rapid acquisition and deployment procedures with respect
to the item.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense shall decide whether to use
such procedures with respect to the item and shall notify the
Secretary of the appropriate military department of the
decision.
``(4) If the Secretary of Defense decides to use such
procedures with respect to the item, the Secretary of the
military department shall prepare a funding strategy for the
rapid acquisition of the item and shall conduct a
demonstration of the performance of the item.
``(5) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation shall
immediately evaluate the existing capability of the item (but
under such evaluation shall not assess the capability of the
item as regards to the function the item was originally
intended to perform).
``(6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall
review the evaluation of the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation and report to the Secretary of Defense regarding
whether the capabilities of the tested item are able to meet
the urgent need for the item.
``(7) The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the
information regarding funding and rapid acquisition prepared
pursuant to paragraph (4) and approve or disapprove of the
acquisition of the item using the procedures established
pursuant to subsection (a).
``(d) Limitation.--The quantity of items of a system
procured using the procedures established under this section
may not exceed the number established for low-rate initial
production for the system, and any such items shall be
counted for purposes of the number of items of the system
that may be procured through low-rate initial production.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2396 the following new item:
``2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.''.
SEC. 809. QUICK-REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS ACQUISITION TEAM.
(a) Establishment.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2402 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team
``The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quick-reaction
special projects acquisition team, the purpose of which shall
be to advise the Secretary on actions that can be taken to
expedite the procurement of urgently needed systems. The team
shall address problems with the intention of creating
expeditious solutions relating to--
``(1) industrial-base issues such as the limited
availability of suppliers;
``(2) compliance with acquisition regulations and lengthy
procedures;
``(3) compliance with environmental requirements;
``(4) compliance with requirements regarding small-business
concerns; and
``(5) compliance with requirements regarding the purchase
of products made in the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2402 the following new item:
``2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.''.
SEC. 810. REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF ANTI-CYBERTERRORISM
TECHNOLOGY.
Not later than February 1, 2003, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on--
(1) efforts by the Department of Defense to enter into
contracts with private entities to develop anticyberterrorism
technology; and
(2) whether such efforts should be increased.
SEC. 811. CONTRACTING WITH FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES.
(a) Assuring Best Value for National Defense and Homeland
Security.--(1) The Department of Defense or one of the
military departments may acquire a product or service from
Federal Prison Industries, Inc. only if such acquisition is
made through a procurement contract awarded and administered
in accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States
Code, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the Department
of Defense supplements to such regulation. If a contract is
to be awarded to Federal Prison Industries, Inc. by the
Department of Defense through other than competitive
procedures, authority for such award shall be based upon
statutory authority other than chapter 307 of title 18,
United States Code.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall assure that--
(A) no purchase of a product or a service is made by the
Department of Defense from Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
unless the contracting officer determines that--
(i) the product or service can be timely furnished and will
meet the performance needs of the activity that requires the
product or service; and
(ii) the price to be paid does not exceed a fair market
price determined by competition or a fair and reasonable
price determined by price analysis or cost analysis; and
(B) Federal Prison Industries, Inc. performs its
contractual obligations to the same extent as any other
contractor for the Department of Defense.
(b) Performance as a Subcontractor.--(1) The use of Federal
Prison Industries, Inc. as a subcontractor or supplier shall
be a wholly voluntary business decision by a Department of
Defense prime contractor or subcontractor, subject to any
prior approval of subcontractors or suppliers by the
contracting officer which may be imposed by regulation or by
the contract.
(2) A defense contractor (or subcontractor at any tier)
using Federal Prison Industries, Inc. as a subcontractor or
supplier in furnishing a commercial product pursuant to a
contract shall implement appropriate management procedures to
prevent introducing an inmate-produced product or inmate-
furnished services into the commercial market.
(3) Except as authorized under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, the use of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. as a
subcontractor or supplier of products or provider of services
shall not be imposed upon prospective or actual defense prime
contractors or subcontractors at any tier by means of--
(A) a contract solicitation provision requiring a
contractor to offer to make use of Federal Prison Industries,
Inc. its products or services;
(B) specifications requiring the contractor to use specific
products or services (or classes of products or services)
offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc. in the performance
of the contract;
(C) any contract modification directing the use of Federal
Prison Industries, Inc. its products or services; or
(D) any other means.
(c) Protection of Classified and Sensitive Information.--
The Secretary of Defense shall assure that Federal Prison
Industries, Inc. is not permitted to provide services as a
contractor or subcontractor at any tier, if an inmate worker
has access to--
(1) data that is classified or will become classified after
being merged with other data;
(2) geographic data regarding the location of surface and
subsurface infrastructure providing communications, water and
electrical power distribution, pipelines for the distribution
of natural gas, bulk petroleum products and other
commodities, and other utilities; or
(3) personal or financial information about individual
private citizens, including information relating to such
person's real property, however described, without giving
prior notice to such persons or class of persons to the
greatest extent practicable.
(d) Regulatory Implementation.--
(1) Proposed regulations.--Proposed revisions to the
Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation to implement this section shall be published not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act
and provide not less than 60 days for public comment.
(2) Final regulations.--Final regulations shall be
published not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall be effective on the date that
is 30 days after the date of publication.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
SEC. 901. CHANGE IN TITLE OF SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO
SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.
(a) Change in Title.--The position of the Secretary of the
Navy is hereby redesignated as the Secretary of the Navy and
Marine Corps.
(b) References.--Any reference to the Secretary of the Navy
in any law, regulation, document, record, or other paper of
the United States shall be considered to be a reference to
the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.
SEC. 902. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF UNITED STATES NORTHERN
COMMAND.
Not later than September 1, 2002, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report providing an
implementation plan for the United States Northern Command.
The report shall address the following:
(1) The required budget for standing-up and maintaining
that command.
(2) The location of the headquarters of that command and
alternatives considered for that location, together with the
criteria used in selection of that location.
(3) The required manning levels for the command, the effect
that command will have on current Department of Defense
personnel resources, and the other commands from which
personnel will be transferred to provide personnel for that
command.
(4) The chain of command within that command to the
component command level and a review of permanently assigned
or tasked organizations and units.
(5) The relationship of that command to the Office of
Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, to other
Federal departments and agencies, and to State and local law
enforcement agencies.
(6) The relationship of that command with the National
Guard Bureau, individual State National Guard Headquarters,
and civil first responders to ensure continuity of
operational plans.
(7) The legal implications of military forces in their
Federal capacity operating on United States territory.
(8) The status of Department of Defense consultations--
(A) with Canada regarding Canada's role in, and any
expansion of mission for, the North American Air Defense
Command; and
(B) with Mexico regarding Mexico's role in the United
States Northern Command.
[[Page H2304]]
(9) The status of Department of Defense consultations with
NATO member nations on efforts to transfer the Supreme Allied
Command for the Atlantic from dual assignment with the
position of commander of the United States Joint Forces
Command.
(10) The revised mission, budget, and personnel resources
required for the United States Joint Forces Command.
SEC. 903. NATIONAL DEFENSE MISSION OF COAST GUARD TO BE
INCLUDED IN FUTURE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEWS.
Section 118(d) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (14) as paragraph (15); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following new
paragraph:
``(14) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard.''.
SEC. 904. CHANGE IN YEAR FOR SUBMISSION OF QUADRENNIAL
DEFENSE REVIEW.
Section 118(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``during a year'' and inserting ``during the
second year''.
SEC. 905. REPORT ON EFFECT OF OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR ON
COMBAT READINESS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than February 28, 2004, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives a report on the effect on the
combat readiness of the Armed Forces of operations other than
war in which the Armed Forces are participating as of the
date of the enactment of this Act (hereinafter in this
section referred to as ``current operations other than
war''). Such report shall address any such effect on combat
readiness for the Armed Forces as a whole and separately for
the active components and the reserve components.
(b) Operations Other Than War.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``operations other than war'' includes the
followng:
(1) Humanitarian operations.
(2) Counter-drug operations.
(3) Peace operations.
(4) Nation assistance.
(c) Matters To Be Addressed.--The report shall, at a
minimum, address the following (shown both for the Armed
Forces as a whole and separately for the active components
and the reserve components):
(1) With respect to each current operation other than war,
the number of members of the Armed Forces who are--
(A) directly participating in the operation;
(B) supporting the operation;
(C) preparing to participate or support an upcoming
rotation to the operation; or
(D) recovering and retraining following participation in
the operation.
(2) The cost to the Department of Defense in time, funds,
resources, personnel, and equipment to prepare for, conduct,
and recover and retrain from each such operation.
(3) The effect of participating in such operations on
performance, retention, and readiness of individual members
of the Armed Forces.
(4) The effect of such operations on the readiness of
forces and units participating, preparing to participate, and
returning from participation in such operations.
(5) The effect that such operations have on forces and
units that do not, have not, and will not participate in
them.
(6) The contribution to United States national security and
to regional stability of participation by the United States
in such operations, to be assessed after receiving the views
of the commanders of the regional unified combatant commands.
(d) Classification of Report.--The report may be provided
in classified or unclassified form as necessary.
SEC. 906. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO REFLECT DISESTABLISHMENT OF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM INTEGRATION OFFICE.
Section 12310(c)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``only--'' and all that follows through
``(B) while assigned'' and inserting ``only while assigned''.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) Upon
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may
transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the
Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 2003
between any such authorizations for that fiscal year (or any
subdivisions thereof). Amounts of authorizations so
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the authorization to which transferred.
(2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary
may transfer under the authority of this section may not
exceed $2,000,000,000.
(b) Limitations.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide authority for items that
have a higher priority than the items from which authority is
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide authority for an item that
has been denied authorization by Congress.
(c) Effect on Authorization Amounts.--A transfer made from
one account to another under the authority of this section
shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the
account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal
to the amount transferred.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary shall promptly
notify Congress of each transfer made under subsection (a).
SEC. 1002. AUTHORIZATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2002.
(a) DOD Authorizations.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year
2002 in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) are hereby adjusted, with
respect to any such authorized amount, by the amount by which
appropriations pursuant to such authorization are increased
(by a supplemental appropriation) or decreased (by a
rescission), or both, or are increased by a transfer of
funds, pursuant to the following:
(1) Chapter 3 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2299).
(2) Any Act enacted after May 1, 2002, making supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for the military
functions of the Department of Defense.
(b) NNSA Authorizations.--Amounts authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002 (Public Law 107-107) are hereby adjusted, with respect
to any such authorized amount, by the amount by which
appropriations pursuant to such authorization are increased
(by a supplemental appropriation) or decreased (by a
rescission), or both, or are increased by a transfer of
funds, pursuant to the following:
(1) Chapter 5 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2307).
(2) Any Act enacted after May 1, 2002, making supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for the atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy.
(c) Limitation on Transfers Pending Submission of Report.--
Any amount provided for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2002 through a so-called `transfer account'', including
the Defense Emergency Response Fund or any other similar
account, may be transferred to another account for obligation
only after the Secretary of Defense submits to the
congressional defense committees a report stating, for each
such transfer, the amount of the transfer, the appropriation
account to which the transfer is to be made, and the specific
purpose for which the transferred funds will be used.
(d) Emergency Designation Requirement.--(1) In the case of
a pending contingent emergency supplemental appropriation for
the military functions of the Department of Defense or the
atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy,
an adjustment may be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the
amount of an authorization of appropriations by reason of
that supplemental appropriation only if, and to the extent
that, the President transmits to Congress an official budget
request for that appropriation that designates the entire
amount requested as an emergency requirement.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``contingent
emergency supplemental appropriation'' means a supplemental
appropriation that--
(A) is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; and
(B) by law is available only to the extent that the
President transmits to the Congress an official budget
request for that appropriation that includes designation of
the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement.
SEC. 1003. UNIFORM STANDARDS THROUGHOUT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FOR EXPOSURE OF PERSONNEL TO PECUNIARY
LIABILITY FOR LOSS OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
(a) Extension of Army and Air Force Report-of-Survey
Procedures to Navy and Marine Corps and all DOD Civilian
Employees.--(1) Chapter 165 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2787. Reports of survey
``(a) Regulations.--Under such regulations as the Secretary
of Defense may prescribe, any officer of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps or any civilian employee of the
Department of Defense designated by the Secretary may act
upon reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss,
spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of,
or damage to, property of the United States under the control
of the Department of Defense.
``(b) Finality of Action.--Action taken under subsection
(a) is final, except that action holding a person pecuniarily
liable for loss, spoilage, destruction, or damage is not
final until approved by the Secretary.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``2787. Reports of survey.''.
(b) Extension to Members of the Navy and Marine Corps of
Pay Deduction Authority Pertaining to Damage or Repair of
Arms and Equipment .--Section 1007(e) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Army or the Air Force''
and inserting ``Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps''.
(c) Repeal of Superceded Provisions.--(1) Sections 4835 and
9835 of title 10, United States Code, are repealed.
(2)(A) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter
453 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 4835.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 953
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 9835.
SEC. 1004. ACCOUNTABLE OFFICIALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.
(a) Accountable Officials Within the Department of
Defense.--Chapter 165 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 2773 the following new
section:
[[Page H2305]]
``Sec. 2773a. Departmental accountable officials
``(a) Designation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
designate as a `departmental accountable official' any
civilian employee of the Department of Defense or member of
the armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction who is
described in paragraph (2). Any such designation shall be in
writing.
``(2) An employee or member of the armed forces described
in this paragraph is an employee or member who is responsible
in the performance of the employee's or member's duties for
providing to a certifying official of the Department of
Defense information, data, or services that are directly
relied upon by the certifying official in the certification
of vouchers for payment.
``(b) Pecuniary Liability.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
may impose pecuniary liability on a departmental accountable
official to the extent that an illegal, improper, or
incorrect payment results from the information, data, or
services that that official provides to a certifying official
and upon which the certifying official directly relies in
certifying the voucher supporting that payment.
``(2) The pecuniary liability of a departmental accountable
official under this subsection for such an illegal, improper,
or incorrect payment is joint and several with that of any
other officials who are pecuniarily liable for such payment.
``(c) Relief from Liability.--The Secretary of Defense
shall relieve a departmental accountable official from
liability under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines
that the illegal, improper, or incorrect payment was not the
result of fault or negligence by that official.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2773 the following new item:
``2773a. Departmental accountable officials.''.
SEC. 1005. IMPROVEMENTS IN PURCHASE CARD MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 2784 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2784. Management of purchase cards
``(a) Management of Purchase Cards.--The Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller), shall prescribe regulations governing the use
and control of all purchase cards and convenience checks that
are issued to Department of Defense personnel for official
use. Those regulations shall be consistent with regulations
that apply Government-wide regarding use of purchase cards by
Government personnel for official purposes.
``(b) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--
Regulations under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and
internal controls to ensure the following:
``(1) That there is a record in the Department of Defense
of each holder of a purchase card issued by the Department of
Defense for official use, annotated with the limitations on
amounts that are applicable to the use of each such card by
that purchase card holder.
``(2) That the holder of a purchase card and each official
with authority to authorize expenditures charged to the
purchase card are responsible for--
``(A) reconciling the charges appearing on each statement
of account for that purchase card with receipts and other
supporting documentation; and
``(B) forwarding that statement after being so reconciled
to the designated disbursing office in a timely manner.
``(3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any
discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting
documentation and the purchase card statement of account, is
resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable
Government-wide purchase card contract entered into by the
Administrator of General Services.
``(4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made
promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest
penalties.
``(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment on
purchase card accounts are properly recorded.
``(6) That records of each purchase card transaction
(including records on associated contracts, reports,
accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with
standard Government policies on the disposition of records.
``(7) That an annual review is performed of the use of
purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to
determine whether each purchase card holder has a need for
the purchase card.
``(8) That the Inspectors General of the Department of
Defense and the military services perform periodic audits
with respect to the use of purchase cards issued by the
Department of Defense to ensure that such use is in
compliance with regulations.
``(9) That appropriate annual training is provided to each
purchase card holder and each official with responsibility
for overseeing the use of purchase cards issued by the
Department of Defense.
``(c) Penalties for Violations.--The Secretary shall
provide in the regulations prescribed under subsection (a)--
``(1) that procedures are implemented providing for
appropriate punishment of employees of the Department of
Defense for violations of such regulations and for
negligence, misuse, abuse, or fraud with respect to a
purchase card, including dismissal in appropriate cases; and
``(2) that a violation of such regulations by a person
subject to chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice) is punishable as a violation of section 892
of this title (article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2784
in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 165 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``2784. Management of purchase cards.''.
SEC. 1006. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER FUNDS WITHIN A MAJOR
ACQUISITION PROGRAM FROM PROCUREMENT TO RDT&E.
(a) Program Flexibility.--(1) Chapter 131 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2214 the following new section:
``Sec. 2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement
accounts to research and development accounts for major
acquisition programs
``(a) Transfer Authority Within Major Programs.--Subject to
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts
provided in an appropriation Act for procurement for a
covered acquisition program to amounts provided in the same
appropriation Act for research, development, test, and
evaluation for that program.
``(b) Congressional Notice-and-Wait.--A transfer may be
made under this section only after--
``(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees notice in writing of the Secretary's intent to
make such transfer, together with the Secretary's
justification for the transfer; and
``(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the date of
such notification.
``(c) Limitations.--From amounts appropriated for the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for procurement--
``(1) the total amount transferred under this section may
not exceed $250,000,000; and
``(2) the total amount so transferred for any acquisition
program may not exceed $20,000,000.
``(d) Covered Acquisition Programs.--In this section, the
term `covered acquisition program' means an acquisition
program of the Department of Defense that is--
``(A) a major defense acquisition program for purposes of
chapter 144 of this title; or
``(B) any other acquisition program of the Department of
Defense--
``(i) that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a
covered acquisition program for purposes of this section; or
``(ii) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to
require an eventual total expenditure for research,
development, test, and evaluation of more than $140,000,000
(based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an eventual
total expenditure for procurement of more than $660,000,000
(based on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars.)
``(e) Transfer Back of Unused Transferred Funds.--If funds
transferred under this section are not used for the purposes
for which transferred, such funds shall be transferred back
to the account from which transferred and shall be available
for their original purpose.
``(f) Additional Authority.--The transfer authority
provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer
authority available to the Secretary of Defense.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2214 the following new item:
``2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to
research and development accounts for major acquisition
programs.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 2214a of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall not apply with
respect to funds appropriated before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 1007. DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT OF FINANCIAL AND
NONFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.
(a) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2003, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
a report on the modernization of the Department of Defense's
financial management systems and operations. The report shall
include the following:
(1) The goals and objectives of the Financial Management
Modernization Program.
(2) The acquisition strategy for that Program, including
milestones, performance metrics, and financial and
nonfinancial resource needs.
(3) A listing of all operational and developmental
financial and nonfinancial management systems in use by the
Department, the related costs to operate and maintain those
systems during fiscal year 2002, and the estimated cost to
operate and maintain those systems during fiscal year 2003.
(4) An estimate of the completion date of a transition plan
that will identify which of the Department's operational and
developmental financial management systems will not be part
of the objective financial and nonfinancial management system
and that provides the schedule for phase out of those legacy
systems.
(b) Limitations.--(1) A contract described in subsection
(c) may be entered into using funds made available to the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 only with the
approval in advance in writing of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller).
(2) Not more than 75 percent of the funds authorized to be
appropriated in section 201(4) for research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Department of Defense Financial
Modernization Program (Program Element 65016D8Z) may be
obligated until the report required by subsection (a) is
received by the congressional defense committees.
(c) Covered Contracts.--Subsection (b)(1) applies to a
contract for the procurement of any of the following:
(1) An enterprise architecture system.
(2) A finance or accounting system.
(3) A nonfinancial business and feeder system.
(4) An upgrade to any system specified in paragraphs (1)
through (3).
[[Page H2306]]
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) Financial management system and operations.--The term
``financial management system and operations'' means
financial, financial related, and non-financial business
operations and systems used for acquisition programs,
transportation, travel, property, inventory, supply, medical,
budget formulation, financial reporting, and accounting. Such
term includes the automated and manual processes, procedures,
controls, data, hardware, software, and support personnel
dedicated to the operations and maintenance of system
functions.
(2) Feeder systems.--The term ``feeder systems'' means
financial portions of mixed systems.
(3) Developmental systems and projects.--The term
``developmental systems and projects'' means any system that
has not reached Milestone C, as defined in the Department of
Defense 5000-series regulations.
Subtitle B--Reports
SEC. 1011. AFTER-ACTION REPORTS ON THE CONDUCT OF MILITARY
OPERATIONS CONDUCTED AS PART OF OPERATION
ENDURING FREEDOM.
(a) Report Required.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional committees specified in
subsection (c) two reports on the conduct of military
operations conducted as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The first report (which shall be an interim report) shall be
submitted not later than June 15, 2003. The second report
shall be submitted not later than 180 days after the date (as
determined by the Secretary of Defense) of the cessation of
hostilities undertaken as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
(2) Each report shall be prepared in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander-in-chief
of the United States Central Command, and the Director of
Central Intelligence.
(3) Each report shall be submitted in both a classified
form and an unclassified form.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report shall contain a
discussion of accomplishments and shortcomings of the overall
military operation. The report shall specifically include the
following:
(1) A discussion of the command, control, coordination, and
support relationship between United States Special Operations
Forces and Central Intelligence Agency elements participating
in Operation Enduring Freedom and any lessons learned from
the joint conduct of operations by those forces and elements.
(2) Recommendations to improve operational readiness and
effectiveness.
(c) Congressional Committees.--The committees referred to
in subsection (a)(1) are the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
SEC. 1012. REPORT ON BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DEFENSE AND COUNTER-
PROLIFERATION.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report--
(1) describing programs and initiatives to halt, counter,
and defend against the development, production, and
proliferation of biological weapons agents, technology, and
expertise to terrorist organizations and other States; and
(2) including a detailed list of the limitations and
impediments to the biological weapons defense,
nonproliferation, and counterproliferation efforts of the
Department of Defense, and recommendations to remove such
impediments and to make such efforts more effective.
(b) Classification.--The report may be submitted in
unclassified or classified form as necessary.
SEC. 1013. REQUIREMENT THAT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORTS TO
CONGRESS BE ACCOMPANIED BY ELECTRONIC VERSION.
Section 480(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``shall, upon request'' and all that follows
through ``(or each'' and inserting ``shall provide to
Congress (or''.
SEC. 1014. STRATEGIC FORCE STRUCTURE PLAN FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS.
(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy shall jointly prepare a plan for the
United States strategic force structure for nuclear weapons
and nuclear weapons delivery systems for the period of fiscal
years from 2002 through 2012. The plan shall--
(1) delineate a baseline strategic force structure for such
weapons and systems over such period consistent with the
Nuclear Posture Review dated January 2002;
(2) define sufficient force structure, force modernization
and life extension plans, infrastructure, and other elements
of the defense program of the United States associated with
such weapons and systems that would be required to execute
successfully the full range of missions called for in the
national defense strategy delineated in the Quadrennial
Defense Review dated September 30, 2001, under section 118 of
title 10, United States Code; and
(3) identify the budget plan that would be required to
provide sufficient resources to execute successfully the full
range of missions using such force structure called for in
that national defense strategy.
(b) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Energy shall submit a report on the plan to the
congressional defense committees. Except as provided in
paragraph (2), the report shall be submitted not later than
January 1, 2003.
(2) If before January 1, 2003, the President submits to
Congress the President's certification that it is in the
national security interest of the United States that such
report be submitted on a later date (to be specified by the
President in the certification), such report shall be
submitted not later than such later date.
SEC. 1015. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT NATIONAL
TRAINING COMPLEX AND JOINT OPPOSING FORCES.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than six months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report that outlines a plan to develop and
implement a joint national training complex. Such a complex
may include multiple joint training sites and mobile training
ranges and appropriate joint opposing forces and shall be
capable of supporting field exercises and experimentation at
the operational level of war across a broad spectrum of
adversary capabilities.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification and description of the types of joint
training and experimentation that would be conducted at such
a joint national training complex, together with a
description of how such training and experimentation would
enhance accomplishment of the six critical operational goals
for the Department of Defense specified at page 30 of the
Quadrennial Defense Review Report of the Secretary of Defense
issued on September 30, 2001.
(2) A discussion of how establishment of such a complex
(including joint opposing forces) would promote innovation
and transformation throughout the Department of Defense.
(3) A discussion of how results from training and
experiments conducted at such a complex would be taken into
consideration in the Department of Defense plans, programs,
and budgeting process and by appropriate decision making
bodies within the Department of Defense.
(4) A methodology, framework, and options for selecting
sites for such a complex, including consideration of current
training facilities that would accommodate requirements among
all the Armed Forces.
(5) Options for development as part of such a complex of a
joint urban warfare training center that could also be used
for homeland defense and consequence management training for
Federal, State, and local training.
(6) Cost estimates and resource requirements to establish
and maintain such a complex, including estimates of costs and
resource requirements for the use of contract personnel for
the performance of management, operational, and logistics
activities for such a complex .
(7) An explanation of the relationship between and among
such a complex and the Department of Defense Office of
Transformation, the Joint Staff, the United States Joint
Forces Command, the United States Northern Command, and each
element of the major commands within the separate Armed
Forces with responsibility for experimentation and training.
(8) A discussion of how implementation of a joint opposing
force would be established, including the feasibility of
using qualified contractors for the function of establishing
and maintaining joint opposing forces and the role of foreign
forces.
(9) Submission of a time line to establish such a center
and for such a center to achieve initial operational
capability and full operational capability.
SEC. 1016. REPEAL OF VARIOUS REPORTS REQUIRED OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Provisions of Title 10.--Title 10, United States Code,
is amended as follows:
(1)(A) Section 230 is repealed.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 9 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 230.
(2) Section 526 is amended by striking subsection (c).
(3) Section 721(d) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by striking ``(1)'' before ``If an officer''.
(4) Section 986 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(5) Section 1095(g) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by striking ``(1)'' after ``(g)''.
(6) Section 1798 is amended by striking subsection (d).
(7) Section 1799 is amended by striking subsection (d).
(8) Section 2010 is amended by striking subsection (b).
(9) Section 2327(c)(1) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``after the date on
which such head of an agency submits to Congress a report on
the contract'' and inserting ``if in the best interests of
the Government''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(10) Section 2350f is amended by striking subsection (c).
(11) Section 2350k is amended by striking subsection (d).
(12) Section 2492 is amended by striking subsection (c).
(13) Section 2493 is amended by striking subsection (g).
(14) Section 2563(c)(2) is amended by striking ``and
notifies Congress regarding the reasons for the waiver''.
(15) Section 2611 is amended by striking subsection (e).
(16) Sections 4357, 6975, and 9356 are each amended--
(A) by striking subsection (c); and
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``Subject to subsection
(c), the Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary''.
[[Page H2307]]
(17) Section 4416 is amended by striking subsection (f).
(18) Section 5721(f) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by striking ``(1)'' after the subsection heading.
(19) Section 12302 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence; and
(B) by striking subsection (d).
(b) National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995.--Section 553(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2772;
10 U.S.C. 4331 note) is amended by striking the last
sentence.
SEC. 1017. REPORT ON THE ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN
SUPPORTING HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on Department of Defense
responsibilities, mission, and plans for military support of
homeland security.
(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include, but not
be limited to, a discussion of the following:
(1) Changes in organization regarding the roles, mission,
and responsibilities carried out by the Department of Defense
to support its homeland security mission and the reasons for
those changes based upon the findings of the study and report
required by section 1511 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1271).
(2) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of
the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and
the Department of the Air Force with respect to homeland
security and the reasons for such changes.
(3) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of
unified commands with homeland security missions and the
reasons for such changes.
(4) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of
the United States Joint Forces Command and the United States
Northern Command in expanded homeland security training and
experimentation involving the Department of Defense and other
Federal, State, and local entities, and the reasons for such
changes.
(5) Changes in the roles, missions, and responsibilities of
the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard in the
homeland security mission of the Department of Defense, and
the reasons for such changes.
(6) The status of the unconventional nuclear warfare
defense test bed program established in response to title IX
of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002
(division A of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2289), including
the plan and program for establishing such test beds.
(7) The plans and status of the Department of Defense
homeland security biological defense program, including the
plans and status of--
(A) the biological counter terrorism research program;
(B) the biological defense homeland security support
program;
(C) pilot programs for establishing biological defense test
beds on Department of Defense installations and in selected
urban areas of the United States;
(D) programs for expanding the capacity of the Department
of Defense to meet increased demand for vaccines against
biological agents; and
(E) any plans to coordinate Department of Defense work in
biological defense programs with other Federal, State, and
local programs.
(8) Recommendations for legislative changes that may be
required to execute the roles and missions set forth in
Department of Defense homeland security plans.
SEC. 1018. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR EARTH PENETRATOR
WEAPONS AND OTHER WEAPONS.
(a) NAS Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall request the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and prepare a
report on the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of
the use of a nuclear earth penetrator weapon on the target
area, including the effects on civilian populations in
proximity to the target area and on United States military
personnel performing operations and battle damage assessments
in the target area, and the anticipated short-term and long-
term effects on the civilian population in proximity to the
target area if--
(1) a non-penetrating nuclear weapon is used to destroy
hard or deeply-buried targets; or
(2) a conventional high-explosive weapon is used to destroy
an adversary's weapons of mass destruction storage or
production facilities, and radioactive, nuclear, biological,
or chemical weapons materials, agents, or other contaminants
are released or spread into populated areas.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
the report under subsection (a), together with any comments
the Secretary may consider appropriate on the report. The
report shall be submitted in unclassified form to the maximum
extent possible, with a classified annex if needed.
SEC. 1019. REPORT ON EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR-TIPPED BALLISTIC
MISSILE INTERCEPTORS AND NUCLEAR MISSILES NOT
INTERCEPTED.
(a) NAS Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall request the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and prepare a
report on the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of
the use of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile interceptor,
including the effects on civilian populations and on United
States military personnel in proximity to the target area,
and the immediate, short-term, and long-term effects on the
civilian population of a major city of the United States, and
the Nation as a whole, if a ballistic missile carrying a
nuclear weapon is not intercepted and detonates directly
above a major city of the United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
the report under subsection (a), together with any comments
the Secretary may consider appropriate on the report. The
report shall be submitted in unclassified form to the maximum
extent possible, with a classified annex if needed.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
SEC. 1021. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MAINTENANCE OF A RELIABLE,
FLEXIBLE, AND ROBUST 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 Nuclear
Posture Review dated January 2002, and the global strategic
environment, the President should, to defend the Nation,
deter aggressors and potential adversaries, assure friends
and allies, defeat enemies, dissuade competitors, advance the
foreign policy goals and vital interests of the United
States, and generally ensure the national security of the
United States, take the following actions:
(1) Maintain an operationally deployed strategic force of
not less than 1,700 nuclear weapons for immediate and
unexpected contingencies.
(2) Maintain a responsive force of non-deployed nuclear
weapons for potential contingencies at readiness and
numerical levels determined to be--
(A) essential to the execution of the Single Integrated
Operational Plan; or
(B) necessary to maintain strategic flexibility and
capability in accordance with the findings and conclusions of
such Nuclear Posture Review.
(3) Develop advanced conventional weapons, and nuclear
weapons, capable of 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) Develop a plan to achieve and maintain the capability
to resume conducting underground tests of nuclear weapons
within one year after a decision is made to resume conducting
such tests, so as to have the means to maintain robust and
adaptive strategic forces through a ready, responsive, and
capable nuclear infrastructure, as prescribed in such Nuclear
Posture Review.
(5) Develop a plan to revitalize the Nation's nuclear
weapons industry and infrastructure so as to facilitate the
development and production of safer, more reliable, and more
effective nuclear weapons.
SEC. 1022. TIME FOR TRANSMITTAL OF ANNUAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL.
(a) In General.--Chapter 2 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 113 the following new
section:
``Sec. 113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization
request
``(a) Time for Transmittal.--The Secretary of Defense shall
transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request
for a fiscal year during the first 30 days after the date on
which the President transmits to Congress the budget for that
fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31.
``(b) Defense Authorization Request Defined.--In this
section, the term `defense authorization request', with
respect to a fiscal year, means a legislative proposal
submitted to Congress for the enactment of the following:
``(1) Authorizations of appropriations for that fiscal
year, as required by section 114 of this title.
``(2) Personnel strengths for that fiscal year, as required
by section 115 of this title.
``(3) Any other matter that is proposed by the Secretary of
Defense to be enacted as part of the annual defense
authorization bill for that fiscal year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 113 the following new item:
``113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request.''.
SEC. 1023. TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Title 10, United States Code.--Title 10, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 153 is amended by inserting ``(a) Planning;
Advice; Policy Formulation.--'' at the beginning of the text.
(2) Section 663(e)(2) is amended by striking ``Armed Forces
Staff College'' and inserting ``Joint Forces Staff College''.
(3) Section 2399(a)(2) is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``means--'' and inserting ``means a conventional weapons
system that--''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a conventional
weapons system that''.
(4)(A) Section 2410h is transferred to the end of
subchapter IV of chapter 87 and is redesignated as section
1747.
(B) The item relating to that section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 141 is transferred to
the end of the table of sections at the beginning of
subchapter IV of chapter 87 and is amended to reflect the
redesignation made by subparagraph (A).
(5) Section 2677 is amended by striking subsection (c).
(6) Section 2680(e) is amended by striking ``the'' after
``the Committee on'' the first place it appears.
(7) Section 2815(b) is amended by striking ``for fiscal
year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter'' and inserting
``for any fiscal year''.
(8) Section 2828(b)(2) is amended by inserting ``time''
after ``from time to''.
[[Page H2308]]
(b) Title 37, United States Code.--Title 37, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 302j(a) is amended by striking ``subsection
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(2) Section 324(b) is amended by striking ``(1)'' before
``The Secretary''.
(c) Public Law 107-107.--Effective as of December 28, 2001,
and as if included therein as enacted, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
is amended as follows:
(1) Section 602(a)(2) (115 Stat. 1132) is amended by
striking ``an'' in the first quoted matter.
(2) Section 1410(a)(3)(C) (115 Stat. 1266) by inserting
``both places it appears'' before ``and inserting''.
(3) Section 3007(d)(1)(C) (115 Stat. 1352) is amended by
striking ``2905(b)(7)(B)(iv)'' and inserting
``2905(b)(7)(C)(iv)''.
(d) Public Law 106-398.--Effective as of October 30, 2000,
and as if included therein as enacted, the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398) is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 577(b)(2) (114 Stat. 1654A-140) is amended by
striking ``Federal'' in the quoted matter and inserting
``Department of Defense''.
(2) Section 612(c)(4)(B) (114 Stat. 1654A-150) is amended
by striking the comma at the end of the first quoted matter.
(e) Public Law 106-65.--The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 573(b) (10 U.S.C. 513 note) is amended by
inserting a period at the end of paragraph (2).
(2) Section 1305(6) (22 U.S.C. 5952 note) is amended by
striking the first period after ``facility''.
(f) Title 14, United States Code.--Section 516(c) of title
14, United States Code, is amended by striking ``his
section'' and inserting ``this section''.
SEC. 1024. WAR RISK INSURANCE FOR VESSELS IN SUPPORT OF NATO-
APPROVED OPERATIONS.
Section 1205 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1285) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Insurance of Vessels in Support of NATO-Approved
Operations.--(1) Upon request made under subsection (b), the
Secretary may provide insurance for a vessel, regardless of
the country in which the vessel is registered and the
citizenship of its owners, that is supporting a military
operation approved by the North Atlantic Council, including a
vessel that is not operating under contract with a department
or agency of the United States.
``(2) If a vessel is insured under paragraph (1) in
response to a request made pursuant to an international
agreement providing for the sharing among nations of the
risks involved in mutual or joint operations, the Secretary
of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, may seek from another nation that is a party to such
agreement a commitment to indemnify the United States for any
amounts paid by the United States for claims against such
insurance.
``(3) Amounts received by the United States as indemnity
from a nation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be deposited
into the insurance fund created under section 1208.
``(4) Any obligation of a department or agency of the
United States to indemnify the Secretary or the insurance
fund for any claim against insurance provided under this
subsection is extinguished to the extent of any
indemnification received from a nation pursuant to paragraph
(2) with respect to the claim.''.
SEC. 1025. CONVEYANCE, NAVY DRYDOCK, PORTLAND, OREGON.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
sell Navy Drydock No. YFD-69, located in Portland, Oregon, to
Portland Shipyard, LLC, which is the current user of the
drydock.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
purchaser agree to retain the drydock on Swan Island in
Portland, Oregon, until at least September 30, 2007.
(c) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance of
the drydock under subsection (a), the purchaser shall pay to
the Secretary an amount equal to the fair market value of the
drydock at the time of the conveyance, as determined by the
Secretary.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 1026. ADDITIONAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL
SUPPORT TEAMS.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should--
(1) establish 23 additional teams designated as Weapons of
Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (for a total of 55 such
teams); and
(2) ensure that of such 55 teams there is at least one team
established for each State and territory.
(b) State and Territory Defined.--In this section, the term
``State and territory'' means the several States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
SEC. 1101. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND EMPLOYEES FOR LONG-TERM
CARE INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 9001(1) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the comma at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality
of the Department of Defense described in section 2105(c),''.
(b) Discretionary Authority.--Section 9002 of such title is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Discretionary Authority Regarding Nonappropriated
Fund Instrumentalities.--The Secretary of Defense may
determine that a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the
Department of Defense is covered under this chapter or is
covered under an alternative long-term care insurance
program.''.
SEC. 1102. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE LUMP-SUM SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 5595(i)(4) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2006''.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to Congress
a report including recommendations whether the authority
under section 5595(i) of title 5, United States Code, should
be made permanent or expanded to be made Governmentwide.
SEC. 1103. COMMON OCCUPATIONAL AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR
DIFFERENTIAL PAYMENTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF
EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS.
(a) Prevailing Rate Systems.--Section 5343(c)(4) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the
semicolon at the end the following: ``, and for any hardship
or hazard related to asbestos, such differentials shall be
determined by applying occupational safety and health
standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit
promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970''.
(b) General Schedule Pay Rates.--Section 5545(d) of such
title is amended by inserting before the period at the end of
the first sentence the following: ``, and for any hardship or
hazard related to asbestos, such differentials shall be
determined by applying occupational safety and health
standards consistent with the permissible exposure limit
promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970''.
(c) Applicability.--Subject to any vested constitutional
property rights, any administrative or judicial determination
after the date of enactment of this Act concerning backpay
for a differential established under sections 5343(c)(4) or
5545(d) of such title shall be based on occupational safety
and health standards described in the amendments made by
subsections (a) and (b).
SEC. 1104. CONTINUATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
Paragraph (4)(B) of section 8905a(d) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2006''; and
(2) in clause (ii)--
(A) by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2007''; and
(B) by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2006''.
SEC. 1105. TRIENNIAL FULL-SCALE FEDERAL WAGE SYSTEM WAGE
SURVEYS.
Section 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``2 years'' and
inserting ``3 years''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``, based on criteria developed by the
Office.''.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
SEC. 1201. SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS-SPONSORED EFFORTS TO
INSPECT AND MONITOR IRAQI WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.
(a) Limitation on Amount of Assistance in Fiscal Year
2003.--The total amount of the assistance for fiscal year
2003 that is provided by the Secretary of Defense under
section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act
of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) as activities of the Department of
Defense in support of activities under that Act may not
exceed $15,000,000.
(b) Extension of Authority To Provide Assistance.--
Subsection (f) of section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a) is amended
by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2003''.
SEC. 1202. STRENGTHENING THE DEFENSE OF TAIWAN.
(a) Implementation of Training Plan.--Not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Defense shall implement a comprehensive plan to conduct
joint operational training for, and exchanges of senior
officers between, the Armed Forces of the United States and
the military forces of Taiwan. Such plan shall include
implementation of a wide range of programs, activities,
exercises, and arrangements focused on threat analysis,
military doctrine, force planning, logistical support,
intelligence collection and analysis, operational tactics,
techniques, and procedures, civil-military relations, and
other subjects designed to improve the defensive capabilities
of Taiwan and to enhance interoperability between the
military forces of Taiwan and the Armed Forces of the United
States.
(b) Submission to Congress.--At least 30 days before
commencing implementation of the plan described in subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan to
Congress, in classified and unclassified form as necessary.
SEC. 1203. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT FOR FOREIGN
LIAISON OFFICERS.
(a) Authority.--Subchapter II of chapter 138 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
[[Page H2309]]
``Sec. 2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign
liaison officers
``(a) Authority To Provide Services and Support.--The
Secretary of Defense may provide administrative services and
support for foreign liaison officers performing duties while
such officers temporarily are assigned to components or
commands of the armed forces. Such administrative services
and support may include base or installation operation
support services, office space, utilities, copying services,
fire and police protection, and computer support. The
Secretary may provide such administrative services and
support with or without reimbursement, as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
``(b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall expire on September 30, 2005.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison
officers.''.
(c) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2005, the Secretary of
Defense shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report
describing, as of the date of submission of the report--
(1) the number of foreign liaison officers for which
support has been provided under section 2350m of title 10,
United States Code (as added by subsection (a));
(2) the countries from which such foreign liaison officers
are or were assigned;
(3) the type of support provided, the duration for which
the support was provided, and the reasons the support was
provided; and
(4) the costs to the Department of Defense and the United
States of providing such support.
SEC. 1204. ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES COVERED BY LOAN GUARANTEE
PROGRAM.
Section 2540 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) A country that, as determined by the Secretary of
Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State, assists
in combatting drug trafficking organizations or foreign
terrorist organizations.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Report.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of State, whenever the Secretaries consider such action to be
warranted, shall jointly submit to the Committees on Armed
Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committees on Armed Services and International Relations of
the House of Representatives a report enumerating those
countries to be added or removed under subsection (b).''.
SEC. 1205. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR JOINT DATA EXCHANGE
CENTER IN MOSCOW.
(a) Limitation.--Not more than 50 percent of the funds made
available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003
for activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center
in Moscow, Russia, may be obligated or expended for any such
activity until--
(1) the United States and the Russian Federation enter into
a cost-sharing agreement as described in subsection (d) of
section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-329);
(2) the United States and the Russian Federation enter into
an agreement or agreements exempting the United States and
any United States person from Russian taxes, and from
liability under Russian laws, with respect to activities
associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center;
(3) the Secretary of Defense submits to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives a copy of each
agreement referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2); and
(4) a period of 30 days has expired after the date of the
final submission under paragraph (3).
(b) Joint Data Exchange Center.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``Joint Data Exchange Center'' means the
United States-Russian Federation joint center for the
exchange of data to provide early warning of launches of
ballistic missiles and for notification of such launches that
is provided for in a joint United States-Russian Federation
memorandum of agreement signed in Moscow in June 2000.
SEC. 1206. LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN
COLOMBIA.
(a) Limitation.--None of the funds available to the
Department of Defense may be used to support or maintain more
than 500 members of the Armed Forces on duty in the Republic
of Colombia at any time.
(b) Exceptions.--There shall be excluded from counting for
the purposes of the limitation in subsection (a) the
following:
(1) A member of the Armed Forces in the Republic of
Colombia for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving United
States military or civilian Government personnel, except that
the period for which such a member may be so excluded may not
exceed 30 days unless expressly authorized by law.
(2) A member of the Armed Forces assigned to the United
States Embassy in Colombia as an attache, as a member of the
security assistance office, or as a member of the Marine
Corps security contingent.
(3) A member of the Armed Forces in Colombia to participate
in relief efforts in responding to a natural disaster.
(4) Nonoperational transient military personnel.
(5) A member of the Armed Forces making a port call from a
military vessel in Colombia.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
limitation in subsection (a) if he determines that such
waiver is in the national security interest.
(d) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify the
congressional defense committees not later 15 days after the
date of the exercise of the waiver authority under subsection
(c).
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
SEC. 1301. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS AND FUNDS.
(a) Specification of CTR Programs.--For purposes of section
301 and other provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs are the programs specified in section
1501(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2731; 50 U.S.C. 2362
note).
(b) Fiscal Year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
Defined.--As used in this title, the term ``fiscal year 2003
Cooperative Threat Reduction funds'' means the funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in section 301 for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs shall be available for
obligation for three fiscal years.
SEC. 1302. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.
(a) Funding for Specific Purposes.--Of the $416,700,000
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 2003 in section 301(23) for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs, the following amounts may be
obligated for the purposes specified:
(1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia,
$70,500,000.
(2) For strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine,
$6,500,000.
(3) For nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia,
$19,700,000.
(4) For nuclear weapons storage security in Russia,
$39,900,000.
(5) For activities designated as Other Assessments/
Administrative Support, $14,700,000.
(6) For defense and military contacts, $18,900,000.
(7) For weapons of mass destruction infrastructure
elimination activities in Kazakhstan, $9,000,000.
(8) For weapons of mass destruction infrastructure
elimination activities in Ukraine, $8,800,000.
(9) For chemical weapons destruction in Russia,
$50,000,000.
(10) For biological weapons facility dismantlement in the
States of the former Soviet Union $11,500,000.
(11) For biological weapons facility security and safety in
the States of the former Soviet Union, $34,800,000.-
(12) For biological weapons collaborative research in the
States of the former Soviet Union, $8,700,000.
(13) For personnel reliability programs in Russia,
$100,000.
(14) For weapons of mass destruction proliferation
prevention in the States of the former Soviet Union,
$40,000,000.
(b) Additional Funds Authorized for Certain Purposes.--Of
the funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2003 in section 301(23) for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs, $83,600,000 may be
obligated for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (1)
through (4) and (9) of subsection (a) in addition to the
amounts specifically authorized in such paragraphs.
(c) Report on Obligation or Expenditure of Funds for Other
Purposes.--No fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds may be obligated or expended for a purpose other than a
purpose listed in paragraphs (1) through (14) of subsection
(a) until 30 days after the date that the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress a report on the purpose for which
the funds will be obligated or expended and the amount of
funds to be obligated or expended. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed as authorizing the obligation or
expenditure of fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds for a purpose for which the obligation or expenditure
of such funds is specifically prohibited under this title or
any other provision of law.
(d) Limited Authority To Vary Individual Amounts.--(1)
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in any case in which the
Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to do so
in the national interest, the Secretary may obligate amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for a purpose listed in any
of the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the amount
specifically authorized for such purpose (including amounts
authorized under subsection (b)).
(2) An obligation of funds for a purpose stated in any of
the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the specific
amount authorized for such purpose may be made using the
authority provided in paragraph (1) only after--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notification of the
intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the
justification for doing so; and
(B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
(3) The Secretary may not, under the authority provided in
paragraph (1), obligate amounts for the purposes stated any
of paragraphs (5) through (13) of subsection (a) in excess of
115 percent of the amount specifically authorized for such
purposes.
SEC. 1303. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION
OF REPORTS.
No fiscal year 2003 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended until 30 days after the date of the
submission of--
[[Page H2310]]
(1) the report required to be submitted in fiscal year 2002
under section 1308(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-341); and
(2) the update for the multiyear plan required to be
submitted for fiscal year 2001 under section 1205 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 22 U.S.C. 5952 note).
SEC. 1304. REPORT ON USE OF REVENUE GENERATED BY ACTIVITIES
CARRIED OUT UNDER COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.
Section 1308(c) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-341) is amended by
inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) To the maximum extent practicable, a description of
how revenue generated by activities carried out under
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in recipient States is
being utilized, monitored, and accounted for.''.
SEC. 1305. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS FOR SECOND WING
OF FISSILE MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITY.
No funds authorized to be appropriated for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs for any fiscal year may be used for
the design, planning, or construction of a second wing for a
storage facility for Russian fissile material.
SEC. 1306. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORT REQUIREMENT REGARDING
RUSSIAN PROLIFERATION TO IRAN.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Russian proliferation to Iran constitutes a clear
threat to the national security and vital interests of the
United States and undermines the purpose and goals of
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs;
(2) such proliferation consists primarily of nuclear and
missile technology, goods, and know-how, and dual-use items
that could contribute to the development of weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missiles;
(3) because of ongoing Russian assistance, the intelligence
community estimates that Iran could attempt to launch an
intercontinental ballistic missile by 2005, and could possess
a nuclear weapon by 2010;
(4) Russian proliferation is providing Iran with the
capability to strike United States military forces,
interests, allies, and friends in the region with weapons-of-
mass-destruction-tipped ballistic missiles;
(5) the issue of Russian proliferation to Iran has been
raised by United States officials at the highest levels of
the Russian Government;
(6) Iran has long been identified as a State sponsor of
terrorism by the United States because of its support of
foreign terrorist organizations, and the combination of
terrorist organizations and weapons of mass destruction
constitutes a grave threat to the national security of the
United States;
(7) Russian proliferation to Iran raises serious questions
regarding the intentions of the Russian Government, and its
commitment to nonproliferation and improved relations with
the United States;
(8) Russian proliferation to Iran could undermine
Congressional support for Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs; and
(9) the President must safeguard United States national
security and demonstrate United States resolve and commitment
to stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missiles through clear, firm, and coherent
policies and strategies that employ the full range of
diplomatic and economic tools at his disposal, both positive
and negative, to halt the serious and continuing problem of
Russian proliferation.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 15 of 2003 through 2009,
the President shall submit to Congress a report (in
unclassified and classified form as necessary) describing in
detail Russian proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and ballistic missile goods, technology, and know-how, and of
dual-use items that may contribute to the development of
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, to Iran
and to other countries during the year preceding the year in
which the report is submitted. The report shall include--
(1) a net assessment prepared by the Office of Net
Assessment of the Department of Defense; and
(2) a detailed description of the following:
(A) The number, type, and quality of direct and dual-use
weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile goods,
items, and technology being transferred.
(B) The form, location, and manner in which such transfers
take place.
(C) The contribution that such transfers could make to the
recipient States' weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missile programs, and how soon such States will test,
possess, and deploy weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles.
(D) The impact that such transfers have, or could have, on
United States national security, on regional friends, allies,
and interests, and on United States military forces deployed
in the region to which such transfers are being made.
(E) The actions being taken by the United States to counter
and defend against capabilities developed by the recipient
States as a result of such transfers.
(F) The strategy, plan, or policy incorporating the full
range of policy tools available that the President intends to
employ to halt Russian proliferation, the rationale for
employing such tools, and the timeline by which the President
expects to see material progress in ending Russian
proliferation of direct and dual-use weapons of mass
destruction and missile goods, technologies, and know-how.
SEC. 1307. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF COOPERATIVE THREAT
REDUCTION FUNDS OUTSIDE THE STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION.
No Cooperative Threat Reduction funds authorized or
appropriated for any fiscal year may be used for threat
reduction projects, programs, or activities in countries
other than the States of the former Soviet Union.
SEC. 1308. LIMITED WAIVER OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Waiver Authority.--(1) The restriction described in
subsection (d)(5) of section 1203 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160;
107 Stat. 1779; 22 U.S.C. 5952) shall not apply with respect
to United States assistance to Russia if the President
submits to Congress a written certification that waiving the
restriction is important to the national security interests
of the United States.
(2) The authority under paragraph (1) shall expire on
December 31, 2005.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date that the
President applies the waiver authority under subsection (a),
the President shall submit to Congress a report (in
classified and unclassified form as necessary) describing--
(1) the arms control agreements with which Russia is not
committed to complying, the form or forms of noncommittal,
and detailed evidence of such noncommittal;
(2) why use of the waiver of authority was important to
protect national security interests; and
(3) a strategy, plan, or policy incorporating the full
range of policy tools available to the President for
promoting Russian commitment to, and compliance with, all
relevant arms control agreements.
SEC. 1309. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF
REPORT ON DEFENSE AND MILITARY CONTACTS
ACTIVITIES.
Not more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2003 Cooperative
Threat Reduction Funds may be obligated or expended for
defense and military contacts activities until the Secretary
of Defense submits to Congress a report describing in detail
the operation and success of such activities carried out
under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs during fiscal
years 2001 and 2002. Such report shall include a description
of--
(1) the amounts obligated or expended for such activities;
(2) the purposes, goals, and objectives for which such
amounts were obligated and expended;
(3) a description of the activities carried out, including
the forms of assistance provided, and the justification for
each form of assistance provided;
(4) the success of each activity, including the goals and
objectives achieved for each;
(5) a description of participation by private sector
entities in the United States in carrying out such
activities, and the participation of any other Federal
department or agency in such activities; and
(6) any other information that the Secretary considers
relevant to provide a complete description of the operation
and success of activities carried out under Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs.
TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE
SEC. 1401. DEFINITION OF UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE.
In this title, the term ``Utah Test and Training Range''
means those portions of the military operating area of the
Utah Test and Training Area located solely in the State of
Utah. The term includes the Dugway Proving Ground.
SEC. 1402. MILITARY OPERATIONS AND OVERFLIGHTS AT UTAH TEST
AND TRAINING RANGE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The testing and development of military weapons systems
and the training of military forces are critical to ensuring
the national security of the United States.
(2) The Utah Test and Training Range is a unique and
irreplaceable national asset at the core of the test and
training mission of the Department of Defense.
(3) Areas designated as wilderness study areas are located
near lands withdrawn for military use and are beneath special
use airspace critical to the support of military test and
training missions at the Utah Test and Training Range.
(4) Continued unrestricted access to the special use
airspace and lands that comprise the Utah Test and Training
Range is a national security priority and is not incompatible
with the protection and proper management of the natural,
environmental, cultural, and other resources of such lands.
(b) Overflights.--(1) Nothing in this title, the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), or other land management laws
generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas
or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range
shall restrict or preclude low-level overflights, low-level
military overflights and operations of military aircraft,
helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, military overflights
or military overflights and operations that can be seen or
heard within those areas.
(2) Paragraph (1) precludes any restriction regarding
altitude or airspeed, noise level, supersonic flight, route
of flight, time of flight, seasonal usage, or numbers of
flights of any military aircraft, helicopters, unmanned
aerial vehicles, missiles, aerospace vehicles, and other
military weapons systems over federally designated wilderness
areas or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training
Range.
(3) In this subsection, the term ``low-level'' includes any
flight down to and including 10 feet above ground level.
(c) Special Use Airspace and Training Routes.--Nothing in
this title, the Wilderness
[[Page H2311]]
Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to
federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study
areas in the Utah Test and Training Range shall restrict or
preclude the designation of new units of special use
airspace, the expansion of existing units of special use
airspace, or the use or establishment of military training
routes over federally designated wilderness areas or
wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range.
(d) Communications and Tracking Systems.--Nothing in this
title, the Wilderness Act, or other land management laws
generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas
or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range
shall be construed to require the removal of existing
communications, instrumentation, or electronic tracking
systems from these areas, to prevent any required maintenance
of such systems, or to prevent the installation of new
communication, instrumentation, or other equipment necessary
for effective testing and training to meet military
requirements so long as the installation and maintenance of
such systems do not require construction of any permanent
roads in any federally designated wilderness area or
wilderness study area.
(e) Emergency Access and Response.--(1) Nothing in this
title, the Wilderness Act, or other land management laws
generally applicable to federally designated wilderness areas
or wilderness study areas in the Utah Test and Training Range
shall restrict or preclude timely access to any area
necessary to respond to emergency situations. Immediate
access, including access for emergency and rescue vehicles
and equipment, shall not be restricted if human life or
health may be in jeopardy.
(2) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary
of Interior shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
providing formal procedures for access to the federally
designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas that
are located beneath airspace of the Utah Test and Training
Range, which may be necessary to respond to emergency
situations, to rescue downed aircrew members, to investigate
accident locations, to recover military aircraft or other
weapons systems, and to restore accident locations. Military
operations in the Utah Test and Training Range shall not be
limited or restricted in any way pending completion of the
memorandum of understanding.
(f) Control or Restriction of Public Access.--(1) When
required by national security or public safety, public access
to federally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study
areas in the Utah Test and Training Range that are located
beneath airspace designated as special use airspace may be
controlled, restricted, or prohibited entirely. Such
controls, restrictions, or prohibitions shall remain in force
for the minimum duration necessary. The Secretary of the Air
Force shall provide advance notice of such controls,
restrictions, or prohibitions to the Secretary of the
Interior.
(2) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary
of Interior shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
prescribing procedures for implementing access controls,
restrictions, or prohibitions. Military operations in the
Utah Test and Training Range shall not be limited or
restricted in any way pending completion of the memorandum of
understanding.
SEC. 1403. DESIGNATION AND MANAGEMENT OF LANDS IN UTAH TEST
AND TRAINING RANGE.
(a) Designation.--The following Federal lands that are in
the Utah Test and Training Range are hereby designated as
wilderness:
(1) Those lands that were managed pursuant to the
nonimpairment standard set forth in section 603(c) of Public
Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) on or before January 1, 1991.
(2) Those lands that were acquired by the United States
through donation, exchange, or other method of acquisition
and--
(A) are located entirely within the areas identified in
paragraph (1); or
(B) are located within a logical extension of the
boundaries of the areas identified in paragraph (1).
(b) Planning Process for Federal Lands in Utah Test and
Training Range.--(1) The Secretary of the Interior shall not
continue the plan amendment process initiated pursuant to
section 202 of Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1712) and
published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1999 (64 Fed.
Reg. 13439), for Federal lands located in the Utah Test and
Training Range.
(2) The Secretary of the Interior shall not develop,
maintain, or revise land use plans pursuant to section 202 of
Public Law 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1712) for Federal lands located
in the Utah Test and Training Range without the prior
concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State of
Utah.
(c) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Federal lands in the areas designated as wilderness by this
title are hereby withdrawn from all forms of entry,
appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, from
location, entry, and patent under the United States mining
laws, and from disposition under all laws pertaining to
mineral and geothermal leasing, and mineral materials, and
all amendments to such laws.
(d) Water.--Nothing in this title or any action taken
pursuant to this title shall constitute an express or implied
reservation of surface or groundwater by any person,
including the United States. Nothing in this title affects
any valid existing water rights in existence before the date
of the enactment of this Act, including any water rights held
by the United States. If the United States determines that
additional water resources are needed for the purposes of
this title, the United States shall acquire such rights in
accordance with the water laws of the State of Utah.
(e) Map and Description.--(1) As soon as practicable after
the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary of
Interior shall transmit a map and legal description of the
areas designated as wilderness by this title to the Committee
on Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
(2) The map and legal description shall have the same force
and effect as if included in this title, except that the
Secretary of Interior may correct clerical and typographical
errors in the map and legal description.
(3) The map and legal description shall be on file and
available for public inspection in the office of the Director
of the Bureau of Land Management and the office of the State
Director of the Bureau of Land Management in the State of
Utah.
(f) Administration.--(1) Subject to valid existing rights
and this title, the areas designated as wilderness in this
title shall be administered by the Secretary of Interior in
accordance with the provisions of the Wilderness Act, except
that any reference in such provisions to the effective date
of the Wilderness Act (or any similar reference) shall be
deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Any lands or interest in lands within the boundaries of
an area designated as wilderness by this title that is
acquired by the United States after the date of the enactment
of this Act shall be added to and administered as part of the
wilderness area within which the acquired lands or interest
in lands are located.
(3) The Secretary of the Interior may offer to acquire
lands and interest in lands located within the areas
designated as wilderness by this title. Such lands may be
acquired at fair market value under this subsection by
purchase from willing sellers, by exchange for lands of
approximately equal value, or by donation.
(4) In furtherance of the purposes and principles of the
Wilderness Act, management activities to maintain or restore
fish and wildlife populations and the habitats to support
such populations may be carried out within the areas
designated as wilderness by this title where consistent with
relevant wilderness management plans, in accordance with
appropriate policies and guidelines such as those set forth
in appendix B of the Report of the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs to accompany H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress
(H. Rept. 101-405).
(5) Within the areas designated as wilderness by this
title, the grazing of livestock, where established before the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to
continue subject to such reasonable regulations, policies,
and practices as the Secretary of the Interior considers
necessary, as long as such regulations, policies, and
practices fully conform with and implement the intent of
Congress regarding grazing in such areas, as such intent is
expressed in the Wilderness Act, section 101(f) of Public Law
101-628, and House Report 101-405, Appendix A.
(6) Congress does not intend for the designation of the
wilderness in this title to lead to the creation of
protective perimeters or buffer zones around any area
designated as wilderness by this title. The fact that
nonwilderness activities or uses can be seen or heard within
the areas designated as wilderness by this title shall not,
of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the
boundary of that wilderness.
(7) Until completion of a full revision of the Pony Express
Area Resource Management Plan, dated January 12, 1990, by the
Salt Lake Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management, the
Secretary of Interior shall not grant or issue any
authorizations pursuant to section 501(a)(6) of Public Law
94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1761(a)(6)) upon Federal lands identified
as inventory units UTU-020-088, UTU-020-095, UTU-020-096, and
UTU-020-100, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Wilderness Inventory, State of Utah'', dated August 1979.
SEC. 1404. DESIGNATION OF PILOT RANGE WILDERNESS.
Certain Federal lands in Box Elder County, Utah, as
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Pilot Range
Wilderness'', and dated October 1, 2001, are hereby
designated as wilderness, and shall be known as the Pilot
Range Wilderness Area.
SEC. 1405. DESIGNATION OF CEDAR MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS.
Certain Federal lands in Tooele County, Utah, as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Cedar Mountain Wilderness'',
and dated May 1, 2002, are hereby designated as wilderness,
and shall be known as the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
[[Page H2312]]
Army: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... Anniston Army Depot........................ $1,900,000
Fort Rucker................................ $3,050,000
Redstone Arsenal........................... $1,950,000
Alaska.......................................... Fort Wainwright............................ $111,010,000
Arizona......................................... Fort Huachuca.............................. $10,400,000
Yuma Proving Ground........................ $4,500,000
Arkansas........................................ Pine Bluff Arsenal......................... $18,937,000
California...................................... Monterey Defense Language Institute........ $1,500,000
Colorado........................................ Fort Carson................................ $5,350,000
District of Columbia............................ Walter Reed Army Medical Center............ $9,950,000
Georgia......................................... Fort Benning............................... $74,250,000
Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Air Field......... $26,000,000
Hawaii.......................................... Schofield Barracks......................... $191,000,000
Kansas.......................................... Fort Leavenworth........................... $3,150,000
Fort Riley................................. $51,950,000
Kentucky........................................ Blue Grass Army Depot...................... $5,500,000
Fort Campbell.............................. $106,300,000
Louisiana....................................... Fort Polk.................................. $31,000,000
Maryland........................................ Fort Detrick............................... $22,500,000
Massachusetts................................... Natick Research Development and Engineering $4,100,000
Center....................................
Missouri........................................ Fort Leonard Wood.......................... $15,500,000
New Jersey...................................... Picatinny Arsenal.......................... $7,500,000
New York........................................ Fort Drum.................................. $18,300,000
North Carolina.................................. Fort Bragg................................. $94,900,000
Pennsylvania.................................... Letterkenny Army Depot..................... $1,550,000
Texas........................................... Fort Bliss................................. $10,200,000
Fort Hood.................................. $85,000,000
Virginia........................................ Fort Lee................................... $5,200,000
Washington...................................... Fort Lewis................................. $53,800,000
------------------
Total.................................... $976,247,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Army: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belgium........................ Supreme Headquarters, $13,600,000
Allied Powers Europe..
Germany........................ Area Support Group, $17,200,000
Bamberg.
Campbell Barracks...... $8,300,000
Coleman Barracks....... $1,350,000
Darmstadt.............. $3,500,000
Grafenwoehr............ $69,866,000
Landstuhl.............. $2,400,000
Mannheim............... $42,000,000
Schweinfurt............ $2,000,000
Italy.......................... Vicenza................ $34,700,000
Korea.......................... Camp Carroll........... $20,000,000
Camp Castle............ $6,800,000
Camp Hovey............. $25,000,000
Camp Humphreys......... $36,000,000
Camp Henry............. $10,000,000
K16 Airfield........... $40,000,000
Yongsan................ $12,600,000
---------------
Total.................. $345,316,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Unspecified Worldwide.--Using the amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(3), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installation and location, and in the amount, set forth in
the following table:
Army: Unspecified Worldwide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unspecified Worldwide.......... Unspecified Worldwide.. $4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2102. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Army may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations,
for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the
following table:
Army: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or Country Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska................................ Fort Wainwright.......... 38 Units..................... $17,752,000
Arizona............................... Yuma Proving Ground...... 33 Units..................... $6,100,000
Germany............................... Stuttgart................ 1 Unit....................... $990,000
Korea................................. Yongsan.................. 10 Units..................... $3,100,000
---------------
[[Page H2313]]
Total:................. $27,942,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Army may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of family housing units in an amount not to
exceed $15,653,000.
SEC. 2103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2104(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of
the Army may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $234,831,000.
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Army in the total amount of $2,935,609,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2101(a), $803,247,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2101(b), $345,316,000.
(3) For military construction projects at unspecified
worldwide locations authorized by section 2101(c),
$4,000,000.
(4) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $21,550,000.
(5) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $158,796,000.
(6) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$278,426,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including the
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $1,122,274,000.
(7) For the construction of phase 3 of a barracks complex,
Butner Road, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, authorized by
section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, as
enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-389),
$50,000,000.
(8) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex,
D Street, at Fort Richardson, Alaska, authorized by section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat.
1280), $21,000,000.
(9) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex,
Nelson Boulevard, at Fort Carson, Colorado, authorized by
section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1280), as amended by section 2105 of this Act,
$42,000,000.
(10) For the construction of phase 2 of a basic combat
trainee complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, authorized
by section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1280), as amended by section 2105 of this Act,
$39,000,000.
(11) For the construction of phase 2 of a barracks complex,
17th and B Streets at Fort Lewis, Washington, authorized by
section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1280), $50,000,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a);
(2) $18,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex, Main
Post, at Fort Benning, Georgia);
(3) $100,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized
under section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex,
Capron Avenue, at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii);
(4) $50,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for construction of a barracks complex, Range
Road, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky); and
(5) $5,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for a military construction project at Fort
Bliss, Texas).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (11) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $13,676,000,
which represents the combination of savings resulting from
adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military
construction, military family housing construction, and
military family housing support outside the United States and
savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2105. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROJECTS.
(a) Modification.--The table in section 2101(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1281) is
amended--
(1) in the item relating to Fort Carson, Colorado, by
striking ``$66,000,000'' in the amount column and inserting
``$67,000,000''; and
(2) in the item relating to Fort Jackson, South Carolina,
by striking ``$65,650,000'' in the amount column and
inserting ``$68,650,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2104(b) of that Act
(115 Stat. 1284) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$41,000,000'' and
inserting ``$42,000,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``$36,000,000'' and
inserting ``$39,000,000''.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona........................ Marine Corps Air $3,000,000
Station, Yuma.
California..................... Auxiliary Landing $6,150,000
Field, San Diego (San
Clemente Island).....
Marine Corps Air- $40,870,000
Ground Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms.....
Marine Corps Air $31,930,000
Station, Camp
Pendleton............
Marine Corps Air $12,210,000
Station, Miramar.....
Marine Corps Base, $64,040,000
Camp Pendleton.......
Marine Corps Logistics $4,450,000
Base, Barstow........
Naval Air Station, $35,855,000
Lemoore.
Naval Air Warfare $6,760,000
Center, Point Mugu,
San Nicholas Island..
Naval Air Weapons $10,100,000
Station, China Lake..
Naval Post Graduate $9,020,000
School, Monterey.....
Naval Station, San $12,210,000
Diego................
Connecticut.................... Naval Submarine Base, $7,880,000
New London...........
District of Columbia........... Marine Corps Barracks. $3,700,000
Naval District, $2,690,000
Washington.
Florida........................ Naval Air Base, $13,342,000
Jacksonville.
Naval Air Station, $990,000
Pensacola.
Naval School Explosive $6,350,000
Ordinance Detachment,
Eglin................
Naval Station, Mayport $1,900,000
[[Page H2314]]
Whiting Field........ $1,780,000
Georgia........................ Naval Submarine Base, $1,580,000
Kings Bay.
Hawaii......................... Naval Shipyard, Pearl $18,500,000
Harbor.
Naval Station, Pearl $14,690,000
Harbor.
Illinois....................... Naval Training Center, $93,190,000
Great Lakes.
Indiana........................ Crane Naval Surface $11,610,000
Weapons Station......
Maine.......................... Naval Shipyard, $15,200,000
Kittery-Portsmouth.
Maryland....................... Naval Air Facility, $9,680,000
Andrews Air Force
Base.................
United States Naval $1,800,000
Academy.
Mississippi.................... Naval Air Station, $2,850,000
Meridian.
Naval Construction $5,460,000
Battalion Center,
Gulfport.............
Naval Station, $16,160,000
Pascagoula.
Nevada......................... Naval Air Station, $4,010,000
Fallon.
New Jersey..................... Naval Weapons Center, $5,200,000
Lakehurst.
Naval Weapons Station $5,600,000
Earle, Colts Neck....
North Carolina................. Marine Corps Air $10,470,000
Station, Cherry Point.
Marine Corps Air $6,920,000
Station, New River.
Marine Corps Base, $9,570,000
Camp Lejeune.
Rhode Island................... Naval Station, Newport $6,870,000
South Carolina................. Marine Corps Air $13,700,000
Station, Beaufort....
Marine Corps Recruit $10,490,000
Depot, Parris Island.
Naval Weapons Station, $5,740,000
Charlestown..........
Texas.......................... Naval Air Station, $7,150,000
Corpus Christi.
Naval Air Station $8,850,000
Joint Reserve Base,
Fort Worth...........
Naval Air Station, $6,210,000
Kingsville.
Virginia....................... Dam Neck Fleet Combat $3,900,000
Training Center,
Atlantic.............
Little Creek Naval $9,770,000
Amphibious Base.
Marine Corps Combat $24,864,000
Development Command,
Quantico.............
Naval Air Station $16,490,000
Oceana.
Naval Shipyard, $19,660,000
Norfolk, Portsmouth.
Naval Station, Norfolk $171,505,000
Naval Surface Warfare $15,830,000
Center, Dahlgren.....
Naval Weapons Station, $15,020,000
Yorktown.
Washington..................... Naval Air Station, $17,580,000
Whidbey Island.
Keyport Naval Undersea $10,500,000
Warfare Command......
Naval Magazine, Indian $4,030,000
Island.
Naval Station, $45,870,000
Bremerton.
Naval Submarine Base, $22,310,000
Bangor.
Puget Sound Naval $57,132,000
Shipyard, Bremerton..
Strategic Weapons $7,340,000
Facility, Bangor.
Various Locations.............. Host Nation $1,000,000
Infrastructure.
----------------
Total............... $1,009,528,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set
forth in the following table:
Navy: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahrain........................ Naval Support Activity, $25,970,000
Bahrain...............
Diego Garcia................... Diego Garcia, Naval $11,090,000
Support Facility......
Greece......................... Naval Support Activity, $14,800,000
Joint Headquarters
Command, Larissa......
Guam........................... Commander, United $13,400,000
States Naval Forces,
Guam..................
Iceland........................ Naval Air Station, $14,920,000
Keflavik.
Italy.......................... Naval Air Station, $55,660,000
Sigonella.
---------------
Total................ $135,840,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations,
for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the
following table:
Navy: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or Country Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Naval Air Station, 178 Units.................... $40,981,000
Lemoore.................
Marine Corps Air-Ground 76 Units..................... $19,425,000
Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms........
Connecticut........................... Naval Submarine Base, New 100 Units.................... $24,415,000
London..................
Florida............................... Naval Station, Mayport... 1 Unit....................... $329,000
Hawaii................................ Marine Corps Base, 65 Units..................... $24,797,000
Kaneohe Bay.............
Maine................................. Naval Air Station, 26 Units..................... $5,800,000
Brunswick...............
Mississippi........................... Naval Air Station, 56 Units..................... $9,755,000
Meridian................
North Carolina........................ Marine Corps Base, Camp 317 Units.................... $43,650,000
LeJeune.................
Virginia.............................. Marine Corps Base, 290 Units.................... $41,843,000
Quantico................
United Kingdom....................... Joint Maritime Facility, 62 Units..................... $18,524,000
St. Mawgan..............
---------------
Total...................... $229,519,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2315]]
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriation in section
2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $11,281,000.
SEC. 2203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Navy may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $136,816,000.
SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Navy in the total amount of $2,308,007,000, as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2201(a), $776,806,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2201(b), $133,270,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $23,262,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $95,745,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design,
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$377,616,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $867,788,000.
(6) For replacement of a pier at Naval Station, Norfolk,
Virginia, authorized in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division
B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1287), as amended by
section 2205 of this Act, $33,520,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $48,120,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2201(a) for a bachelors enlisted quarters shipboard
ashore, Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia); and
(3) $2,570,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2201(b) for a quality of life support facility, Naval
Air Station Sigonella, Italy).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $1,340,000, which
represents the combination of savings resulting from
adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military
construction, military family housing construction, and
military family housing support outside the United States and
savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2205. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROJECT.
(a) Modification.--The table in section 2201(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1286) is
amended--
(1) in the item relating to Naval Station, Norfolk,
Virginia, by striking ``$139,270,000'' in the amount column
and inserting ``$139,550,000''; and
(2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the
amount column and inserting ``$1,059,030,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2204(b)(2) of that Act
(115 Stat. 1289) is amended by striking ``$33,240,000'' and
inserting ``$33,520,000''.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Maxwell Air Force Base. $8,000,000
Alaska......................... Clear Air Station...... $14,400,000
Eielson Air Force Base. $21,600,000
Arizona........................ Davis-Monthan Air Force $19,270,000
Base.
Luke Air Force Base.... $13,000,000
Arkansas....................... Little Rock Air Force $25,600,000
Base.
California..................... Beale Air Force Base... $11,740,000
Travis Air Force Base.. $9,600,000
Vandenberg Air Force $10,500,000
Base.
Colorado....................... Buckley Air National $17,700,000
Guard Base.
Peterson Air Force Base $2,000,000
Schriever Air Force $5,700,000
Base.
United States Air Force $9,400,000
Academy.
District of Columbia........... Bolling Air Force Base. $1,500,000
Florida........................ Elgin Air Force Base... $4,250,000
Hurlburt Field......... $15,000,000
McDill Air Force Base.. $21,000,000
Tyndall Air Force Base. $8,100,000
Georgia........................ Robins Air Force Base.. $5,400,000
Hawaii......................... Hickam Air Force Base.. $1,350,000
Kansas......................... McConnell Air Force $7,500,000
Base.
Louisiana...................... Barksdale Air Force $10,900,000
Base.
Maryland....................... Andrews Air Force Base. $9,600,000
Massachusetts.................. Hanscom Air Force Base. $7,700,000
Mississippi.................... Keesler Air Force Base. $22,000,000
Nevada......................... Nellis Air Force Base.. $37,350,000
New Jersey..................... McGuire Air Force Base. $24,631,000
New Mexico..................... Cannon Air Force Base.. $4,650,000
Holloman Air Force Base $4,650,000
Kirtland Air Force Base $21,900,000
North Carolina................. Pope Air Force Base.... $9,700,000
Ohio........................... Wright-Patterson Air $25,000,000
Force Base.
Oklahoma....................... Tinker Air Force Base.. $7,500,000
South Carolina................. Shaw Air Force Base.... $6,800,000
Texas.......................... Lackland Air Force Base $37,300,000
Laughlin Air Force Base $8,000,000
Sheppard Air Force Base $24,000,000
Utah........................... Hill Air Force Base.... $14,500,000
Virginia....................... Langley Air Force Base. $71,940,000
---------------
Total.................. $580,731,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2316]]
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Country location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Garcia................... Diego Garcia........... $17,100,000
Germany........................ Ramstein Air Force Base $71,783,000
Guam........................... Andersen Air Force Base $31,000,000
Italy.......................... Aviano Air Force Base.. $6,600,000
Japan.......................... Kadena Air Force Base.. $6,000,000
Korea.......................... Osan Air Base.......... $15,100,000
Spain.......................... Naval Station, Rota.... $31,818,000
Turkey......................... Incirlik Air Force Base $1,550,000
United Kingdom................. Royal Air Force, $19,000,000
Fairford.
Royal Air Force, $13,400,000
Lakenheath.
Wake Island.................... Wake Island............ $24,900,000
---------------
Total................ $238,251,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Unspecified Worldwide.--Using the amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(3), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installation and location, and in the amount, set forth in
the following table:
Air Force: Unspecified Worldwide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Installation Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unspecified Worldwide.......... Classified Location.... $32,562,000
---------------
Total................ $32,562,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2302. FAMILY HOUSING.
(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition and supporting facilities) at the installations,
for the purposes, and in the amounts set forth in the
following table:
Air Force: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State or Country Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona............................... Luke Air Force Base...... 140 Units.................... $18,954,000
California............................ Travis Air Force Base.... 110 Units.................... $24,320,000
Colorado.............................. Peterson Air Force Base.. 2 Units...................... $959,000
United States Air Force 71 Units..................... $12,424,000
Academy.................
Delaware.............................. Dover Air Force Base..... 112 Units.................... $19,615,000
Florida............................... Eglin Air Force Base..... Housing Office............... $597,000
Eglin Air Force Base..... 134 Units.................... $15,906,000
MacDill Air Force Base... 96 Units..................... $18,086,000
Hawaii................................ Hickam Air Force Base.... 96 Units..................... $29,050,000
Idaho................................. Mountain Home Air Force 95 Units..................... $24,392,000
Base....................
Kansas................................ McConnell Air Force Base. Housing Maintenance Facility. $1,514,000
Maryland.............................. Andrews Air Force Base... 53 Units..................... $9,838,000
Andrews Air Force Base... 52 Units..................... $8,807,000
Mississippi........................... Columbus Air Force Base.. Housing Office............... $412,000
Keesler Air Force Base... 117 Units.................... $16,505,000
Missouri.............................. Whiteman Air Force Base.. 97 Units..................... $17,107,000
Montana............................... Malmstrom Air Force Base. 18 Units..................... $4,717,000
New Mexico............................ Holloman Air Force Base.. 101 Units.................... $20,161,000
North Carolina........................ Pope Air Force Base...... Housing Maintenance Facility. $991,000
Seymour Johnson Air Force 126 Units.................... $18,615,000
Base....................
North Dakota.......................... Grand Forks Air Force 150 Units.................... $30,140,000
Base....................
Minot Air Force Base..... 112 Units.................... $21,428,000
Minot Air Force Base..... 102 Units.................... $20,315,000
Oklahoma.............................. Vance Air Force Base..... 59 Units..................... $11,423,000
South Dakota.......................... Ellsworth Air Force Base. Housing Maintenance Facility. $447,000
Ellsworth Air Force Base. 22 Units..................... $4,794,000
Texas................................. Dyess Air Force Base..... 85 Units..................... $14,824,000
Randolph Air Force Base.. Housing Maintenance Facility. $447,000
Randolph Air Force Base.. 112 Units.................... $14,311,000
Virginia.............................. Langley Air Force Base... Housing Office............... $1,193,000
Germany............................... Ramstein Air Force Base.. 19 Units..................... $8,534,000
Korea................................. Osan Air Base............ 113 Units.................... $35,705,000
Osan Air Base............ Housing Supply Warehouse..... $834,000
United Kingdom........................ Royal Air Force, Housing Office and $2,203,000
Lakenheath.............. Maintenance Facility........
--------------------------------
Total.................... $429,568,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H2317]]
(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $34,188,000.
SEC. 2303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, Unites States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2304(a)(6)(A), the Secretary of
the Air Force may improve existing military family housing
units in an amount not to exceed $217,286,000.
SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Air Force in the total amount of $2,495,094,000, as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2301(a), $580,731,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2301(b), $238,251,000.
(3) For the military construction projects at unspecified
worldwide locations authorized by section 2301(c),
$32,562,000.
(4) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $11,500,000.
(5) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $76,958,000.
(6) For military housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design,
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$681,042,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $874,050,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2301 of this Act may not exceed the
total amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraphs
(1), (2) and (3) of subsection (a).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $10,281,000,
which represents the combination of savings resulting from
adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military
construction, military family housing construction, and
military family housing support outside the United States and
savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missile Defense Agency......... Kauai, Hawaii.......... $23,400,000
Defense Intelligence Agency.... Bolling Air Force Base, $121,958,000
District of Columbia..
Defense Logistics Agency....... Columbus, Ohio......... $5,021,000
Defense Supply Center, $5,500,000
Richmond, Virginia....
Naval Air Station, New $9,500,000
Orleans, Louisiana....
Travis Air Force Base, $16,000,000
California............
Defense Threat Reduction Agency Fort Belvoir, Virginia. $76,388,000
Department of Defense Fort Bragg, North $2,036,000
Dependents Schools............ Carolina..............
Fort Jackson, South $2,506,000
Carolina..............
Marine Corps Base, Camp $12,138,000
Lejeune, North
Carolina..............
Marine Corps Base, $1,418,000
Quantico, Virginia....
United States Military $4,347,000
Academy, West Point,
New York..............
Fort Meade, Maryland... $4,484,000
Joint Chiefs of Staff.......... Peterson Air Force $18,400,000
Base, Colorado.
National Security Agency....... Fort Bragg, North $30,800,000
Carolina.
Special Operations Command..... Hurlburt Field, Florida $11,100,000
Naval Amphibious Base, $14,300,000
Little Creek, Virginia
TRICARE Management Activity.... Elmendorf Air Force $10,400,000
Base, Alaska..........
Hickam Air Force Base, $2,700,000
Hawaii.
---------------
Total................ $372,396,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2404(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Logistics Agency....... Andersen Air Force $17,586,000
Base, Guam.
Naval Forces Marianas $6,000,000
Islands, Guam.........
Naval Station, Rota, $23,400,000
Spain.................
Royal Air Force, $17,000,000
Fairford, United
Kingdom...............
Yokota Air Base, Japan. $23,000,000
Department of Defense Kaiserslautern, Germany $957,000
Dependents Schools............
Lajes Field, Azores, $1,192,000
Portugal..............
Seoul, Korea........... $31,683,000
Supreme Headquarters, $1,573,000
Allied Powers Europe,
Belgium...............
Spangdahlem Air Base, $997,000
Germany...............
Vicenza, Italy......... $2,117,000
TRICARE Management Activity.... Naval Support Activity, $41,449,000
Naples, Italy.........
Spangdahlem Air Base, $39,629,000
Germany...............
---------------
Total................ $206,583,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2402. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.
Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2404(a)(8)(A), the Secretary of
Defense may improve existing military family housing units in
an amount not to exceed $5,530,000.
SEC. 2403. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECTS.
Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2404(a)(4), the Secretary of
Defense may carry out energy conservation projects under
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code, in the amount
of $49,531,000.
[[Page H2318]]
SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
2002, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of
Defense (other than the military departments) in the total
amount of $1,417,779,000, as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $335,796,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2401(b), $206,583,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects under
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $16,293,000.
(4) For contingency construction projects of the Secretary
of Defense under section 2804 of title 10, United States
Code, $10,000,000.
(5) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $45,432,000.
(6) For energy conservation projects authorized by section
2403 of this Act, $49,531,000.
(7) For base closure and realignment activities as
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $545,138,000.
(8) For military family housing functions:
(A) For improvement of military family housing and
facilities, $5,480,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $42,432,000.
(C) For credit to the Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a) of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 2801 of this Act,
$2,000,000.
(9) For payment of a claim against the Hospital Replacement
project at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, $10,400,000.
(10) For the construction of phase 4 of an ammunition
demilitarization facility at Pueblo Chemical Activity,
Colorado, authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division
B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2775), as amended by
section 2406 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-65; 113
Stat. 839) and section 2407 of this Act, $38,000,000.
(11) For the construction of phase 5 of an ammunition
demilitarization facility at Newport Army Depot, Indiana,
authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2193), as amended by section 2406 of
this Act, $61,494,000.
(12) For the construction of phase 5 of an ammunition
demilitarization facility at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Maryland, authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division
B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2193), as amended by
section 2406 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115
Stat. 1299), $30,600,000.
(13) For the construction of phase 3 of an ammunition
demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky,
authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public
Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 835), as amended by section 2405 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1298) and
section 2405 of this Act, $10,300,000.
(14) For the construction of phase 3 of an ammunition
demilitarization support facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky, authorized by section 2401(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division
B of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 835), $8,300,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a); and
(2) $26,200,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2401(a) for the construction of the Defense Threat
Reduction Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (14) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs, reduced by $42,833,000,
which represents the combination of savings resulting from
adjustments to foreign currency exchange rates for military
construction, military family housing construction, and
military family housing support outside the United States and
savings resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.
SEC. 2405. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROJECT.
(a) Modification.--The table in section 2401(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(division B of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 835), as amended
by section 2405 of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107;
115 Stat. 1298), is further amended--
(1) under the agency heading relating to Chemical
Demilitarization, in the item relating to Blue Grass Army
Depot, Kentucky, by striking ``$254,030,000'' in the amount
column and inserting ``$290,325,000''; and
(2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the
amount column and inserting ``$748,245,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2405(b)(3) of that Act
(113 Stat. 839), as so amended, is further amended by
striking ``$231,230,000'' and inserting ``$267,525,000''.
SEC. 2406. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROJECT.
(a) Modification.--The table in section 2401(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2193), as
amended by section 2406 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public
Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1299), is amended--
(1) under the agency heading relating to Chemical
Demilitarization, in the item relating to Newport Army Depot,
Indiana, by striking ``$191,550,000'' in the amount column
and inserting ``$293,853,000''; and
(2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the
amount column and inserting ``$829,919,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2404(b)(2) of that Act
(112 Stat. 2196) is amended by striking ``$162,050,000'' and
inserting ``$264,353,000''.
SEC. 2407. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN
FISCAL YEAR 1997 PROJECT.
(a) Modification.--The table in section 2401(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2775), as
amended by section 2406 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public
Law 106-65; 113 Stat. 839), is further amended--
(1) under the agency heading relating to Chemical
Demilitarization Program, in the item relating to Pueblo
Chemical Activity, Colorado, by striking ``$203,500,000'' in
the amount column and inserting ``$261,000,000''; and
(2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the
amount column and inserting ``$607,454,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2406(b)(2) of that Act
(110 Stat. 2779), as so amended, is further amended by
striking ``$203,500,000'' and inserting ``$261,000,000''.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
SEC. 2501. AUTHORIZED NATO CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
The Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
program as provided in section 2806 of title 10, United
States Code, in an amount not to exceed the sum of the amount
authorized to be appropriated for this purpose in section
2502 and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as a result of construction previously financed
by the United States.
SEC. 2502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NATO.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 2002, for contributions
by the Secretary of Defense under section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, for the share of the United States of the
cost of projects for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program authorized by section 2501, in
the amount of $168,200,000.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2002, for the
costs of acquisition, architectural and engineering services,
and construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve
Forces, and for contributions there for, under chapter 1803
of title 10, United States Code (including the cost of
acquisition of land for those facilities), the following
amounts:
(1) For the Department of the Army--
(A) for the Army National Guard of the United States,
$170,793,000; and
[[Page H2319]]
(B) for the Army Reserve, $86,789,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy, for the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, $66,971,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force--
(A) for the Air National Guard of the United States,
$119,266,000; and
(B) for the Air Force Reserve, $68,576,000.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2701. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND AMOUNTS REQUIRED
TO BE SPECIFIED BY LAW.
(a) Expiration of Authorizations After Three Years.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), all authorizations contained
in titles XXI through XXVI for military construction
projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and
facilities, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment program (and authorizations
of appropriations therefor) shall expire on the later of--
(1) October 1, 2005; or
(2) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2006.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
authorizations for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects, and facilities, and
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program (and authorizations of
appropriations therefor) for which appropriated funds have
been obligated before the later of--
(1) October 1, 2005; or
(2) the date of the enactment of an Act authorized funds
for fiscal year 2005 for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program.
SEC. 2702. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
2000 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension of Certain Projects.--Notwithstanding section
2701 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-65; 113 Stat.
841), authorizations set forth in the tables in subsection
(b), as provided in section 2302 or 2601 of that Act, shall
remain in effect until October 1, 2003, or the date of the
enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:
Air Force: Extension of 2000 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma.............................. Tinker Air Force Base.... Replace Family Housing (41 $6,000,000
Units)......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard: Extension of 2000 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia.............................. Fort Pickett............. Multi-Purpose Range Complex- $13,500,000
Heavy.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Extension of Additional Project.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the authorization set forth in the
table in subsection (d), as provided in section 8160 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law
106-79; 113 Stat. 1274), shall remain in effect until October
1, 2003, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing
funds for military construction for fiscal year 2004,
whichever is later.
(d) Table for Extension of Additional Project.--The table
referred to in subsection (c) is as follows:
Army National Guard: Extension of 2000 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania.......................... Connellsville............ Readiness Center............. $1,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2703. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1999 PROJECTS.
(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2199),
authorizations set forth in the table in subsection (b), as
provided in section 2302 of that Act and extended by section
2702 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat.
1301), shall remain in effect until October 1, 2003, or the
date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2004, whichever is
later.
(b) Table.--The table referred to in subsection (a) is as
follows:
Air Force: Extension of 1999 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware.............................. Dover Air Force Base..... Replace Family Housing (55 $8,988,000
Units)......................
Florida............................... Patrick Air Force Base... Replace Family Housing (46 $9,692,000
Units)......................
New Mexico............................ Kirtland Air Force Base.. Replace Family Housing (37 $6,400,000
Units)......................
Ohio.................................. Wright-Patterson Air Replace Family Housing (40 $5,600,000
Force Base.............. Units)......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 2704. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act
shall take effect on the later of--
(1) October 1, 2002; or
(2) the date of the enactment of this Act.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
SEC. 2801. CHANGES TO ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION
AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING.
(a) Authorized Utilities and Services.--Section 2872a(b) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraphs:
``(11) Firefighting and fire protection services.
``(12) Police protection services.''.
(b) Leasing of Housing.--Subsection (a) of section 2874 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Lease Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned may
enter into contracts for the lease
[[Page H2320]]
of housing units that the Secretary determines are suitable
for use as military family housing or military unaccompanied
housing.
``(2) The Secretary concerned shall utilize housing units
leased under paragraph (1) as military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing, as appropriate.''.
(c) Repeal of Interim Lease Authority.--Section 2879 of
such title is repealed.
(d) Space Limitations by Pay Grade.--Section 2880(b)(2) of
such title is amended by striking ``unless the unit is
located on a military installation''.
(e) Department of Defense Housing Fund.--(1) Section 2883
of such title is amended by striking subsections (a), (b),
and (c) inserting the following new subsections (a) and (b):
``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the
books of the Treasury an account to be known as the
Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund (in this
section referred to as the `Fund').
``(b) Credits to Fund.--There shall be credited to the Fund
the following:
``(1) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to the Fund.
``(2) Subject to subsection (e), any amounts that the
Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as are
provided for in appropriation Acts, to the Fund from amounts
authorized and appropriated to the Department of Defense for
the acquisition or construction of military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing.
``(3) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property or
facilities under section 2878 of this title for the purpose
of carrying out activities under this subchapter with respect
to military family housing or military unaccompanied housing.
``(4) Income derived from any activities under this
subchapter with respect to military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing, income and gains realized
from investments under section 2875 of this title, and any
return of capital invested as part of such investments.
``(5) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers
to the Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title,
subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred
amounts specified in that section.''.
(2) Such section is further amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (d) through (g) as (c)
through (f), respectively;
(B) in subsection (c), as so redesignated--
(i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Funds'' and
inserting ``Fund'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)--
(I) by striking ``subsection (e)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)''; and
(II) by striking ``Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund'' and inserting ``Fund'';
(iii) by striking paragraph (2); and
(iv) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
(C) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by striking
``required to be used to satisfy the obligation'';
(D) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking ``a
Fund under paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) of subsection (c)'' and
inserting ``the Fund under subsection (b)(2)''; and
(E) in subsection (f), as so redesignated--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$850,000,000'' and
inserting ``$1,700,000,000''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$150,000,000'' and
inserting ``$300,000,000''.
(f) Transfer of Unobligated Amounts.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall transfer to the Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of title
10, United States Code (as amended by subsection (e)), any
amounts in the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund and the Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement that remain available for
obligation as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Amounts transferred to the Department of Defense
Housing Improvement Fund under paragraph (1) shall be merged
with amounts in that Fund, and shall be available for the
same purposes, and subject to the same conditions and
limitations, as other amounts in that Fund.
(g) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Paragraph (3) of section
2814(i) of such title is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island
Improvement Account to the Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a) of this
title.''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a fund'' and
inserting ``the Fund''.
(2) Section 2871(6) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or
the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund'' and inserting ``Department of Defense
Housing Improvement Fund''.
(3) Section 2875(e) of such title is amended by striking
``Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or
the Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund'' and inserting ``Department of Defense
Housing Improvement Fund''.
(h) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The section heading for
section 2874 of such title is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2874. Leasing of housing''.
(2) The section heading for section 2883 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement
Fund''.
(3) The table of sections at the beginning subchapter IV of
chapter 169 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking the item relating to section 2874 and
inserting the following new item:
``2874. Leasing of housing.'';
(B) by striking the item relating to section 2879; and
(C) by striking the item relating to section 2883 and
inserting the following new item:
``2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund.''.
SEC. 2802. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE ACTION.
(a) Authority to Carry Out Unauthorized Projects.--
Subsection (a) of section 2810 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authority to Carry Out Unauthorized Construction
Projects.--The Secretary concerned may carry out a military
construction project not otherwise authorized by law if the
Secretary determines that the project is necessary to carry
out a response under chapter 160 of this title or the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).''.
(b) Congressional Notification.--Subsection (b) of such
section is amended by striking ``(1)'' and the first sentence
and inserting ``Congressional Notification.--(1) When a
decision is made to carry out a military construction project
under this section that exceeds the amount specified in
section 2805(b)(1) of this title, the Secretary concerned
shall submit a report in writing to the appropriate
committees of Congress on that decision.''.
(c) Definition.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``Response Defined.--'' after ``(c)''; and
(2) by striking ``action''.
SEC. 2803. LEASING OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING IN KOREA.
Paragraph (3) of section 2828(e) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing
referred to in paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease
amount is $25,000 per unit per year, the Secretary of the
Army may lease in Korea--
``(A) not more than 1,175 units of family housing subject
to that maximum lease amount; and
``(B) not more than 2,400 units of family housing subject
to a maximum lease amount of $35,000 per unit per year.''.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
SEC. 2811. AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE ENTITIES TO LIMIT
ENCROACHMENTS AND OTHER CONSTRAINTS ON MILITARY
TRAINING, TESTING, AND OPERATIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 159 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2684 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other
constraints on military training, testing, and operations
``(a) Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary of a military
department may enter into an agreement with a private entity
described in subsection (b) to address the use or development
of real property in the vicinity of a military installation
for purposes of--
``(1) limiting any development or use of the property that
would otherwise be incompatible with the mission of the
installation; or
``(2) preserving habitat on the property in a manner that
is compatible with both--
``(A) current or anticipated environmental restrictions
that would or might otherwise restrict, impede, or otherwise
interfere, whether directly or indirectly, with current or
anticipated military training, testing, or operations on the
installation; and
``(B) current or anticipated military training, testing, or
operations on the installation.
``(b) Covered Private Entities.--A private entity referred
to in subsection (a) is any private entity that has as its
stated principal organizational purpose or goal the
conservation, restoration, or preservation of land and
natural resources, or a similar purpose or goal, as
determined by the Secretary concerned.
``(c) Inapplicability of Certain Contract Requirements.--
Chapter 63 of title 31 shall not apply to any agreement
entered into under this section.
``(d) Acquisition and Acceptance of Property and
Interests.--(1) An agreement with a private entity under this
section--
``(A) may provide for the private entity to acquire all
right, title, and interest in and to any real property, or
any lesser interest in the property, as may be appropriate
for purposes of this section; and
``(B) shall provide for the private entity to transfer to
the United States, upon the request of the United States, any
property or interest so acquired.
``(2) Property or interests may not be acquired pursuant to
an agreement under this section unless the owner of the
property or interests, as the case may be, consents to the
acquisition.
``(3) An agreement under this section providing for the
acquisition of property or interests under paragraph (1)(A)
shall provide for the sharing by the United States and the
private entity concerned of the costs of the acquisition of
the property or interests.
``(4) The Secretary concerned shall identify any property
or interests to be acquired pursuant to an agreement under
this section. The property or interests shall be limited to
the minimum property or interests necessary to ensure that
the property concerned is developed and used in a manner
appropriate for purposes of this section.
``(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary concerned may accept on behalf of the United States
any property or interest to be transferred to the United
States under paragraph (1)(B).
[[Page H2321]]
``(6) The Secretary concerned may, for purposes of the
acceptance of property or interests under this subsection,
accept an appraisal or title documents prepared or adopted by
a non-Federal entity as satisfying the applicable
requirements of section 301 of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(42 U.S.C. 4651) or section 355 of the Revised Statutes (40
U.S.C. 255) if the Secretary finds that the appraisal or
title documents substantially comply with the requirements.
``(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary
concerned may require such additional terms and conditions in
an agreement under this section as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
``(f) Funding.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
funds authorized to be appropriated for operation and
maintenance of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or
Defense-wide activities, including funds authorized to be
appropriated for the Legacy Resources Management Program, may
be used to enter into agreements under this section.
``(2) In the case of a military installation operated
primarily with funds authorized to be appropriated for
research, development, test, and evaluation, funds authorized
to be appropriated for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air
Force, or Defense-wide activities for research, development,
test, and evaluation may be used to enter into agreements
under this section with respect to the installation.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 2684 the following new item:
``2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on
military training, testing, and operations.''.
SEC. 2812. CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY FOR NATURAL
RESOURCE CONSERVATION PURPOSES.
(a) Conveyance Authority.--(1) Chapter 159 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2694 the following new section:
``Sec. 2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural
resource conservation
``(a) Authority to Convey.--The Secretary of a military
department may convey to an eligible recipient described in
subsection (b) any surplus real property that--
``(1) is under the administrative control of the Secretary;
``(2) is suitable and desirable for conservation purposes;
``(3) has been made available for public benefit transfer
for a sufficient period of time to potential claimants; and
``(4) is not subject to a pending request for transfer to
another Federal agency or for conveyance to any other
qualified recipient for public benefit transfer under the
real property disposal processes and authorities established
pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471, et seq.).
``(b) Eligible Recipients.--The conveyance of surplus real
property under subsection (a) may be made to any of the
following:
``(A) A State or political subdivision of a State.
``(B) A nonprofit organization that exists for the primary
purpose of conservation of natural resources on real
property.
``(c) Revisionary Interest and Other Deed Requirements.--
(1) The deed of conveyance of any surplus real property
conveyed under subsection (a) disposed of under this
subsection shall require the property to be used and
maintained for the conservation of natural resources in
perpetuity. If the Secretary of the military department that
made the conveyance determines at any time that the property
is not being used or maintained for such purpose, then, at
the option of the Secretary, all or any portion of the
property shall revert to the United States.
``(2) The deed of conveyance may permit the recipient of
the property--
``(A) to convey the property to another eligible entity
described in subsection (b), subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the military department that made the conveyance
and subject to the same covenants and terms and conditions as
provided in the deed from the United States; and
``(B) to conduct incidental revenue-producing activities on
the property that are compatible with the use of the property
for conservation purposes.
``(3) The deed of conveyance may contain such additional
terms, reservations, restrictions, and conditions as the
Secretary of the military department considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.
``(d) Release of Covenants.--The Secretary of the military
department that conveys real property under subsection (a),
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, may grant
a release from a covenant included in the deed of conveyance
of the property under subsection (c) on the condition that
the recipient of the property pay the fair market value, as
determined by the Secretary of the military department, of
the property at the time of the release of the covenant. The
Secretary of the military department may reduce the amount
required to be paid under this subsection to account for the
value of the natural resource conservation benefit that has
accrued to the United States during the period the covenant
was in effect, if the benefit was not taken into account in
determining the original consideration for the conveyance.
``(e) Limitations.--A conveyance under subsection (a) shall
not be used in settlement of any litigation, dispute, or
claim against the United States, or as a condition of
allowing any defense activity under any Federal, State, or
local permitting or review process. The Secretary of a
military department may make a conveyance under subsection
(a), with the restrictions specified in subsection (c), to
establish a mitigation bank, but only if the establishment of
the mitigation bank does not occur in order to satisfy any
condition for permitting military activity under a Federal,
State, or local permitting or review process.
``(f) Consideration.--In fixing the consideration for the
conveyance of real property under subsection (a) or in
determining the amount of any reduction of the amount to be
paid for the release of a covenant under subsection (d), the
Secretary of the military department concerned shall take
into consideration any benefit that has accrued or may accrue
to the United States from the use of such property for the
conservation of natural resources.
``(g) Relation to Other Conveyance Authorities.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department may not make a conveyance
under this section of any real property to be disposed of
under a base closure law in a manner that is inconsistent
with the requirements and conditions of the base closure law.
``(2) In the case of real property on Guam, the Secretary
of a military department may not make a conveyance under this
section unless the Government of Guam has been first afforded
the opportunity to acquire the real property as authorized by
section 1 of Public Law 106-504 (114 Stat. 2309).
``(h) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `State' includes the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, and the territories and possessions of the
United States.
``(2) The term `base closure law' means the following:
``(A) Section 2687 of this title.
``(B) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 (10 U.S.C. 2687
note).
``(C) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note).
``(D) Any other similar authority for the closure or
realignment of military installations that is enacted after
the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
2694 the following new item:
``2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource
conservation.''.
(b) Acceptance of Funds to Cover Administrative Expenses.--
Section 2695(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) The conveyance of real property under section 2694a
of this title.''.
(c) Agreements With Nonprofit Natural Resource Conservation
Organizations.--Section 2701(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``with any State or local
government agency, or with any Indian tribe,'' and inserting
``any State or local government agency, any Indian tribe, or
any nonprofit conservation organization''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Indian tribe' has the meaning given such
term in section 101(36) of Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(36)).
``(B) The term `nonprofit conservation organization' means
any non-governmental nonprofit organization whose primary
purpose is conservation of open space or natural
resources.''.
SEC. 2813. NATIONAL EMERGENCY EXEMPTION FROM SCREENING AND
OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE ACT FOR PROPERTY USED IN SUPPORT OF
RESPONSE ACTIVITIES.
Section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11411) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection (i):
``(i) Applicability to Certain Property During
Emergencies.--The screening requirements and other provisions
of this section shall not apply to any property that is
excess property or surplus property or that is described as
unutilized or underutilized property if the property is
subject to a request for conveyance or use for the purpose of
directly supporting activities in response to--
``(1) a war or national emergency declared in accordance
with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
or
``(2) an emergency or major disaster declared in accordance
with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).''.
SEC. 2814. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON REDUCTION IN LONG-TERM
FACILITY MAINTENANCE COSTS.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
conduct a demonstration program to assess the feasibility and
desirability of including facility maintenance requirements
in construction contracts for military construction projects
for the purpose of determining whether such requirements
facilitate reductions in the long-term facility maintenance
costs of the military departments.
(b) Contracts.--Not more than 12 contracts may contain
requirements referred to in subsection (a) for the purpose of
the demonstration program under this section. The
demonstration program may only cover contracts entered into
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Effective Period of Requirements.--The effective period
of a requirement referred to in subsection (a) that is
included in a contract
[[Page H2322]]
for the purpose of the demonstration program under this
program may not exceed five years.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 31,
2005, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the demonstration program authorized by this
section and the related Department of the Army demonstration
program authorized by section 2814 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division
B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1310; 10 U.S.C. 2809
note), including the following:
(1) A description of all contracts entered into under the
demonstration programs.
(2) An evaluation of the demonstration programs and a
description of the experience of the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Army respect to such contracts.
(3) Any recommendations, including recommendations for the
termination, continuation, or expansion of the demonstration
programs, that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
the Army considers appropriate.
(e) Expiration.--The authority under subsection (a) to
include requirements referred to in that subsection in
contracts under the demonstration program under this section
shall expire on September 30, 2006.
(f) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for a
fiscal year for military construction shall be available for
the demonstration program under this section in such fiscal
year.
(g) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2814 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division
B of Public Law 107-107; 115 Stat. 1310; 10 U.S.C. 2809 note)
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (d); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively.
SEC. 2815. EXPANDED AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER PROPERTY AT
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO BE CLOSED TO PERSONS
WHO CONSTRUCT OR PROVIDE MILITARY FAMILY
HOUSING.
(a) 1988 Law.--Section 204(e)(1) of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by
striking the last sentence.
(b) 1990 Law.--Section 2905(f)(1) of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by
striking the last sentence.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES
SEC. 2821. LAND CONVEYANCES, LANDS IN ALASKA NO LONGER
REQUIRED FOR NATIONAL GUARD PURPOSES.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to an eligible entity described subsection (b) all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any
parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon,
in the State of Alaska described in subsection (c) if the
Secretary determines the conveyance would be in the public
interest.
(b) Eligible Recipients.--The following entities shall be
eligible to receive real property under subsection (a):
(1) The State of Alaska.
(2) A governmental entity in the State of Alaska.
(3) A Native Corporation (as defined in section 3 of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).
(4) The Metlakatla Indian Community.
(c) Covered Property.--Subsection (a) applies to real
property located in the State of Alaska that--
(1) is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army
and, before December 2, 1980, was under such jurisdiction for
the use of the Alaska National Guard;
(2) is located in a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge
System designated in the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (Public Law 96-487; 16 U.S.C. 668dd note);
(3) is excess to the needs of the Alaska National Guard and
the Department of Defense; and
(4) the Secretary determines that--
(A) the anticipated cost to the United States of retaining
the property exceeds the value of such property; or
(B) the condition of the property makes it unsuitable for
retention by the United States.
(d) Consideration.--The conveyance of real property under
this section shall, at the election of the Secretary, be for
no consideration or for consideration in an amount determined
by the Secretary to be appropriate under the circumstances.
(e) Use of Consideration.--If consideration is received for
the conveyance of real property under subsection (a), the
Secretary may use the amounts received, in such amounts as
are provided in appropriations Acts, to pay for--
(1) the cost of a survey described in subsection (f) with
respect to the property;
(2) the cost of carrying out any environmental assessment,
study, or analysis, and any remediation, that may be required
under Federal law, or is considered appropriate by the
Secretary, in connection with the property or the conveyance
of the property; and
(3) any other costs incurred by the Secretary in conveying
the property.
(f) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of any real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with a conveyance of real property under this section as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
SEC. 2822. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the City of Hopkinsville,
Kentucky, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to a parcel of real property at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, consisting of approximately 50 acres and containing
an abandoned railroad spur for the purpose of permitting the
City to use the property for storm water management,
recreation, transportation, and other public purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The acreage of the real
property to be conveyed under subsection (a) has been
determined by the Secretary through a legal description
outlining such acreage. No further survey of the property
before transfer is necessary.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2823. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE TRAINING CENTER,
BUFFALO, MINNESOTA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Buffalo Independent
School District 877 of Buffalo, Minnesota (in this section
referred to as the ``School District''), all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, that is located at
800 8th Street, N.E., in Buffalo, Minnesota, and contains a
former Army Reserve Training Center, which is being used by
the School District as the site of the Phoenix Learning
Center.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the School District.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2824. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT BLISS, TEXAS
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the County of El Paso,
Texas (in this section referred to as the ``County''), all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 44 acres at Fort Bliss, Texas,
for the purpose of facilitating the construction by the State
of Texas of a nursing home for veterans of the Armed Forces.
(b) Reversionary Interest.--If, at the end of the five-year
period beginning on the date the Secretary makes the
conveyance under subsection (a), the Secretary determines
that a nursing home for veterans is not in operation on the
conveyed real property, all right, title, and interest in and
to the property, including any improvements thereon, shall
revert to the United States, and the United States shall have
the right of immediate entry onto the property. Any
determination of the Secretary under this subsection shall be
made on the record after an opportunity for a hearing.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the County.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
SEC. 2825. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT HOOD, TEXAS.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Veterans Land Board of
the State of Texas (in this section referred to as the
``Board''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property, including any
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 174 acres
at Fort Hood, Texas, for the purpose of permitting the Board
to establish a State-run cemetery for veterans.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Board.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES
SEC. 2831. LAND CONVEYANCE, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION,
MIRAMAR, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
convey to the ENPEX Corporation, Incorporated (in this
section referred to as the ``Corporation''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of real property, including any improvements thereon, at
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, San Diego, California,
consisting of approximately 60 acres and appurtenant
easements and any other necessary interests in real property
for the purpose of permitting the Corporation to use the
property for the production of electric power and related
ancillary activities.
(b) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the Corporation shall--
[[Page H2323]]
(A) convey to the United States all right, title, and
interest of the Corporation in and to a parcel of real
property in the San Diego area that is suitable for military
family housing, as determined by the Secretary; and
(B) if the parcel conveyed under subparagraph (A) does not
contain housing units suitable for use as military family
housing, design and construct such military family housing
units and supporting facilities as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(2) The total combined value of the real property and
military family housing conveyed by the Corporation under
this subsection shall be at least equal to the fair market
value of the real property conveyed to the Secretary under
subsection (a), including any severance costs arising from
any diminution of the value or utility of other property at
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar attributable to the
prospective future use of the property conveyed under
subsection (a).
(3) The Secretary shall determine the fair market value of
the real property to be conveyed under subsection (a) and the
fair market value of the consideration to be provided under
this subsection. Such determinations shall be final.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
if the Secretary determines at any time that the property
conveyed under subsection (a) is not being used in accordance
with the purpose of the conveyance specified in such
subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the
property, including any improvements thereon, shall revert,
at the option of the Secretary, to the United States, and the
United States shall have the right of immediate entry onto
the property. Any determination of the Secretary under this
subsection shall be made on the record after an opportunity
for a hearing.
(2) If Marine Corps Air Station Miramar is no longer used
as a Federal aviation facility, paragraph (1) shall no longer
apply, and the Secretary shall release, without
consideration, the reversionary interest retained by the
United States under such paragraph.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--(1) The Corporation shall
make funds available to the Secretary to cover costs to be
incurred by the Secretary, or reimburse the Secretary for
costs incurred, to carry out the conveyance under subsection
(a), including survey costs, costs related to environmental
documentation, and other administrative costs related to the
conveyance. This paragraph does not apply to costs associated
with the removal of explosive ordnance from the parcel and
environmental remediation of the parcel.
(2) Section 2695(c) of title 10 United States Code, shall
apply to any amount received under paragraph (1). If the
amounts received in advance under such paragraph exceed the
costs actually incurred by the Secretary, the Secretary shall
refund the excess amount to the Corporation.
(e) Descriptions of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
descriptions of the real property to be conveyed by the
Secretary under subsection (a) and the property to be
conveyed by the Corporation under subsection (b) shall be
determined by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary.
(f) Exemptions.--Section 2696 of title 10, United States
Code, does not apply to the conveyance authorized by
subsection (a), and the authority to make the conveyance
shall not be considered to render the property excess or
underutilized.
(g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances authorized by this section as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.
SEC. 2832. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS, MARINE CORPS BASE, QUANTICO,
AND PRINCE WILLIAM FOREST PARK, VIRGINIA.
(a) Boundary Adjustments and Related Transfers.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior shall
adjust the boundaries of Marine Corps Base, Quantico,
Virginia, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia, to
conform to the boundaries depicted on the map entitled ``Map
Depicting Boundary Adjustments Proposed With March 10, 1998,
MOU Between Prince William Forest Park and Marine Corps Base
Quantico''.
(2) As part of the boundary adjustment, the Secretary of
the Navy shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
approximately 352 acres of land, as depicted on the map, and
the Secretary of the Interior shall retain administrative
jurisdiction over approximately 1,034 acres of land, which is
a portion of the Department of Interior land commonly known
as the Quantico Special Use Permit Land.
(3) As part of the boundary adjustment, the Secretary of
the Interior shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy
approximately 3398 acres of land, as depicted on the map.
(b) Effect of Subsequent Determination Property is
Excess.--(1) If land transferred or retained under paragraph
(2) or (3) of subsection (a) is subsequently determined to be
excess to the needs of the Federal agency that received or
retained the land, the head of that Federal agency shall
offer to return administrative jurisdiction over the land,
without reimbursement, to the Federal agency from which the
land was received or retained.
(2) If the offer under paragraph (1) is not accepted within
90 days or is otherwise rejected, the head of the Federal
agency holding the land may proceed to dispose of the land
under then current law and regulations governing the disposal
of excess property.
PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES
SEC. 2841. LAND CONVEYANCES, WENDOVER AIR FORCE BASE
AUXILIARY FIELD, NEVADA.
(a) Conveyances Authorized To West Wendover, Nevada.--(1)
The Secretary of the Interior may convey, without
consideration, to the City of West Wendover, Nevada, all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
following:
(A) The lands at Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field,
Nevada, identified in Easement No. AFMC-HL-2-00-334 that are
determined by the Secretary of the Air Force to be no longer
required for Air Force purposes.
(B) The lands at Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field
identified for disposition on the map entitled ``West
Wendover, Nevada-Excess'', dated January 5, 2001, that are
determined by the Secretary of the Air Force to be no longer
required for Air Force purposes.
(2) The purposes of the conveyances under this subsection
are--
(A) to permit the establishment and maintenance of runway
protection zones; and
(B) to provide for the development of an industrial park
and related infrastructure.
(3) The map referred to in paragraph (1)(B) shall be on
file and available for public inspection in the offices of
the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Elko
District Office of the Bureau of Land Management.
(b) Conveyance Authorized to Tooele County, Utah.--(1) The
Secretary of the Interior may convey, without consideration,
to Tooele County, Utah, all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the lands at Wendover Air Force Base
Auxiliary Field identified in Easement No. AFMC-HL-2-00-318
that are determined by the Secretary of the Air Force to be
no longer required for Air Force purposes.
(2) The purpose of the conveyance under this subsection is
to permit the establishment and maintenance of runway
protection zones and an aircraft accident potential
protection zone as necessitated by continued military
aircraft operations at the Utah Test and Training Range.
(c) Phased Conveyances.--The land conveyances authorized by
subsections (a) and (b) may be conducted in phases. To the
extent practicable, the first phase of the conveyances should
involve at least 3,000 acres.
(d) Management of Conveyed Lands.--The lands conveyed under
subsections (a) and (b) shall be managed by the City of West
Wendover, Nevada, City of Wendover, Utah, Tooele County,
Utah, and Elko County, Nevada--
(1) in accordance with the provisions of an Interlocal
Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the Cities of
West Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah, Tooele County,
Utah, and Elko County, Nevada, providing for the coordinated
management and development of the lands for the economic
benefit of both communities; and
(2) in a manner that is consistent with such provisions of
the easements referred to subsections (a) and (b) that, as
jointly determined by the Secretary of the Air Force and
Secretary of the Interior, remain applicable and relevant to
the operation and management of the lands following
conveyance and are consistent with the provisions of this
section.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Air Force and the Secretary of the Interior may jointly
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances required by subsections (a) and (b) as
the Secretaries consider appropriate to protect the interests
of the United States.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
SEC. 2861. EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS OR HIGHWAYS,
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA.
Section 2851(a) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261;
112 Stat. 2219), as amended by section 2867 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law
107-107; 115 Stat. 1334) is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``easement to construct'' and all that follows
through the period at the end and inserting ``easement to
construct, operate, and maintain a restricted access highway,
notwithstanding any provision of State law that would
otherwise prevent the Secretary from granting the easement or
the Agency from constructing, operating, or maintaining the
restricted access highway.''.
SEC. 2862. SALE OF EXCESS TREATED WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT CAPACITY, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP
LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Sale Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may provide
to Onslow County, North Carolina, or any authority or
political subdivision organized under the laws of North
Carolina to provide public water or sewage services in Onslow
County (in this section referred to as the ``County''),
treated water and wastewater treatment services from
facilities at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, if the Secretary determines that the provision of
these utility services is in the public interest and will not
interfere with current or future operations at Camp Lejeune.
(b) Inapplicability of Certain Requirements.--Section 2686
of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the
provision of public water or sewage services authorized by
subsection (a).
(c) Consideration.--As consideration for the receipt of
public water or sewage services under subsection (a), the
County shall pay to the Secretary an amount (in cash or in
kind) equal to the fair market value of the services. Amounts
received in cash shall be credited to the base operation and
maintenance accounts of Camp Lejeune.
(d) Expansion.--The Secretary may make minor expansions and
extensions and permit
[[Page H2324]]
connections to the public water or sewage systems of the
County in order to furnish the services authorized under
subsection (a). The Secretary shall restrict the provision of
services to the County to those areas in the County where
residential development would be compatible with current and
future operations at Camp Lejeune.
(e) Administrative Expenses.--The Secretary may require the
County to reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred by
the Secretary to provide public water or sewage services to
the County under subsection (a).
(2) Section 2695(c) of title 10 United States Code, shall
apply to any amount received under this subsection.
(f) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the provision of public water or sewage services under
this section as the Secretary considers appropriate to
protect the interests of the United States.
SEC. 2863. RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT REGARDING ADAK NAVAL
COMPLEX, ALASKA, AND RELATED LAND CONVEYANCES.
(a) Ratification of Agreement.--The document entitled the
``Agreement Concerning the Conveyance of Property at the Adak
Naval Complex'', and dated September 20, 2000, executed by
the Aleut Corporation, the Department of the Interior, and
the Department of the Navy, together with any technical
amendments or modifications to the boundaries that may be
agreed to by the parties, is hereby ratified, confirmed, and
approved and the terms, conditions, procedures, covenants,
reservations, indemnities and other provisions set forth in
the Agreement are declared to be obligations and commitments
of the United States as a matter of Federal law.
Modifications to the maps and legal descriptions of lands to
be removed from the National Wildlife Refuge System within
the military withdrawal on Adak Island set forth in Public
Land Order 1949 may be made only upon agreement of all
Parties to the Agreement and notification given to the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
The acreage conveyed to the United States by the Aleut
Corporation under the Agreement, as modified, shall be at
least 36,000 acres.
(b) Removal of Lands From Refuge.--Effective on the date of
conveyance to the Aleut Corporation of the Adak Exchange
Lands as described in the Agreement, all such lands shall be
removed from the National Wildlife Refuge System and shall
neither be considered as part of the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge nor subject to any laws pertaining to lands
within the boundaries of the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge. The conveyance restrictions imposed by
section 22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1621(g)) for land in the National Wildlife Refuge
System shall not apply. The Secretary shall adjust the
boundaries of the Refuge so as to exclude all interests in
lands and land rights, surface and subsurface, received by
the Aleut Corporation in accordance with this section and the
Agreement.
(c) Relation to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.--Lands
and interests therein exchanged and conveyed by the United
States pursuant to this section shall be considered and
treated as conveyances of lands or interests therein under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, except that receipt
of such lands and interests therein shall not constitute a
sale or disposition of land or interests received pursuant to
such Act. The public easements for access to public lands and
waters reserved pursuant to the Agreement are deemed to
satisfy the requirements and purposes of section 17(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(d) Reacquisition Authority.--The Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to acquire by purchase or exchange, on a
willing seller basis only, any land conveyed to the Aleut
Corporation under the Agreement and this section. In the
event any of the lands are subsequently acquired by the
United States, they shall be automatically included in the
National Wildlife Refuge System. The laws and regulations
applicable to refuge lands shall then apply to these lands
and the Secretary shall then adjust the boundaries
accordingly.
(e) Conveyance of Navy Personal Property.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, and for the purposes of the
transfer of property authorized by this section, Department
of Navy personal property that remains on Adak Island is
deemed related to the real property and shall be conveyed by
the Department of the Navy to the Aleut Corporation, at no
additional cost, when the related real property is conveyed
by the Department of the Interior.
(f) Additional Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall convey to the Aleut Corporation those lands identified
in the Agreement as the former landfill sites without charge
to the Aleut Corporation's entitlement under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act.
(g) Valuation.--For purposes of section 21(c) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, the receipt of all property by
the Aleut Corporation shall be entitled to a tax basis equal
to fair value on date of transfer. Fair value shall be
determined by replacement cost appraisal.
(h) Certain Property Treated as Not Developed.--Any
property, including, but not limited to, appurtenances and
improvements, received pursuant to this section shall, for
purposes of section 21(d) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act and section 907(d) of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act be treated as not developed
until such property is actually occupied, leased (other than
leases for nominal consideration to public entities) or sold
by the Aleut Corporation, or, in the case of a lease or other
transfer by the Aleut Corporation to a wholly owned
development subsidiary, actually occupied, leased, or sold by
the subsidiary.
(i) Certain Lands Unavailable for Selection.--Upon
conveyance to the Aleut Corporation of the lands described in
Appendix A of the Agreement, the lands described in Appendix
C of the Agreement will become unavailable for selection
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(j) Maps.--The maps included as part of Appendix A to the
Agreement depict the lands to be conveyed to the Aleut
Corporation. The maps are on file at the Region 7 Office of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the offices
of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in Homer,
Alaska. The written legal descriptions of the lands to be
conveyed to the Aleut Corporation are also part of Appendix
A. In case of discrepancies, the maps shall control.
(k) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement ratified,
confirmed, and approved under subsection (a).
(2) The term ``Aleut Corporation'' means the Alaskan Native
Regional Corporation known as the Aleut Corporation
incorporated in the State of Alaska pursuant to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
SEC. 2864. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDING MILITARY
INSTALLATION TO CLOSURE LIST.
Section 2914(d) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note), as added by section 3003 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division
B of Public Law 107-107; 155 Stat, 1346), is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(5) and (6), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4) Limitation on authority to recommend additional
installation for closure.--Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the
decision of the Commission to add a military installation to
the Secretary's list of installations recommended for closure
must be unanimous, and at least two members of the Commission
must have visited the installation during the period of the
Commission's review of the list.''.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
SEC. 3101. NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2003 for the activities of the National Nuclear
Security Administration in carrying out programs necessary
for national security in the amount of $8,034,349,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(1) For weapons activities, $5,937,000,000.
(2) For defense nuclear nonproliferation activities,
$1,074,630,000.
(3) For naval reactors, $706,790,000.
(4) For the Office of the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, $315,929,000.
(b) Authorization of New Plant Projects.--From funds
referred to in subsection (a) that are available for carrying
out plant projects, the Secretary may carry out new plant
projects as follows:
(1) For weapons activities, the following new plant
projects:
Project 03-D-101, Sandia underground reactor facility
(SURF), Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $2,000,000.
Project 03-D-103, project engineering and design, various
locations, $15,539,000.
Project 03-D-121, gas transfer capacity expansion, Kansas
City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri, $4,000,000.
Project 03-D-122, prototype purification facility, Y-12
plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $20,800,000.
Project 03-D-123, special nuclear materials
requalification, Pantex plant, Amarillo, Texas, $3,000,000.
(2) For naval reactors, the following new plant project:
Project 03-D-201, cleanroom technology facility, Bettis
Atomic Power Laboratory, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania,
$7,200,000.
SEC. 3102. ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2003 for environmental restoration and waste
management activities and other defense activities in
carrying out programs necessary for national security in the
amount of $7,366,510,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) For defense environmental restoration and waste
management, $4,544,133,000.
(2) For defense environmental management cleanup reform in
carrying out environmental restoration and waste management
activities necessary for national security programs,
$800,000,000.
(3) For defense facilities closure projects,
$1,091,314,000.
(4) For defense environmental management privatization,
$158,399,000.
(5) For other defense activities in carrying out programs
necessary for national security, $457,664,000.
(6) For defense nuclear waste disposal for payment to the
Nuclear Waste Fund established in section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)),
$315,000,000.
(b) Authorization of New Plant Project.--From funds
referred to in subsection (a) that are available for carrying
out plant projects, the Secretary may carry out, for
environmental restoration and waste management activities,
the following new plant project:
[[Page H2325]]
Project 03-D-403, immobilized high-level waste interim
storage facility, Richland, Washington, $6,363,000.
Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
General Provisions
SEC. 3120. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITIONS.
(a) Short Title.--This subtitle may be cited as the
``Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
General Provisions Act''.
(b) Definitions.--In this subtitle:
(1) The term ``DOE national security authorization'' means
an authorization of appropriations for activities of the
Department of Energy in carrying out programs necessary for
national security.
(2) The term ``congressional defense committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(3) The term ``minor construction threshold'' means
$5,000,000.
SEC. 3121. REPROGRAMMING.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in sections 3129 and
3130, the Secretary of Energy may not use amounts
appropriated pursuant to a DOE national security
authorization for a program--
(1) in amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year, the amount
authorized for that program by that authorization for that
fiscal year; or
(2) which has not been presented to, or requested of,
Congress,
until the Secretary submits to the congressional defense
committees a report referred to in subsection (b) with
respect to that program and a period of 30 days has elapsed
after the date on which such committees receive the report.
(b) Report.--The report referred to in subsection (a) is a
report containing a full and complete statement of the action
proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied
upon in support of the proposed action.
(c) Computation of Days.--In the computation of the 30-day
period under subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day
on which either House of Congress is not in session because
of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain.
(d) Limitations.--
(1) Total amount obligated.--In no event may the total
amount of funds obligated pursuant to a DOE national security
authorization for a fiscal year exceed the total amount
authorized to be appropriated by that authorization for that
fiscal year.
(2) Prohibited items.--Funds appropriated pursuant to a DOE
national security authorization may not be used for an item
for which Congress has specifically denied funds.
SEC. 3122. MINOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) Authority.--Using operation and maintenance funds or
facilities and infrastructure funds authorized by a DOE
national security authorization, the Secretary of Energy may
carry out minor construction projects.
(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the
congressional defense committees on an annual basis a report
on each exercise of the authority in subsection (a) during
the preceding fiscal year. Each report shall provide a brief
description of each minor construction project covered by the
report.
(c) Cost Variation Reports to Congressional Committees.--
If, at any time during the construction of any minor
construction project authorized by a DOE national security
authorization, the estimated cost of the project is revised
and the revised cost of the project exceeds the minor
construction threshold, the Secretary shall immediately
submit to the congressional defense committees a report
explaining the reasons for the cost variation.
(d) Minor Construction Project Defined.--In this section,
the term ``minor construction project'' means any plant
project not specifically authorized by law for which the
approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor
construction threshold.
SEC. 3123. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Construction cost ceiling.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), construction on a construction project which
is in support of national security programs of the Department
of Energy and was authorized by a DOE national security
authorization may not be started, and additional obligations
in connection with the project above the total estimated cost
may not be incurred, whenever the current estimated cost of
the construction project exceeds by more than 25 percent the
higher of--
(A) the amount authorized for the project; or
(B) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(2) Exception where notice-and-wait given.--An action
described in paragraph (1) may be taken if--
(A) the Secretary of Energy has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the actions and
the circumstances making such action necessary; and
(B) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(3) Computation of days.--In the computation of the 30-day
period under paragraph (2), there shall be excluded any day
on which either House of Congress is not in session because
of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain.
(b) Exception for Minor Projects.--Subsection (a) does not
apply to a construction project with a current estimated cost
of less than the minor construction threshold.
SEC. 3124. FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Transfer to Other Federal Agencies.--The Secretary of
Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to a DOE national security
authorization to other Federal agencies for the performance
of work for which the funds were authorized. Funds so
transferred may be merged with and be available for the same
purposes and for the same time period as the authorizations
of the Federal agency to which the amounts are transferred.
(b) Transfer Within Department of Energy.--
(1) Transfers permitted.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary of Energy may transfer funds authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant to a DOE
national security authorization between any such
authorizations. Amounts of authorizations so transferred may
be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for
the same period as the authorization to which the amounts are
transferred.
(2) Maximum amounts.--Not more than 5 percent of any such
authorization may be transferred between authorizations under
paragraph (1). No such authorization may be increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent by a transfer under such
paragraph.
(c) Limitations.--The authority provided by this subsection
to transfer authorizations--
(1) may be used only to provide funds for items relating to
activities necessary for national security programs that have
a higher priority than the items from which the funds are
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide funds for an item for which
Congress has specifically denied funds.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
promptly notify the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives of any transfer of funds to or from any DOE
national security authorization.
SEC. 3125. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.
(a) Requirement of Conceptual Design.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and except as
provided in paragraph (3), before submitting to Congress a
request for funds for a construction project that is in
support of a national security program of the Department of
Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall complete a conceptual
design for that project.
(2) Requests for conceptual design funds.--If the estimated
cost of completing a conceptual design for a construction
project exceeds $3,000,000, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a request for funds for the conceptual design before
submitting a request for funds for the construction project.
(3) Exceptions.--The requirement in paragraph (1) does not
apply to a request for funds--
(A) for a construction project the total estimated cost of
which is less than the minor construction threshold; or
(B) for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities under section 3126.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--
(1) In general.--Within the amounts authorized by a DOE
national security authorization, the Secretary of Energy may
carry out construction design (including architectural and
engineering services) in connection with any proposed
construction project if the total estimated cost for such
design does not exceed $600,000.
(2) Specific authority required.--If the total estimated
cost for construction design in connection with any
construction project exceeds $600,000, funds for that design
must be specifically authorized by law.
SEC. 3126. AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may use any funds
available to the Department of Energy pursuant to a DOE
national security authorization, including funds authorized
to be appropriated for advance planning, engineering, and
construction design, and for plant projects, to perform
planning, design, and construction activities for any
Department of Energy national security program construction
project that, as determined by the Secretary, must proceed
expeditiously in order to protect public health and safety,
to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect
property.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the
authority under subsection (a) in the case of a construction
project until the Secretary has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the activities
that the Secretary intends to carry out under this section
and the circumstances making those activities necessary.
(c) Specific Authority.--The requirement of section
3125(b)(2) does not apply to emergency planning, design, and
construction activities conducted under this section.
SEC. 3127. FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ALL NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
Subject to the provisions of appropriation Acts and section
3121, amounts appropriated pursuant to a DOE national
security authorization for management and support activities
and for general plant projects are available for use, when
necessary, in connection with all national security programs
of the Department of Energy.
SEC. 3128. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
amounts appropriated for operation and maintenance or for
plant projects may, when so specified in an appropriations
Act, remain available until expended.
(b) Exception for NNSA Funds.--Amounts appropriated for the
National Nuclear Security Administration pursuant to a DOE
national security authorization for a fiscal year shall
remain available to be expended--
(1) only until the end of that fiscal year, in the case of
amounts appropriated for the Office of the Administrator for
Nuclear Security; and
[[Page H2326]]
(2) only in that fiscal year and the two succeeding fiscal
years, in all other cases.
SEC. 3129. TRANSFER OF DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
FUNDS.
(a) Transfer Authority for Defense Environmental Management
Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall provide the manager of
each field office of the Department of Energy with the
authority to transfer defense environmental management funds
from a program or project under the jurisdiction of that
office to another such program or project.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Number of transfers.--Not more than one transfer may be
made to or from any program or project under subsection (a)
in a fiscal year.
(2) Amounts transferred.--The amount transferred to or from
a program or project in any one transfer under subsection (a)
may not exceed $5,000,000.
(3) Determination required.--A transfer may not be carried
out by a manager of a field office under subsection (a)
unless the manager determines that the transfer is
necessary--
(A) to address a risk to health, safety, or the
environment; or
(B) to assure the most efficient use of defense
environmental management funds at the field office.
(4) Impermissible uses.--Funds transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) may not be used for an item for which Congress
has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress.
(c) Exemption From Reprogramming Requirements.--The
requirements of section 3121 shall not apply to transfers of
funds pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Notification.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management,
shall notify Congress of any transfer of funds pursuant to
subsection (a) not later than 30 days after such transfer
occurs.
(e) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``program or project'' means, with respect to
a field office of the Department of Energy, a program or
project that is for environmental restoration or waste
management activities necessary for national security
programs of the Department, that is being carried out by that
office, and for which defense environmental management funds
have been authorized and appropriated; and
(2) the term ``defense environmental management funds''
means funds appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant
to an authorization for carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs.
SEC. 3130. TRANSFER OF WEAPONS ACTIVITIES FUNDS.
(a) Transfer Authority for Weapons Activities Funds.--The
Secretary of Energy shall provide the manager of each field
office of the Department of Energy with the authority to
transfer weapons activities funds from a program or project
under the jurisdiction of that office to another such program
or project.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Number of transfers.--Not more than one transfer may be
made to or from any program or project under subsection (a)
in a fiscal year.
(2) Amounts transferred.--The amount transferred to or from
a program or project in any one transfer under subsection (a)
may not exceed $5,000,000.
(3) Determination required.--A transfer may not be carried
out by a manager of a field office under subsection (a)
unless the manager determines that the transfer--
(A) is necessary to address a risk to health, safety, or
the environment; or
(B) will result in cost savings and efficiencies.
(4) Limitation.--A transfer may not be carried out by a
manager of a field office under subsection (a) to cover a
cost overrun or scheduling delay for any program or project.
(5) Impermissible uses.--Funds transferred pursuant to
subsection (a) may not be used for an item for which Congress
has specifically denied funds or for a new program or project
that has not been authorized by Congress.
(c) Exemption From Reprogramming Requirements.--The
requirements of section 3121 shall not apply to transfers of
funds pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Notification.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall notify Congress of
any transfer of funds pursuant to subsection (a) not later
than 30 days after such transfer occurs.
(e) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``program or project'' means, with respect to
a field office of the Department of Energy, a program or
project that is for weapons activities necessary for national
security programs of the Department, that is being carried
out by that office, and for which weapons activities funds
have been authorized and appropriated; and
(2) the term ``weapons activities funds'' means funds
appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant to an
authorization for carrying out weapons activities necessary
for national security programs.
SEC. 3131. SCOPE OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT PLANT PROJECTS.
In carrying out programs necessary for national security,
the authority of the Secretary of Energy to carry out plant
projects includes authority for maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
SEC. 3141. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PANEL TO ASSESS THE
RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED
STATES NUCLEAR STOCKPILE.
Section 3159 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (42 U.S.C. 2121 note)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (d), by striking ``February 1, 2002,''
and inserting ``February 1 of 2002 and 2003,''; and
(2) in subsection (g), by striking ``three years'' and all
that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``April 1, 2003.''.
SEC. 3142. TRANSFER TO NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAM RELATING
TO ELIMINATION OF WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM IN
RUSSIA.
(a) Transfer of Program.--There are hereby transferred to
the Administrator for Nuclear Security the following:
(1) The program, within the Cooperative Threat Reduction
program of the Department of Defense, relating to the
elimination of weapons grade plutonium in Russia.
(2) All functions, powers, duties, and activities of that
program performed before the date of the enactment of this
Act by the Department of Defense.
(b) Transfer of Assets.--(1) So much of the property,
records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
allocations, and other funds employed, used, held, available,
or to be made available in connection with the program
transferred by subsection (a) are transferred to the
Administrator for use in connection with the program
transferred.
(2) Funds so transferred--
(A) shall be credited to the appropriation account of the
Department of Energy for the activities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration in carrying out defense
nuclear nonproliferation activities; and
(B) remain subject to such limitations as applied to such
funds before such transfer.
(c) References.--Any reference in any other Federal law to
the Secretary of Defense (or an officer of the Department of
Defense) or the Department of Defense shall, to the extent
such reference pertains to a function transferred by this
section, be deemed to refer to the Administrator for Nuclear
Security or the National Nuclear Security Administration, as
applicable.
SEC. 3143. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR REPORTS ON OBLIGATION OF
FUNDS FOR PROGRAMS ON FISSILE MATERIALS IN
RUSSIA.
Section 3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 617; 22
U.S.C. 5952 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``(a) Authority.--'';
and
(2) by striking subsection (b).
SEC. 3144. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
ON THE CONDITION OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR
WEAPONS STOCKPILE.
(a) Certification Required.--(1) Not later than January 15
of each year, each official specified in subsection (b)(1)
shall submit to the Secretary concerned a certification
regarding the safety, reliability, and performance of each
nuclear weapon type in the active stockpile of the United
States for which such official is responsible.
(2) Not later than February 1 of each year, the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall each submit to
the President and the Congress--
(A) each certification, without change, submitted under
paragraph (1) to that Secretary;
(B) each report, without change, submitted under subsection
(d) to that Secretary;
(C) the comments of that Secretary with respect to each
such certification and each such report; and
(D) any other information that the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(b) Covered Officials and Secretaries.--(1) The officials
referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(A) The head of each national security laboratory, as
defined in section 3281 of the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2471).
(B) The commander of the United States Strategic Command.
(2) In this section, the term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Energy, with respect to matters
concerning the Department of Energy; and
(B) the Secretary of Defense, with respect to matters
concerning the Department of Defense.
(c) Use of ``Red Teams'' For Laboratory Certifications.--
The head of each national security laboratory shall, to
assist in the certification process required by subsection
(a), establish one or more teams of experts known as ``red
teams''. Each such team shall--
(1) subject to challenge the matters covered by that
laboratory's certification, and submit the results of such
challenge, together with findings and recommendations, to the
head of that laboratory; and
(2) carry out peer review of the certifications carried out
by the other laboratories, and submit the results of such
peer review to the head of the laboratory concerned.
(d) Report Accompanying Certification.--Each official
specified in subsection (b)(1) shall submit with each such
certification a report on the stockpile stewardship and
management program of the Department of Energy. The report
shall include the following:
(1) An assessment of the adequacy of the science-based
tools and methods being used to determine the matters covered
by the certification.
(2) An assessment of the capability of the manufacturing
infrastructure required by section 3137 of the National
Defense Authorization
[[Page H2327]]
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (42 U.S.C. 2121 note) to identify
and fix any inadequacy with respect to the matters covered by
the certification.
(3) An assessment of the need of the United States to
resume testing of nuclear weapons and the readiness of the
United States to resume such testing, together with an
identification of the specific tests the conduct of which
might have value and the anticipated value of conducting such
tests.
(4) An identification and discussion of any other matter
that adversely affects the ability to accurately determine
the matters covered by the certification.
(5) In the case of a report submitted by the head of a
national security laboratory, the findings and
recommendations submitted by the ``red teams'' under
subsection (c) that relate to such certification, and a
discussion of those findings and recommendations.
(6) In the case of a report submitted by the head of a
national security laboratory, a discussion of the relative
merits of other weapon types that could accomplish the
mission of the weapon type covered by such certification.
(e) Classified Form.--Each submission required by this
section shall be made only in classified form.
SEC. 3145. PLAN FOR ACHIEVING ONE-YEAR READINESS POSTURE FOR
RESUMPTION BY THE UNITED STATES OF UNDERGROUND
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS.
(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Administrator for Nuclear Security,
shall prepare a plan for achieving, not later than one year
after the date on which the plan is submitted under
subsection (c), a one-year readiness posture for resumption
by the United States of underground nuclear weapons tests.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, a one-year
readiness posture for resumption by the United States of
underground nuclear weapons tests is achieved when the
Department of Energy has the capability to resume such tests,
if directed by the President to resume such tests, not later
than one year after the date on which the President so
directs.
(c) Report.--The Secretary shall include with the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of
the Department of Energy budget for fiscal year 2004 (as
submitted with the budget of the President under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) a report on the plan
required by subsection (a). The report shall include the plan
and a budget for implementing the plan.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Defense Environmental Management
SEC. 3151. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP REFORM
PROGRAM.
(a) Program Required.--From funds made available pursuant
to section 3102(a)(2) for defense environmental management
cleanup reform, the Secretary of Energy shall carry out a
program to reform DOE environmental management activities. In
carrying out the program, the Secretary shall allocate, to
each site for which the Secretary has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a site performance
management plan, the amount of those funds that such plan
requires.
(b) Transfer and Merger of Funds.--Funds so allocated
shall, notwithstanding section 3124, be transferred to the
account for DOE environmental management activities and,
subject to subsection (c), shall be merged with and be
available for the same purposes and for the same period as
the funds available in such account. The authority provided
by section 3129 shall apply to funds so transferred.
(c) Limitation on Use of All Merged Funds.--Upon a transfer
and merger of funds under subsection (b), all funds in the
merged account that are available with respect to the site
may be used only to carry out the site performance management
plan for such site.
(d) Site Performance Management Plan Defined.--For purposes
of this section, a site performance management plan for a
site is a plan, agreed to by the applicable Federal and State
agencies with regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the
site, for the performance of activities to accelerate the
reduction of environmental risk in connection with, and to
accelerate the environmental cleanup of, the site.
(e) DOE Environmental Management Activities Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``DOE environmental
management activities'' means environmental restoration and
waste management activities of the Department of Energy in
carrying out programs necessary for national security.
SEC. 3152. REPORT ON STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
INITIATIVES TO ACCELERATE THE REDUCTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS AND CHALLENGES POSED BY THE
LEGACY OF THE COLD WAR.
(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Energy shall prepare
a report on the status of those environmental management
initiatives specified in subsection (b) that are being
undertaken to accelerate the reduction of the environmental
risks and challenges that, as a result of the legacy of the
Cold War, are faced by the Department of Energy, contractors
of the Department, and applicable Federal and State agencies
with regulatory jurisdiction.
(b) Contents.--The report shall include the following
matters:
(1) A discussion of the progress made in reducing such
risks and challenges in each of the following areas:
(A) Acquisition strategy and contract management.
(B) Regulatory agreements.
(C) Interim storage and final disposal of high-level waste,
spent nuclear fuel, transuranic waste, and low-level waste.
(D) Closure and transfer of environmental remediation
sites.
(E) Achievements in innovation by contractors of the
Department with respect to accelerated risk reduction and
cleanup.
(F) Consolidation of special nuclear materials and
improvements in safeguards and security.
(2) An assessment of the progress made in streamlining risk
reduction processes of the environmental management program
of the Department.
(3) An assessment of the progress made in improving the
responsiveness and effectiveness of the environmental
management program of the Department.
(4) Any proposals for legislation that the Secretary
considers necessary to carry out such initiatives, including
the justification for each such proposal.
(c) Initiatives Covered.--The environmental management
initiatives referred to in subsection (a) are the initiatives
arising out of the report titled ``Top-to-Bottom Review of
the Environmental Management Program'' and dated February 4,
2002, with respect to the environmental restoration and waste
management activities of the Department of Energy in carrying
out programs necessary for national security.
(d) Submission of Report.--On the date on which the budget
justification materials in support of the Department of
Energy budget for fiscal year 2004 (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31,
United States Code) are submitted to Congress, the Secretary
shall submit to the congressional defense committees the
report required by subsection (a).
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
SEC. 3201. AUTHORIZATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2003, $19,000,000 for the operation of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board under chapter 21 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
SEC. 3301. AUTHORIZED USES OF NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
FUNDS.
(a) Obligation of Stockpile Funds.--During fiscal year
2003, the National Defense Stockpile Manager may obligate up
to $76,400,000 of the funds in the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund established under subsection (a) of section
9 of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act
(50 U.S.C. 98h) for the authorized uses of such funds under
subsection (b)(2) of such section, including the disposal of
hazardous materials that are environmentally sensitive.
(b) Additional Obligations.--The National Defense Stockpile
Manager may obligate amounts in excess of the amount
specified in subsection (a) if the National Defense Stockpile
Manager notifies Congress that extraordinary or emergency
conditions necessitate the additional obligations. The
National Defense Stockpile Manager may make the additional
obligations described in the notification after the end of
the 45-day period beginning on the date on which Congress
receives the notification.
(c) Limitations.--The authorities provided by this section
shall be subject to such limitations as may be provided in
appropriations Acts.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
SEC. 3401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Amount.--There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Energy $21,069,000 for fiscal year 2003
for the purpose of carrying out activities under chapter 641
of title 10, United States Code, relating to the naval
petroleum reserves.
(b) Period of Availability.--Funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in subsection (a) shall
remain available until expended.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 3501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2003.
Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2003, to be available without fiscal year limitation if
so provided in appropriations Acts, for the use of the
Department of Transportation for the Maritime Administration
as follows:
(1) For expenses necessary for operations and training
activities, $93,132,000.
(2) For expenses under the loan guarantee program
authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46
App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), $54,126,000, of which--
(A) $50,000,000 is for the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C.
661a(5))) of loan guarantees under the program; and
(B) $4,126,000 is for administrative expenses related to
loan guarantee commitments under the program.
(3) For expenses to dispose of obsolete vessels in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet, including provision of
assistance under section 7 of Public Law 92-402 (as amended
by this title), $20,000,000.
SEC. 3502. AUTHORITY TO CONVEY VESSEL USS SPHINX (ARL-24).
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other law, the
Secretary of Transportation may convey the right, title, and
interest of the United States Government in and to the vessel
USS SPHINX (ARL-24), to the Dunkirk Historical Lighthouse and
Veterans Park Museum (a not-for-profit corporation, in this
section referred to as the ``recipient'') for use as a
military museum, if--
(1) the recipient agrees to use the vessel as a nonprofit
military museum;
(2) the vessel is not used for commercial transportation
purposes;
(3) the recipient agrees to make the vessel available to
the Government when the Secretary requires use of the vessel
by the Government;
[[Page H2328]]
(4) the recipient agrees that when the recipient no longer
requires the vessel for use as a military museum--
(A) the recipient will, at the discretion of the Secretary,
reconvey the vessel to the Government in good condition
except for ordinary wear and tear; or
(B) if the Board of Trustees of the recipient has decided
to dissolve the recipient according to the laws of the State
of New York, then--
(i) the recipient shall distribute the vessel, as an asset
of the recipient, to a person that has been determined exempt
from taxation under the provisions of section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or to the Federal Government or a
State or local government for a public purpose; and
(ii) the vessel shall be disposed of by a court of
competent jurisdiction of the county in which the principal
office of the recipient is located, for such purposes as the
court shall determine, or to such organizations as the court
shall determine are organized exclusively for public
purposes;
(5) the recipient agrees to hold the Government harmless
for any claims arising from exposure to asbestos after
conveyance of the vessel, except for claims arising from use
by the Government under paragraph (3) or (4); and
(6) the recipient has available, for use to restore the
vessel, in the form of cash, liquid assets, or a written loan
commitment, financial resources of at least $100,000.
(b) Delivery of Vessel.--If a conveyance is made under this
Act, the Secretary shall deliver the vessel at the place
where the vessel is located on the date of enactment of this
Act, in its present condition, without cost to the
Government.
(c) Other Unneeded Equipment.--The Secretary may also
convey any unneeded equipment from other vessels in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet in order to restore the USS
SPHINX (ARL-24) to museum quality.
(d) Retention of Vessel in NDRF.--The Secretary shall
retain in the National Defense Reserve Fleet the vessel
authorized to be conveyed under subsection (a), until the
earlier of--
(1) 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the date of conveyance of the vessel under subsection
(a).
SEC. 3503. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR PREPARATION OF
TRANSFERRED OBSOLETE SHIPS FOR USE AS
ARTIFICIAL REEFS.
(a) In General.--Public Law 92-402 (16 U.S.C. 1220 et seq.)
is amended by redesignating section 7 as section 8, and by
inserting after section 6 the following:
``SEC. 7. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE TO PREPARE
TRANSFERRED SHIP.
``(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary, subject to the
availability of appropriations, may provide, to any State to
which an obsolete ship is transferred under this Act,
financial assistance to prepare the ship for use as an
artificial reef, including for--
``(1) environmental remediation;
``(2) towing; and
``(3) sinking.
``(b) Amount of Assistance.--The Secretary shall determine
the amount of assistance under this section with respect to
an obsolete ship based on--
``(1) the total amount available for providing assistance
under this section;
``(2) the benefit achieved by providing assistance for that
ship; and
``(3) the cost effectiveness of disposing of the ship by
transfer under this Act and provision of assistance under
this section, compared to other disposal options for the
vessel.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary--
``(1) shall require a State seeking assistance under this
section to provide cost data and other information determined
by the Secretary to be necessary to justify and document the
assistance; and
``(2) may require a State receiving such assistance to
comply with terms and conditions necessary to protect the
environment and the interests of the United States.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 4(4) of such Act (16
U.S.C. 1220a(4)) is amended by inserting ``(except for any
financial assistance provided under section 7)'' after ``at
no cost to the Government''.
SEC. 3504. INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF TITLE XI INSURANCE
GUARANTEE APPLICATIONS.
Section 1104A of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1274) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following:
``(4) The Secretary may obtain independent analysis of an
application for a guarantee or commitment to guarantee under
this title.''; and
(2) in subsection (f) by inserting ``(including for
obtaining independent analysis under subsection (d)(4))''
after ``applications for a guarantee''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 107-
450 and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution
415.
Except as specified in section 4 of the resolution, each amendment
printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
Unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment printed in
the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject
to amendment, except as specified in the report and except that the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services
each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further
debate on any pending amendment.
It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting
of amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier disposed of
or germane modifications of any such amendment.
Amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 40 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of any amendment out of the order printed, but not sooner
than 1 hour after the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a
designee announces from the floor a request to that effect.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Stump
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc consisting of the
following amendments printed in part B of House Report 107-450:
amendment No. 11, amendment No. 12, amendment No. 13, amendment No. 14,
amendment No. 16, amendment No. 17, amendment No. 18, amendment No. 19,
amendment No. 20, amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), amendment No. 23, amendment No. 24, and
amendment No. 22 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Culberson:
At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. USE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES OF DNA SAMPLES
MAINTAINED BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR
IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN REMAINS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 80 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1566. DNA samples maintained for identification of
human remains: use for law enforcement purposes
``(a) Compliance with Court Order.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), if a valid order of a Federal court (or
military judge) so requires, an element of the Department of
Defense that maintains a repository of DNA samples for the
purpose of identification of human remains shall make
available, for the purpose specified in subsection (b), such
DNA samples on such terms and conditions as such court (or
military judge) directs.
``(2) A DNA sample with respect to an individual shall be
provided under paragraph (1) in a manner that does not
compromise the ability of the Department of Defense to
maintain a sample with respect to that individual for the
purpose of identification of human remains.
``(b) Covered Purpose.--The purpose referred to in
subsection (a) is the purpose of an investigation or
prosecution of a felony, or any sexual offense, for which no
other source of DNA information is available.
``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `DNA sample'
has the meaning given such term in section 1565(c) of this
title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 1566. DNA samples maintained for identification of
human remains: use for law enforcement purposes.''.
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia:
At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING AIRCRAFT CARRIER
FORCE STRUCTURE.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The aircraft carrier has been an integral component in
Operation Enduring Freedom and in the homeland defense
mission beginning on September 11, 2001. The aircraft
carriers that have participated in Operation Enduring
Freedom, as of May 1, 2002, are the USS Enterprise (CVN-65),
the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70), the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63),
[[Page H2329]]
the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), the USS John C. Stennis
(CVN-74), and the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The aircraft
carriers that have participated in the homeland defense
mission are the USS George Washington (CVN-73), the USS John
F. Kennedy (CV-67), and the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74).
(2) Since 1945, the United States has built 172 bases
overseas, of which only 24 are currently in use.
(3) The aircraft carrier provides an independent base of
operations should no land base be available for aircraft.
(4) The aircraft carrier is an essential component of the
Navy.
(5) Both the F/A-18E/F aircraft program and the Joint
Strike Fighter aircraft program are proceeding on schedule
for deployment on aircraft carriers.
(6) As established by the Navy, the United States requires
the service of 15 aircraft carriers to completely fulfill all
the naval commitments assigned to it without gapping carrier
presence.
(7) The Navy requires, at a minimum, at least 12 carriers
to accomplish its current missions.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the number of aircraft carriers of the Navy in active service
should not be less than 12.
(c) Commendation of Crews.--Congress hereby commends the
crews of the aircraft carriers that have participated in
Operation Enduring Freedom and the homeland defense mission.
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Farr of California:
At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. ENHANCED AUTHORITY TO OBTAIN FOREIGN LANGUAGE
SERVICES DURING PERIODS OF EMERGENCY.
(a) National Foreign Language Skills Registry.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may establish and maintain a secure data
registry to be known as the ``National Foreign Language
Skills Registry''. The data registry shall consist of the
names of, and other pertinent information on, linguistically
qualified United States citizens and permanent resident
aliens who state that they are willing to provide linguistic
services in times of emergency designated by the Secretary of
Defense to assist the Department of Defense and other
Departments and agencies of the United States with
translation and interpretation in languages designated by the
Secretary of Defense as critical languages.
(2) The name of a person may be included in the Registry
only if the person expressly agrees for the person's name to
be included in the Registry. Any such agreement shall be made
in such form and manner as may be specified by the Secretary.
(b) Authority To Accept Voluntary Translation and
Interpretation Services.--Section 1588(a) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(6) Language translation and interpretation services.''.
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Hefley:
Strike section 351 (page 68, beginning line 2), and insert
the following new section:
SEC. 351. AUTHORIZED DURATION OF BASE CONTRACT FOR NAVY-
MARINE CORPS INTRANET.
Section 814 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, as enacted into law
by Public Law 106-398 (114 Stat. 1654A-215) and amended by
section 362 of Public Law 107-107 (115 Stat. 1065), is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new
subsection (i):
``(i) Duration of Base Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
Contract.--Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United
States Code, the base contract of the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet contract may have a term in excess of five years,
but not more than seven years.''.
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of title VIII (page 174, after line 5), add the
following new section:
SEC. ____. RENEWAL OF CERTAIN PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AT FUNDING
LEVELS AT LEAST SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT EXISTING
PROGRAMS.
Section 2413 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) With respect to any eligible entity that has
successfully performed under a cooperative agreement entered
into under subsection (a), the Secretary shall strive, to the
greatest extent practicable and subject to appropriations, to
renew such agreement with such entity at a level of funding
which is at least equal to the level of funding under the
cooperative agreement being renewed.''.
Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Ortiz:
At the end of subtitle B of title I (page 21, after line
20), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. PROHIBITION ON ACQUISITION OF CHAMPION-CLASS, T-5
FUEL TANKERS.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a
Champion-class fuel tanker, known as a T-5, which features a
double hull and reinforcement against ice damage, may not be
acquired for the Military Sealift Command or for other Navy
purposes.
(b) Termination.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall
not apply if the acquisition of a T-5 tanker is specifically
authorized in a defense authorization Act that--
(1) is enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act;
(2) specifically refers to subsection (a); and
(3) specifically states that the prohibition in such
subsection does not apply.
Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Pallone:
Page 312, after line 15, insert the following new section:
SEC. 2826. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey by sale all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of land, consisting of
approximately 63.95 acres of military family housing known as
Howard Commons, that comprises a portion of Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey.
(b) Competitive Bid Requirement.--The Secretary shall use
competitive procedures for the sale authorized by subsection
(a).
(c) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
authorized under subsection (a), the recipient of the land
shall pay an amount that is no less than fair market value,
as determined by the Secretary. Such recipient may, as in-
kind consideration, build replacement military family housing
or rehabilitate existing military family housing at Fort
Monmouth, New Jersey, as agreed upon by the Secretary. Any
proceeds received by the Secretary not used to construct or
rehabilitate such military family housing shall be deposited
in the special account in the Treasury established pursuant
to section 204(h) of the Federal property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 485(h)).
(d) Description of Parcel.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be determined by a survey that is satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
recipient of the parcel.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Saxton:
At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. SURFACE COMBATANT INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) Review.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a
review of the effect of the contract award announced on April
29, 2002, for the lead design agent for the DD(X) ship
program on the industrial base for ship combat system
development, including the industrial base for each of the
following: ship systems integration, radar, electronic
warfare, launch systems, and other components.
(b) Report Required.--Not later than March 31, 2003, the
Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report based on the review under subsection (a).
The report shall provide the Secretary's assessment of the
effect of that contract award on the ship combat system
technology and industrial base and shall describe any actions
that the Secretary proposes to ensure future competition
across the array of technologies that encompass the combat
systems of future surface ships, including the next
generation cruiser (CG(X)), the littoral combat ship (LCS),
and the joint command ship (JCC(X)).
Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Schrock:
At the end of subtitle A of title XXVIII (page 292, after
line 7), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. PILOT HOUSING PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITY FOR
ACQUISITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY
UNACCOMPANIED HOUSING.
(a) In General.--(1) Subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title
10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
2881 the following new section:
``Sec. 2881a. Pilot projects for acquisition or construction
of military unaccompanied housing
``(a) Pilot Projects Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy
may carry out not more than 3 pilot projects under the
authority of this section or another provision of this
subchapter to use the private sector for the acquisition or
construction of military unaccompanied housing in the United
States, including any territory or possession of the United
States.
``(b) Assignment of Members and Basic Allowance for
Housing.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may assign members of
the armed forces to housing units acquired or constructed
under the pilot projects, and such housing units shall be
considered as quarters of the United States or a housing
facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service for
purposes of section 403 of title 37.
``(2) Notwithstanding section 403(n)(2) of title 37, the
Secretary of Defense may set specific higher rates of partial
basic allowance for housing for a member of the armed forces
who is assigned to a housing unit acquired or constructed
under the pilot projects. Any increase in the rate of partial
basic allowance for housing to accommodate the pilot programs
shall be in addition to any partial basic allowance for
housing that the member may otherwise be eligible to receive
under section 403(n) of title 37. A member may not sustain a
reduction in partial basic allowance for housing as a result
of assignment to a housing unit acquired or constructed under
the pilot projects.
``(c) Funding.--(1) The Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund shall be used to carry out activities under
the pilot projects.
[[Page H2330]]
``(2) Subject to 90 days prior notification to the
appropriate committees of Congress, such additional amounts
as the Secretary of Defense considers necessary may be
transferred to the Department of Defense Housing Improvement
Fund from amounts appropriated for construction of military
unaccompanied housing projects in military construction
accounts. The amounts so transferred shall be merged with and
to be available for the same purposes and for the same period
of time as amounts appropriated directly to the Fund.
``(d) Reports.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall
transmit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
describing--
``(A) each contract for the acquisition of military
unaccompanied housing that the Secretary proposes to solicit
under the pilot projects;
``(B) each conveyance or lease proposed under section 2878
of this title in furtherance of the pilot projects; and
``(C) the proposed partial basic allowance for housing
rates for each contract as they vary by grade of the member
and how they compare to basic allowance for housing rates for
other contracts written under the authority of the pilot
programs.
``(2) The report shall describe the proposed contract,
conveyance, or lease and the intended method of participation
of the United States in the contract, conveyance, or lease
and provide a justification of such method of participation.
The report shall be submitted not later than 90 days before
the date on which the Secretary issues the contract
solicitation or offers the conveyance or lease.
``(e) Expiration.--Notwithstanding section 2885 of this
title, the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter
into a contract under the pilot programs shall expire
September 30, 2007.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
subchapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 2881 the following new item:
``2881a. Pilot projects for acquisition or construction of military
unaccompanied housing.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2871(7) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and transient housing intended to
be occupied by members of the armed forces on temporary
duty''.
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Snyder:
At the end of title IX (page 179, after line 21), insert
the following new section:
SEC. 9____. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT GIFTS FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE
UNIVERSITY.
(a) In General.--Section 2605 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``administration of''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence ``, or (2) the National Defense University'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
(B) by striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)'';
(C) by designating the last sentence as paragraph (3) and
in that sentence by inserting ``or for the benefit or use of
the National Defense University, as the case may be,'' after
``schools,''; and
(D) by inserting before paragraph (3), as designated by
subparagraph (C), the following:
``(2) There is established in the Treasury a fund to be
known as the `National Defense University Gift Fund'. Gifts
of money, and the proceeds of the sale of property, received
under subsection (a)(2) shall be deposited in the Fund.'';
(3) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by inserting ``and the
National Defense University Gift Fund'' before the semicolon;
and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) In this section, the term `National Defense
University' includes any school or other component of the
National Defense University.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--(1) The heading of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2605. Acceptance of gifts for defense dependents'
schools and National Defense University''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 151 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``2605. Acceptance of gifts for defense dependents' schools and
National Defense University.''.
Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Spratt:
At the end of title XI (page 222, after line 3), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. CERTIFICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING POSITIONS.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 81 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 1599d. Professional accounting positions: authority to
prescribe certification and credential standards
``(a) Authority To Prescribe Professional Certification
Standards.--The Secretary of Defense may prescribe
professional certification and credential standards for
professional accounting positions within the Department of
Defense. Any such standard shall be prescribed as a
Department of Defense regulation.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive any
standard prescribed under subsection (a) whenever the
Secretary determines such a waiver to be appropriate.
``(c) Applicability.--A standard prescribed under
subsection (a) shall not apply to any person employed by the
Department of Defense before the standard is prescribed.
``(d) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report on the Secretary's plans to provide
training to appropriate Department of Defense personnel to
meet any new professional and credential standards prescribed
under subsection (a). Such report shall be prepared in
conjunction with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management. Such a report shall be submitted not later than
one year after the effective date of any regulations, or any
revision to regulations, prescribed pursuant to subsection
(a).
``(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `professional
accounting position' means a position or group of positions
in the GS-510, GS-511, and GS-505 series that involves
professional accounting work.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``1599d. Professional accounting positions: authority to establish
certification and credential standards.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Standards established pursuant to
section 1599d of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), may take effect no sooner than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Stump:
At the end of subtitle C of title I (page 23, after line
5), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. REALLOCATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR AIR FORCE
RESERVE COMMAND F-16 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT.
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated by section
103(1) that are available for procurement of F-16 aircraft
for the Air Force Reserve Command, $14,400,000 shall be
available for 36 Litening II modernization upgrade kits for
the F-16 block 25 and block 30 aircraft (rather than for
Litening AT pods for such aircraft).
Page 65, line 11, strike ``$30,00,000'' and insert
``$35,000,000''.
In section 2811, page 295, after line 11, insert the
following new subsection (and redesignate subsequent
subsections accordingly):
``(e) Acquisition of Water Rights.--The authority of the
Secretary of a military department to enter into an agreement
under subsection (a) for the acquisition of real property (or
an interest therein) includes the authority to support the
purchase of water rights from any available source when
necessary to support or protect the mission of a military
installation.
Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
At the end of subtitle B of title X (page 209, after line
25), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF FUTURE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 23 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 480 the following
new section:
``Sec. 480a. Recurring reporting requirements: five-year
limitation
``(a) Five-Year Sunset.--Any recurring congressional
defense reporting requirement that is established by a
provision of law enacted on or after the date of the
enactment of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (including a provision of law enacted as
part of that Act) shall cease to be effective, with respect
to that requirement, at the end of the five-year period
beginning on the date on which such provision is enacted,
except as otherwise provided by law.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--A provision of law enacted
after the date of the enactment of this section may not be
considered to supersede the provisions of subsection (a)
unless that provision specifically refers to subsection (a)
and specifically states that it supersedes subsection (a).
``(c) Recurring Congressional Defense Reporting
Requirements.--In this section, the term `recurring defense
congressional reporting requirement' means a requirement by
law for the submission of an annual, semiannual, or other
regular periodic report to Congress, or one or more
committees of Congress, that applies only to the Department
of Defense or to one or more officers of the Department of
Defense.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 480 the following new item:
``480a. Recurring reporting requirements: five-year limitation.''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This en bloc amendment has been crafted in full consultation with the
committee's ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), and includes the part B amendments as reported by the
Committee on Rules offered by the following Members: the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentlewoman from
[[Page H2331]]
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr),
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Manzullo), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt),
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and myself.
I would like to thank all those Members for their work in putting
this en bloc amendment together and for their cooperation in allowing
us to consider them in this fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the chairman for his work on the
en bloc amendments. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we have reviewed
each of the proposed en bloc amendments, that we agree to the
submission thereof and the passage thereof, and that they should all be
supported by the Members of this body.
Let me take just a moment in addition thereto, Mr. Chairman. Part of
our duties as members of the Committee on Armed Services besides having
hearings and having the briefings and doing the study here in
Washington is to meet with the various members of the military
personnel wherever they may be. Not long ago, I was aboard the USS
Harry S Truman in Norfolk and met with the officers and men and women
of that ship.
Not long thereafter, I was in San Diego and I went aboard the USS
Peleliu and visited extensively with the sailors thereon. By the way,
they had just returned from their duties in the Indian Ocean. And then
I have been to Little Rock Air Force Base and saw the extensive
training there; to Fort Campbell, Kentucky; to Whiteman Air Force base,
which is in the State of Missouri.
I must tell my colleagues that the young people in American uniform
are working hard, that they are dedicated and that they are
professionals and the purpose of our being here today is to give them
support. However, it is interesting to note two things. The first is
that they are being stretched and strained in their efforts because
there are too few in number in many instances. This is pointed out by
the fact that General Buck Kernan of forces command down in Norfolk
testified not long ago to the effect that the troops are tired and that
they are stretched. Then a week later, the commander of our forces in
Europe, General Joe Ralston, testified that there were needs for
additional forces and resources in his jurisdiction. Admiral Dennis
Blair, Commander in Chief of the Pacific, testified similarly.
The young men and young women are stretched. Their families are
paying a price of them being gone so much, but that is only half the
story. The other half of the story, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the
morale is sky high, that they know why they are there, that they are
supporting the men and women of the United States of America; and I
think all of us should add a special note of pride and appreciation to
them.
So I take this means while we are discussing these en bloc
amendments, which we, of course, have no objection to, to say that
added word in honor and in recognition of our young folks who represent
the United States of America in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for including the
Tiahrt amendment language in the en bloc. This sunsets many unneeded
reports after 5 years.
The bill already contains the Tiahrt-Kirk language ending 20 unneeded
reports that were previously required by law. Our effort is the first
fruit of Secretary Rumsfeld's tooth-to-tail effort to increase the
amount of effort we have on the front line by decreasing unneeded
logistic efforts behind the lines. The Secretary launched this effort
on September 10, but we are now yielding real fruit.
The current bill language killing unneeded reports is estimated to
save over 21,000 man-hours inside the Pentagon. This effort in the en
bloc to sunset all reports after 5 years will go a long way to focus
efforts on the combat front line and away from the rear echelon.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank the gentleman from
Missouri for including this in the en bloc.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment included among the en
bloc amendments which was specifically requested by the Department of
Defense. In fact, the idea for this amendment arose at a breakfast we
had with Secretary Rumsfeld at which there were complaints about
limitations on their ability to manage the Pentagon. One was in the
quality of personnel they have for financial management, the attraction
of personnel with the requisite qualifications for handling a budget
that is now approaching $400 billion, the certification of these
qualifications, hiring, firing.
I responded to that by calling Dr. Dov Zakheim, who is the
comptroller of the Department of Defense, and telling him if he had
problems like this, we were not going to be stinting about the cost of
professional personnel in the Department of Defense. We need to raise
the quality of management throughout the Federal Government and
certainly in the Department that has the largest budget.
I asked him to send me legislation of what he would like to have in
the way of professional qualifications, certification, what he could
reasonably require for those who worked in the Department of the
Controller. He sent me some legislation, and we made a few minor
revisions to it. We made some revisions primarily to make it
prospective instead of retrospective so that nobody loses his job
because he does not meet these new qualifications or these new
certifications. Secondly, we worked with the American Federation of
Government Employees to make sure that they were satisfied with the
proposal we have got.
This amendment is just a crucial first step to helping the Department
of Defense improve their abilities in the area of financial management
and their ability to track and account for the funding that Congress
provides. The heart and soul, obviously, of any accounting system is
the people it employs. This will enable the Department to raise the
level, raise the bar in the qualifications for people who are attracted
and hired in the Department of Defense for financial management.
It is my understanding that the Committee on Government Reform has
also vetted this legislation and supports it as well. I urge an ``aye''
vote on the en bloc amendment.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services for the outstanding work he has done for
our armed services. His leadership is going to be greatly missed. We
appreciate the job he has done for America.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would require that future regular
reporting requirements imposed on the Department of Defense would have
a sunset provision of 5 years after enactment. This would not apply to
existing reporting requirements and only be applicable to new reports,
including those in this bill, H.R. 4546.
This amendment serves both Congress and DOD by ensuring that all
future reports are reviewed regularly and remain relevant and
responsive. This is endorsed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
This legislation does not abdicate Congress' traditional oversight role
and will insist that the Department of Defense remain responsive to
congressional requests and questions about their activities. Those
reporting requirements deemed useful after 5 years can easily be
reauthorized at the conclusion of the sunset period. Conversely,
Congress must demonstrate responsibility in its oversight authority by
limiting burdensome and unnecessary and unending reporting
requirements.
In fiscal year 2001, the Department of Defense was required to
prepare 983
[[Page H2332]]
various reports to Congress, of which 449 are listed right here in this
packet. This is simply a listing and a brief explanation of the 449
reports that are perennially required by Congress and stipulated year
after year. The House Committee on Armed Services in conjunction with
the Department of Defense has carefully examined these 449 reports and
determined that only 20 out of the 449 were redundant, outdated or no
longer relevant enough and should be terminated.
Since it is unlikely that Congress will be unable to significantly
reduce the number of existing reports, it is our goal to limit the
future ones. Remember, each existing and future report is an unfunded
and unprogrammed mandate that has proven extremely difficult to
eliminate. The cumulative effect of these required reports is highly
burdensome and costly. Limiting these requirements in the future will
allow the military staff to concentrate more fully on their primary
mission of national security.
{time} 1500
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to add my words of
thanks and praise to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his
fine leadership for the Committee on Armed Services and doing right by
our armed men and women in uniform.
I rise for the purpose now of engaging in a colloquy with the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities of the Committee
on Armed Services.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PLATTS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy
with the gentleman from the State capital area of Pennsylvania (Mr.
Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I requested that
his subcommittee authorize the first phase of an important 5-phase
project to replace seriously deteriorated family housing at the Army
War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, which is in my
district. The first phase is a modest beginning of 27 new units costing
$5.4 million. I understand that there was insufficient money to
accommodate all Members' requests, however worthy. However, I have been
informed that the Army intends to fund this project in the fiscal year
2004 budget that will be submitted in February 2003.
Mr. Chairman, this project is sorely needed, and I ask that the
gentleman support this needed family housing project when his
subcommittee reviews the Army's military construction request next
year.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PLATTS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman is
correct that there is or was insufficient funding available to provide
for all of the military construction and family housing improvements
that are needed across our military. I might add that we have tried to
increase the amount of money available for this purpose and, in fact,
we were able to add some money to the request that we received from the
Department of Defense. I wish that we could have done more, and I
particularly wish we could have taken care of all family housing needs,
as quality-of-life improvements are so important and necessary in
today's volunteer service.
I agree that family housing at Carlisle Barracks is among those
housing projects that must be replaced, and I assure the gentleman that
any request by the Army for new family housing at Carlisle will receive
careful consideration by my subcommittee in the next year.
Family housing is an important priority and has always received the
subcommittee's full support. I thank the gentleman for bringing this
important matter to our attention, and I look forward to working with
him on it in the next Congress.
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his interest and support on this issue, and I also look forward to
working with him, and I thank him for his fine leadership.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support
the en bloc amendment containing a Sense of Congress on Aircraft
Carrier Force Structure. This amendment would do 2 things.
First, it would commend the crews of the aircraft carriers that
contributed directly to Operation Enduring Freedom and the homeland
defense mission. Many people are aware that our aircraft carriers
contributed to our initial actions in Operation Enduring Freedom, but
most people are unaware as to the number of carriers and also the
incredible effort and number of aircraft carriers it took to effect our
initial response to the attack on September 11.
Second, this amendment would recognize the full value and worth that
our carriers have for America's power and force projection
capabilities. There is no doubt that the aircraft carriers have been
integral to our war in Afghanistan. We have all heard the story of how
the USS Enterprise turned around and went back when the captain heard
about what was going on. Every munition and bomb dropped from a carrier
air wing has been a precision-guided munition. The carriers worked
around the clock after the attacks on September 11.
Mr. Chairman, the Sense of Congress expresses a simple truism that is
laid out in the Quadrennial Defense Review. The Navy needs, at a
minimum, at least 12 aircraft carriers.
Mr. Chairman, I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues to vote
in support of this en bloc amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would like to rise in support of the amendment of the gentlewoman
from Virginia. One would not think that there would be much controversy
about the important role Navy aircraft carriers are playing in this
very dangerous world. Indeed, if we want to follow the war on terrorism
on a daily basis, it is difficult to read a newspaper article or see
television coverage that does not mention what our carriers are doing
to keep fighting that remains away from our shores. No less than 8
carriers have been involved in Operation Enduring Freedom or patrolling
our own shores in the name of homeland security since September 11.
This amendment also reaffirms our support for a fleet of no less than
12 carriers, the absolute minimum necessary to sustain coverage in the
oceans around the hot spots in the world. The underlying bill restores
both the funding and the original program of record for the next
generation of aircraft carriers, CVNX program, and for that, Mr.
Chairman, I am truly grateful.
Those of us who have had the privilege of representing Hampton Roads
in Virginia, where carriers are built and many home-ported, we see on a
daily basis the service and sacrifice made by these brave men and women
and their families they leave behind when they race off to war. It
would be my hope that our action on this amendment here would reaffirm
once again that we in Congress both recognize and salute all of those
in the armed services, including those Navy families who remain behind
as their loved ones are deployed on these massive carriers.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Virginia
(Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) on offering this amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to agree to the amendment.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to do 2 things. The first is to
mention, and I neglected to mention in my opening statement, that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has been my partner on the
Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on
Armed Services, and has done a wonderful job and has helped us to walk
this bill through the subcommittee mark and the full floor mark, and I
really appreciate his great work on this bill.
I also wanted to talk for just a minute about an area that I think is
[[Page H2333]]
pretty important to all of us from an environmental standpoint and also
from a security standpoint, and that is our reserve fleet of ships,
many of which are in very bad condition, which presently are at anchor
in the James River, and our great colleague, Herb Bateman, worked on
this issue for many years, the idea of trying to take care of these
ships in an environmentally responsible way. It requires a lot of
money. It usually requires about $2.5 million per ship if you are going
to scrap the ships in an American yard. You can give them to a foreign
entity, but you are not really guaranteed that that entity is not just
going to take the ships out and dump them, complete with PCBs and oil
and other materials in the ocean, thereby creating another
environmental problem.
So we have come up, in working with a working group that is headed by
the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), very much a part of
her creation, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) who has a
nearby district and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock) who
has a near district, we have come up with an idea of how to make some
lemonade out of these lemons, and that is to use these ships in the
States where reefs are required and would, in fact, be a benefit to
those shorelines.
Now, today reefs are used by a number of States to not only protect
shorelines from erosion, but also to provide great opportunities for
fishing enthusiasts and also for scuba divers and lots of other folks
who are interested in recreation. So we have in our bill, originally in
the mark in our maritime panel mark, and now in the full bill, a
provision that will send some money to the States as grants from the
MARAD administrator so that they can pay for towing, cleaning up and
ultimately sinking these ships as reefs in these States that would like
to have this new asset along their shorelines.
So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis)
for her great work on this and also her colleagues that she has brought
into this process, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), who have a real
interest, because they have the surrounding districts.
We have already hooked up with some of the sport fishing
associations, and we are going to move forward with this working group
and take direction from the Members of Congress led by the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) who have a real interest in this
issue because it is in their districts. We are going to move forward
with this working group and I think we can find a home for these ships
in such a way that we not only take them off our hands and eliminate
this prospect of the ships sinking in the James River and the pollution
that would attend that. We can not only take those ships out of
inventory, but we can also provide an asset for the States that want to
have this new shoreline presence of reefs that we can provide by
sinking these ships.
So this could be a winner for everybody, and I look forward to
working with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) on this
issue.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, there has been considerable concern that this
legislation gives the Department of Defense some limited exemptions
from current environmental laws. Although this is a complicated issue
and there are legitimate concerns on both sides, I think it is
important to keep in mind some simple facts. Here are a few:
Fact Number One: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act did not interfere with
military training in past wars for a simple reason. The courts never
applied the act in this way until March of this year--2002--when the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia interpreted the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act to apply to military readiness activities.
This is an important and real change in application of the Migratory
Bird Act and we must address it. Navy Carrier Battle Groups and
deploying Marine Corps and Air Force squadrons have been blocked by
court order from using the only U.S. bombing range available to them in
the Western Pacific. Let's be clear, our forces deploying to
Afghanistan cannot now use the only range suitable for training with
smart, laser-guided weapons, as a result of unprecedented judicial
interference with military readiness activities.
Fact Number Two: There is no Presidential exemption available under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under the current District Court
interpretation, any military training can be enjoined and, except
through legal appeals, there is no way to continue that vital military
training.
Fact Number Three: There is an exemption under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) if the Secretary of Defense finds it is necessary for reasons
of national security. That exemption, however, is better used to
address emergencies or unusual, short-term situations. The need to
train for combat, to plan and execute military readiness activities, is
a seven day a week, 52 weeks a year requirement. The young men and
women serving in our armed forces need to achieve basic readiness
levels and then develop and sustain high levels of proficiency. Using
statutory exemptions in that context is bad public policy. Balancing
two public goods--national defense and environmental conservation--on a
daily and long-term basis is a function properly vested in the
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, our armed forces are not seeking a broad, total
exemption from all environmental laws and regulations. They are seeking
a balanced, sensible and responsible application of those laws. We must
address this problem in a way that holds the Pentagon accountable for
environmental concerns while also allowing the service to conduct
essential combat training. This legislation sets the necessary balance
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly describe my amendment to
today's bill . . . it is a simple amendment. It merely re-enforces for
the services that the journey to approval of any policy or purchase on
their part must travel through the House Armed Services Committee.
The genesis of this amendment lies with the Navy's intention to
purchase five T-5 tankers (surface ships) now under contract with Ocean
Freedom Shipping. These tankers are being used to ship diesel fuel for
the Defense Energy Supply Center.
Under the contract, the Navy has the option to buy the tankers. The
contract also requires the Navy to have the purchase authorized and
appropriated.
This amendment reinforces for the services the procedure for which
such policy must past muster. This is for the HASC to authorize, not
for the Navy to seek appropriations for alone.
Mr. STUMP. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
The amendments en bloc were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in part A of House report 107-450.
Part A, Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A, amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania:
At the end of title X (page 218, after line 15), insert the
following new section:
SEC. 10____. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND
RUSSIAN FEDERATION TO PROMOTE MUTUAL SECURITY.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States to pursue greater cooperation, transparency, and
confidence with the Russian Federation regarding nuclear
weapons policy, force structure, safeguards, testing, and
proliferation prevention, as well as nuclear weapons
infrastructure, production, and dismantlement, so as to
promote mutual security, stability, and trust.
(b) Sense of Congress Regarding Enhanced Cooperation With
Russia.--It is the sense of Congress that the President of
the United States should continue to engage the President of
the Russian Federation to achieve the following objectives,
consistent with United States national security, in the
interest of promoting mutual trust, security, and stability:
(1) An agreement that would seek to prevent the illicit
use, diversion, theft, or proliferation of tactical nuclear
weapons, and their key components and materials, by--
(A) withdrawing deployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons;
(B) accounting for, consolidating, and securing the Russian
Federation's nonstrategic nuclear weapons; and
(C) dismantling or destroying United States and Russian
nonstrategic nuclear weapons in excess of each nation's
legitimate defense needs.
(2) A reciprocal program of joint visits by nuclear weapons
scientists and experts of the United States and the Russian
Federation to the United States nuclear test site in Nevada,
and the Russian nuclear test site at Novya Zemlya.
(3) A reciprocal program of joint visits and conferences at
each nation's nuclear weapons laboratories and nuclear
weapons development and production facilities to discuss how
to improve the safety and security of
[[Page H2334]]
each nation's nuclear stockpile, nuclear materials, and
nuclear infrastructure.
(4) A reciprocal program of joint visits and conferences to
explore greater cooperation between the United States and the
Russian Federation with regard to ballistic missile defenses
against intentional, unauthorized, and accidental launches of
ballistic missiles.
(5) A joint commission on nonproliferation, composed of
senior nonproliferation and intelligence officials from the
United States and the Russian Federation, to meet regularly
in a closed forum to discuss ways to prevent rogue states and
potential adversaries from acquiring--
(A) weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles;
(B) the dual-use goods, technologies, and expertise
necessary to develop weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missiles; and
(C) advanced conventional weapons.
(6) A joint program to develop advanced methods for
disposal of weapons-grade nuclear materials excess to defense
needs, including safe, proliferation resistant, advanced
nuclear fuel cycles that achieve more complete consumption of
weapons materials, and other methods that minimize waste and
hazards to health and the environment.
(7) A joint program to develop methods for safeguarding,
treating, and disposing of spent reactor fuel and other
nuclear waste so as to minimize the risk to public health,
property, and the environment, as well as the possibility of
diversion to illicit purposes.
(8) A joint program, built upon existing programs, to
cooperatively develop advanced methods and techniques for
establishing a state-of-the-art inventory control and
monitoring system for nuclear weapons and material.
(c) Report.--No later than March 1, 2003, the President
shall submit to Congress a report (in unclassified or
classified form as necessary) on the status of the objectives
under subsection (b). The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the actions taken by the President to
engage the Russian Federation to achieve those objectives.
(2) A description of the progress made to achieve those
objectives.
(3) A description of the response of the Russian Federation
to the actions referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) The President's assessment of the Russian Federation's
commitment to a better, closer relationship with the United
States based on the principles of increased cooperation and
transparency.
At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24) insert the following new section:
SEC. 3146. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH PROHIBITION ON RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS
REPEALED.
(a) Presidential Certification.--Subsection (b) shall take
effect as of the date on which the President submits to
Congress the President's certification that--
(1) another nation has conducted a nuclear test for the
purpose of developing new or improved nuclear weapons;
(2) another nation is developing weapons of mass
destruction in underground facilities, and such weapons could
pose an imminent risk to the United States or to United
States military personnel deployed abroad; or
(3) it is in the national security interest of the United
States that subsection (b) take effect.
(b) Repeal.--Effective as of the date provided in
subsection (a), section 3136 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (42 U.S.C. 2121 note)
is repealed.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 51,
noes 356, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 138]
AYES--51
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Becerra
Berry
Bonior
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Condit
Conyers
Cunningham
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Frank
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller, George
Mink
Napolitano
Owens
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Roybal-Allard
Schakowsky
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Visclosky
Waters
Wu
NOES--356
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Berman
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Hall (OH)
Hilleary
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
LaFalce
Lewis (GA)
Maloney (CT)
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Ose
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Schaffer
Souder
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
{time} 1535
Messrs. OLVER, FARR of California, GOSS, BARTON of Texas, HERGER and
Ms. CARSON of Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
[[Page H2335]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on May 9, 2002,
and missed rollcall votes 134, 135, 136, 137 and 138. If I had been
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 134, ``no'' on
rollcall vote 135, ``no'' on rollcall vote 136, ``no'' on rollcall vote
137 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 138.
Modification to Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
modify my amendment with the modification I place at the desk as worked
out with my colleagues on the other side.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr.
Weldon of Pennsylvania:
Strike section 3146 as proposed to be inserted by the
amendment and insert the following:
SEC. 3146. PROHIBITION ON DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR
WEAPONS.
(a) United States Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
United States not to conduct development which could lead to
the production by the United States of a new low-yield
nuclear weapon, including a precision low-yield warhead.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary of Energy may not conduct,
or provide for the conduct of, development which could lead
to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear
weapon which, as of the date of the enactment of this Act,
has not entered production.
(c) Effect on Other Development.--Nothing in this section
shall prohibit the Secretary of Energy from conducting, or
providing for the conduct of, development necessary--
(1) to design a testing device that has a yield of less
than five kilotons;
(2) to modify an existing weapon for the purpose of
addressing safety and reliability concerns; or
(3) to address proliferation concerns.
(d) Definition.--In this section--
(1) the term ``low-yield nuclear weapon'' means a nuclear
weapon that has a yield of less than five kilotons; and
(2) the term ``development'' does not include concept
definition studies, feasibility studies, or detailed
engineering design work.
(e) Conforming Repeal.--Section 3136 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (42 U.S.C.
2121 note) is repealed.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification of the
amendment?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this is a historic day in the House of Representatives
as we consider an amendment that is bipartisan, co-sponsored by my
colleagues the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner),
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. Chairman, this is a historic amendment and a historic day because
this body is rising in a bipartisan voice to support the leadership of
the President of the United States and the President of Russia to begin
a new era in nuclear cooperation.
The amendment before us today has eight specific thrusts in opening
up the transparency between the American and the Russian nuclear
program. It calls for American scientists to be allowed to visit Novaya
Zemlya, the underground test site in Russia, and for Russian scientists
to visit our sites in Nevada.
It calls for joint cooperation in conferences on ways to monitor our
nuclear stockpiles. It calls for joint visits and conferences to
discuss the safety and security of our nuclear weapons. It calls for a
joint commission on non-proliferation, a joint commission on
cooperation on missile defense.
This program puts this body on record with a bipartisan vote that we,
in fact, support the new vision of President Bush and President Putin.
We started this process last fall when one-third of this Congress with
my colleagues on the Democratic side and my colleagues on the
Republican side joining together in a 45-page document outlining a new
relationship with Russia.
This amendment calls for the specifics in implementing this new
vision. This amendment allows the President and the President of Russia
to truly open the doors for strong bilateral cooperation between our
nations. It is a historic day. Our nuclear regulatory agencies and our
security agency, I talked to General Holland and he totally supports
the direction that we are going.
We have agreement on the Democrat and Republican sides about the
thrust. We also give the President some flexibility in the research
area to make sure that we have the ability to do additional research
that up until this point in time has been prohibited. I am extremely
pleased that we were able to work out a very carefully crafted piece of
legislation with my colleagues on the other side that I hope we will
vote unanimously or overwhelmingly show that this Congress is behind a
new direction in the security relationship between the United States
and Russia.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
opposed?
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I
claim the time on my side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina to control the time?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would have been opposed to the amendment as of
yesterday, but we have had a work in progress here and I must say we
have come up with a very good effort. I commend the gentleman for his
efforts. I think he has a good bill.
The gentleman is probably more engaged than any member of Congress in
either house in trying to bring Russia and the United States closer
together. What he has in this bill, the first part of it, is an
ambitious agenda dealing with nonproliferation, lab exchanges, visits
to our testing sites.
What the gentleman has in the first part of the bill is an ambitious
agenda of how we can bring Russia and the United States closer together
in strategic cooperation. It lays out a number of specifics ranging
from nonproliferation efforts to lab exchanges to joint visits to our
testing sites, an ambitious agenda but nevertheless all the things we
ought to be doing, the whole strategic spectrum.
I think it is well stated and well in order, and I think the bill
deserves support for that reason alone.
I had a problem with the last page of the bill originally because the
last page dealt with an amendment that I had added to the law, to Title
XX, some six or seven years ago. That provision, the Spratt provision,
Spratt first provision, prohibited testing below the level of five
kilotons for reasons I will not get into here. There is no longer a
provision in this bill that would repeal that. But there is a provision
in this bill that would broaden the type of research that our labs can
do with low yield weapons, the kind of development work they can do. It
limits that work to what we could call in the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development 6-2-A; that is to say; they can do concept
definition work, they can do research work, they can do design work,
they can build a wooden mock-up, but they cannot bend metal or do
fissile component parts until the law itself is changed.
I think that is a reasonable provision that gives the labs a much
clearer definition of what the boundaries are, broadens the scope of
what they can do, but stops short of decreeing a repeal of the 2-K-T
provision.
In addition, yesterday this bill contained a call for a joint Russia
collaboration on the development of nuclear penetrating weapons,
nuclear and conventional, and the gentleman, after some reflection and
discussion with the Department of Energy and others, has decided to
take that off the bill.
[[Page H2336]]
With those two improvements this is a very good bill, a very good
piece of work, and I commend it to everybody's support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) a leader on these issues in the
Congress.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished
subcommittee chairman yielding me time. He truly is the leader in
Congress in our relationship with Russia and I believe that here,
working with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one
of the most knowledgeable Members in Congress on these nuclear and
strategic issues, they have come up with a very good product.
As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) mentioned, this
includes an ambitious list of items to be on the agenda between the
United States and Russia, including joint and reciprocal programs that
deal with everything from nonproliferation all the way to disposal of
waste. It is something that gives all of our contacts with Russia an
agenda to go by and to encourage them to remove more of the distrust
that still remains after years of Cold War and to work together in ways
that are to our mutual benefit, but also to the benefit of the world.
So as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) mentioned, this
amendment recognizes the need for a credible deterrent in the post-Cold
War world, removing some restrictions that have made it uncomfortable
for some of the folks in our laboratories to even be thinking about the
kind of things we need for the future. So I want to commend both
leaders on this issue. I think this is an important step that gives us
a lot to work with in the future, and I hope Members will support it.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of our committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is true what the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has said that this is an historic moment in
this House because it makes a giant step forward in the nuclear
nonproliferation effort. It retains the existing ban on developing low
yield nuclear weapons, but the most important part is it allows
scientific research to go forward in our nuclear weapons laboratories.
{time} 1545
As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, in the
original wording of the amendment, the latter part thereof did cause a
great deal of concern on my part, and I am sure it was in the minds of
others. So I compliment the gentleman on the compromise and our working
together.
This is an excellent example between the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and all
the others that were interested in this nonproliferation issue to make
a step forward and to have an excellent compromise. We thank the
gentlemen for that.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who has also
been a tireless advocate on the nuclear security issues for this
country and in the world.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for
his leadership on this issue and for really understanding the
relationship between the United States and Russia.
I particularly appreciate this amendment because it focuses on some
of the things we need to do now in the 21st century as opposed to
looking backwards to the old relationship between the United States and
the former Soviet Union. We need to focus on increasing transparency
and cooperation with Russia because the situation has changed.
The principal threat is no longer each other. The principal threat to
the United States and to Russia are third parties that threaten both of
us and, therefore, cooperation and transparency are in our mutual
interest.
I think we also have to recognize that Russia has a very active
tactical nuclear program and there are some questions we have about
their nuclear testing sites, and the best way to move forward is to
actively and aggressively seek the cooperation of Russia in opening
things up, cooperating, opening transparency at these places, so we as
the United States can be reassured about what is going on now.
This is a good amendment. It is a good step in the right direction,
and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 6
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has 4
minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner), one of the key players in the compromises that have
perfected and made this a better bill.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me time, and I want to thank him for his
leadership in working on this amendment, and I want to commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for his leadership in trying
to work out the compromise that we have before us that I think moves us
forward in the bipartisan manner that I think serves the national
interests of this country very well.
This amendment sets in place for the first time a set of objectives
that would be pursued between our Nation and Russia to try to enhance
cooperation and furthering the efforts to end proliferation of nuclear
weapons. Specific provisions of the amendment provide for exchange
programs between our Nation and Russia, provides for increased
transparency of the activities of each Nation in the area of nuclear
research, and I want to say that having had the opportunity to travel
to Russia with our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon), I have the highest regard for his interest, his dedication,
and his commitment to working with Russia to end nuclear proliferation
and to be sure that this Nation's national interests are protected in
that process. So I think all of us want to say to him we appreciate his
leadership in this area.
I know that many Members heretofore had questions about this
amendment. I want to remind Members on both sides of the aisle that the
compromise that we are laying before the House today was just arrived
at a few moments ago. We think it deserves the support of the entire
House on both sides. We think it is an important step forward toward
peace and toward improving our cooperative relationship with Russia.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, this is right for the United States and
this is right for this Congress. This is an opportunity for the
bilateral relationships between the United States and Russia to
improve, and I am here to say that I am very thankful to see that it is
also a real sign of bipartisanship of this Congress where Democrats and
Republicans, who up to yesterday had some disagreements about some
language in this amendment, have come together in a very practical and
common sense way to increase the opportunities for our national labs,
two of which are in my district in northern California, to work to
provide for the American people and frankly for the people of Russia
and around the world much more opportunities for nonproliferation, much
more opportunities for bilateral work and cooperation, and the ability
for us to have agreements between our countries that are much more
transparent and give a sense that we are very committed to working
together and to turn aside the old adversarial relationships in the
post-Cold War and move to a new time where we can be cooperative
against the threats that we both share.
I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for being so
cooperative in working together.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee
on
[[Page H2337]]
Armed Services, and a leader on defense issues in this country.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his
leadership in this area.
We have moved from the era of confrontation with the former Soviet
Union to what I would call the era of engagement, and the engagement
needs to be pursued in a number of areas. A couple of areas that are
very important to this Member, and I know a lot of others, is the idea
of disposal of weapons-grade materials, making sure that all of the
ideas of stockpile security that we adhere to are adhered to also in
the former Soviet Union.
Also, the idea of making sure that the genius of the scientists'
population in the former Soviet Union that put together that massive
weapons complex in the weapons that they produced, to make sure that
that genius does not migrate to nations that at some point may be
adversaries to the United States is of utmost concern to us, and I
think that this amendment makes good sense, and the engagement that it
promotes is going to serve those ends.
I thank the gentleman and commend him for his leadership and everyone
on both sides of the aisle who worked on the amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, one of the motivating forces in my
life to enter electoral politics was civil rights, and the other
element that I wanted to devote whatever energy I could in terms of
politics was nuclear proliferation.
What we are about to do today, I think, may set us on the path that
for many of us has been decades in the realizing.
I want to pay tribute especially to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt). When I think of someone who I believe to be the ideal
Member of Congress, ready to deal with Members in every way, in a
straightforward and forthright manner, when I think of someone who has
a tenacious capacity to pursue his ideals, I think of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I think there is an amalgam today
of interests on behalf of peace.
I just want to reiterate for the record what the policy will be when
the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from
South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) work comes to fruition. Greater
cooperation, transparency and confidence with the Russian federation
regarding nuclear weapons, policy, forestructure, safeguards, testing,
proliferation, prevention, infrastructure, production and
dismantlement, everything associated with nuclear proliferation in our
attempt to deal with it in three-dimensional human terms is in this
amendment, and the wording that has been arrived at, because the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) are not theologians on this floor, they are
legislators. Legislators in every good sense of the word, and I am
proud to be associated with them.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 49,
noes 352, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 139]
AYES--49
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Bartlett
Berry
Blumenauer
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Clay
Condit
Conyers
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
Dingell
Doggett
Evans
Filner
Frank
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller, George
Mink
Obey
Pallone
Pelosi
Radanovich
Shows
Solis
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tiberi
Towns
Waters
Wu
Wynn
NOES--352
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--33
Boehlert
Burton
Crane
Davis (IL)
DeLay
Ford
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hulshof
Hyde
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Maloney (NY)
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stark
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1615
Messrs. GRAVES, RUSH and SCHIFF changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H2338]]
{time} 1615
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is considering amendment No. 1, as
modified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to close.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), one of our Ph.D.'s in Congress,
who has visited Russia on three or four occasions.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the Cold War is over, and the
United States and Russia are recognizing that our two countries have
far more that unites us than divides us. This amendment is one area
that we recognize that when we join forces, when we focus on those
things that unite us, that both countries and the world are better off
for that.
We have spent far too much time focusing on what divides us from
Russia and not near enough time focusing on our common interests. This
amendment does just that. It should have been done last year, or 10
years ago. Let us not be next year saying we should have done this last
year. This is the right thing to do. I urge Members to vote for this
amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment,
and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Turner), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), and the
others involved in crafting this compromise.
I think this language recognizes the balance that has to be struck in
the new dynamic between our country and Russia. Most of this amendment
deals with cooperation, with transparency and technology, joint
visitation, joint research and development, things that would not have
been possible a dozen years ago; and the authors of the amendment
deserve great credit for making those possibilities a reality.
The amendment also wisely recognizes, though, that as close as our
friendship with Russia is growing, there is still risk. There is still
uncertainty, and there is still need for a joint process between the
executive branch and those of us in the Congress to recognize and react
to emergency circumstances. I hope such circumstances never arise, but
if they do, this amendment strikes the proper balance. I urge its
adoption by both Republicans and Democrats.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good compromise and a good bill, and I urge
support for it on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I thank Members on both sides of the aisle
for what has become I think one of the most important statements that
we will make in this bill about a new era of our security, our security
in working together with Russia as partners.
Yesterday a group of Members met in the House of Representatives with
a Minister of Atomic Energy, Rumyantsev, from Russia, and he told us
that Russia is ready for a new era of transparency, that the days of
the Cold War are over. This amendment tests that language. This
amendment says, Mr. Rumyantsev, we agree with you, and we are ready for
a new era. Open up the test facilities, underground test sites, and
laboratories for joint cooperation, and we will do the same. It says
that America and Russia truly can be, should be, and will be partners;
but it does not do it through rose-colored glasses.
This amendment says in the new century Russia and America together
can be key partners, whether it is solving the war in Kosovo, solving
the problem in the Middle East, or dealing with security issues, that
Russia can help us accomplish our objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to support
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Tauscher:
At the end of section 1014 of the bill (page 200, after
line 6), insert the following new subsection:
(c) Report on Options for Achieving, Prior to Fiscal Year
2012, President's Objective for Operationally Deployed
Nuclear Warheads.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall
submit to Congress a report on options for achieving, prior
to fiscal year 2012, a posture under which the United States
maintains a number of operationally deployed nuclear warheads
at a level of from 1,700 to 2,200 such warheads, as outlined
in the Nuclear Posture Review. The report shall include the
following:
(1) For each of fiscal years 2006, 2008, and 2010, an
assessment of the options for achieving such posture as of
such fiscal year.
(2) An assessment of the effects of achieving such posture
prior to fiscal year 2012 on cost, the dismantlement
workforce, and any other affected matter.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a small but critical requirement to
the language in the bill on the Nuclear Posture Review.
As Members know, the Nuclear Posture Review provides Congress with
crucial information about the administration's intentions on the
country's nuclear strategy, warhead levels and infrastructure over the
next 10 years.
Some of the review's comments are positive, such as the restatement
of the need to deploy the lowest number of nuclear weapons consistent
with our security requirements.
Other findings are more troubling, especially the review's failure to
outline significant and verifiable cuts to our nuclear arsenal.
Recent comments by Assistant Secretary of Defense Crouch about
warhead reduction that ``there is no such thing as something that is
irreversible,'' directly contradict the President's objective stated in
Crawford, Texas, in the summit with President Putin last summer.
The credibility of the United States' leadership in the area of arms
control will be significantly undermined if we do not live up to the
President's proposal to reduce our nuclear arsenal.
The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, took a first and valuable
step toward addressing this disconnect.
Indeed, the bill requests clarification of the administration's plans
for our strategic force structure, including specific definitions of
how many warheads will be dismantled or placed in the ready reserve and
associated costs.
I ask for Members' support for an additional requirement to this
section mandating a report from the Secretary of Energy on options for
achieving the President's objectives for operationally deployed nuclear
warheads before 2012.
This is a nonbinding, common sense requirement that simply asks the
Secretary of Energy to look at whether the President's arms objective
can be achieved in a shorter time frame. Additionally, it is my belief
that this
[[Page H2339]]
should actually be addressed to the National Nuclear Security
Administration, which is a semi-autonomous agency inside the Department
of Energy.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this side applauds the
gentlewoman for her leadership on these issues, and we are happy to
accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is offered, and think
it will be a productive addition to the bill.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend both the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Weldon) for reaching agreement on what I think is a good amendment to
an amendment.
Basically the Nuclear Posture Review raised more questions than it
answered; among them, why does it take 10 years to draw down the
operationally deployed force; why do we have to maintain a responsive
force of the magnitude that was indicated? We may have as many warheads
actually deployed in 2012 as we do today. How costly will it be to
maintain this force? These are all questions that we need to ask
directly, and that is what this amendment will do. It will put these
questions back to DOD and get a further addendum or response to clarify
NPR on these critical points.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for offering this amendment,
and support it fully.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
for accepting the amendment and appreciate the opportunity to work with
the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of subtitle C of title XXXI (page 352, after
line 24), insert the following new section:
SEC. 3146. PROHIBITION ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR
EARTH PENETRATOR WEAPON.
(a) Permanent Prohibition.--No funds available to the
Department of Energy may be used for any development,
testing, or engineering of a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.
(b) Fiscal Year 2003.--No funds appropriated for or
otherwise made available to the Secretary of Energy for
fiscal year 2003 may be used for a feasibility study for a
nuclear earth penetrator weapon.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
for 10 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is before the House that I
would hope as the staffs talk right now we might be able to work out
some form of a compromise on; but pending that, the subject is around
the whole subject of a robust nuclear earth penetrator.
Now this weapon is one which is contemplated being used as a nuclear
weapon to be a bunker buster, but potentially bigger than that, in
fact, and will breach this psychological and political barrier that we
have established in the world for 57 years that nuclear weapons are not
usable.
What my amendment says is that there should be a permanent
prohibition; that is, that no funds should be available to the
Department of Energy for any development, testing or engineering of a
nuclear earth penetrator weapon. The objective, of course, is to say if
we moved to that phase of testing, unfortunately, it would most likely
result in a breach of the test ban accommodation which has been lived
with by the United States and the Soviet Union and the rest of the
world for the last 15 years or so.
Since we already have a generation of nuclear earth penetrating
weapons, it seems to me it does not make a lot of sense for us to run
the risk of sending a signal to the rest of the world that we are
trying to dissuade from using these weapons towards the goal of just
improving one to make it more usable, but at the same time because of
the sensitivity of our relations with Russia, amongst others, in terms
of their nuclear testing, but every other country in the world that we
are trying to convince that nuclear weapons are unusable, that as we
cross this nuclear Rubicon we are sending a very strong signal that the
weapons are usable.
So my amendment seeks to stop the testing, stop any engineering or
development of such a weapon.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we have made a good-faith effort both in the committee
and on this floor to reach bipartisan compromise on issues regarding
our nuclear policy.
We just completed a vote on a comprehensive program to engage Russia,
a program that I think is historic. We just accepted an amendment from
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher). We agreed to a report
that she wants to have issued on the size of our nuclear weapon force
over the next dozen years.
But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment in my opinion is a dangerous
amendment. There are certain things we cannot discuss on the House
floor. I would think before any Member voted on this amendment, they
would want to have had the Code Word level briefing that I arranged for
Members of the Committee on Armed Services last week.
{time} 1630
A number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle attended that
briefing, where at a Code Word level we were given certain information
about what appears to be to the Intelligence Community some new
movement in the area of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials. We
cannot discuss that on the floor of the House because we are in open
session. So, therefore, even though Members have access to that
information, I would say to you that probably no more than 10 Members
of this body, maybe 20, have received the security classified briefing
on the implications of this amendment. For that reason alone, this
amendment should be defeated.
But, Mr. Chairman, beyond that, this amendment says that the
Secretary of Energy cannot even do a feasibility study for a nuclear
earth penetrating weapon. If we look at Afghanistan and the wars and
the situation we are involved in, one of our biggest problems are deep
underground hardened targets. This amendment says we cannot even do a
feasibility study. We are not talking about building a weapon. We are
not talking about producing something to drop. We are talking about a
feasibility study. This amendment says no feasibility study.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes way too far. This amendment is more
about, I think, a political statement than it is about substance. I
would aggressively urge our colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, we all know from our experience in Afghanistan that
adversaries use caves and bunkers to counter our American conventional
strength
[[Page H2340]]
and we are right to be concerned that future enemies might use such
bunkers to protect weapons of mass destruction. However, the use of
nuclear bunker busters is absolutely not the way to go. It is
counterproductive.
Using nuclear weapons would spread deadly radiation, putting both
American troops in the theater as well as local populations at risk. It
would also prevent American troops from entering caves and bunkers to
retrieve potentially valuable intelligence. We have been doing that in
Afghanistan. Perhaps most significantly, the use of tactical nuclear
weapons would mark a dramatic change in United States policy and would
undermine our nonproliferation policies around the globe. This is a
very needed and a very necessary amendment to proceed on the non-
nuclear proliferation effort.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for yielding me this time. I rise to oppose this
amendment.
The reality is that our enemies are burrowing in their chemical
weapons capability, their conventional capability, their command and
control biological and nuclear weapons programs. Our current weapons
systems cannot destroy targets that are deeply buried in tunnels. They
were not designed to. Our enemies know that.
Nuclear weapons are useful precisely because they are unusable. That
is the nature of deterrence and the reason that we want to be able to
keep these targets at risk. The robust nuclear earth penetrating weapon
is being studied as directed by this Congress in the 2001 defense
authorization bill. It is not a new nuclear weapon. The question is
whether you can take an existing nuclear weapon, package it and encase
it in such a way so that it will penetrate the Earth before it explodes
in order to hold at risk those hard and deeply buried targets. It does
not make it more likely that the President would use such a weapon. It
does make it more probable that that weapon would work if he had to use
it. Any President should have at his disposal the ability to hold at
risk the most important targets that people have who would want to
destroy and to hurt us. By holding those targets at risk, we make it
less likely that they will hurt us and attack us or our allies with
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
The President should have options, the options of conventional
forces, of precision conventional weapons, and of nuclear weapons that
are capable of holding those targets at risk so that we do not have to
use them. That is precisely why we need to continue with this
feasibility study.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time and for his leadership in
leading the world, I think, in the right direction.
I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment really to prohibit
the development of this nuclear earth penetrator weapon. This weapon
poses unacceptable risks. Our own troops would be endangered by nuclear
fallout and innocent civilians could be caught in a nuclear crossfire.
Furthermore, developing this weapon really does take us down the path
of nuclear testing and nuclear proliferation. Where we go, others will
follow.
It is bad enough that we have not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty. United States nuclear testing would destroy this treaty. The
United States cannot preach nonproliferation while escalating the arms
race ourselves.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I want to again thank
the gentleman from Massachusetts for offering this amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Research and Development.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, we are in this amendment proposing to kill what could
be the centerpiece of a certain deterrent capability that is important
to us. We want to send a message to anybody who would strike America,
whether on a conventional battlefield or in a terrorist manner, we want
them to know that we will hunt them down and find them and, if
necessary, dig them out, wherever we have to.
That means no safe havens. One way you ensure that there are no safe
havens is to be able to go deep. Unless we do a lot more research and
development and we find some quantum breakthrough in conventional
systems, to go deep is going to require a nuclear capability. That is a
good message to send to people who would hurt this country, because if
you look at the array of fixtures that are going to be buried by
potential adversaries, you see several things. You see their command
and control; you see their development of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons; and, most importantly, you see the people
themselves who ordered the strike on the United States.
That is where leadership goes. Leadership, in terms of our potential
adversaries, will go deep. They will go as far underground as they
possibly can go. They need to know there is no safe haven. That
requires that we vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I welcome this latest in the acts of
leadership my friend and colleague has dealt with in the nuclear area.
I have listened to the arguments of the gentleman from California and
the gentlewoman from New Mexico. They are very honest. They are really
talking about obliterating the distinction between nuclear and non-
nuclear weapons that has been a centerpiece for 50 years. What they say
is if they threaten us, we will go after them, we will find them.
What we are being told is that we should develop a nuclear capacity
to respond to non-nuclear threats. We are being told that conventional
threats will call from America a nuclear response. Not only is that
greatly unnecessary, it will further destabilize the world. We have
been trying to preach non-nuclear proliferation, but the town drunk is
a poor advocate for temperance. We cannot simultaneously obliterate the
distinction that has existed for the entire period between nuclear and
non-nuclear weapons. We cannot threaten, as we have heard, a nuclear
response to a non-nuclear attack and then still have any credibility in
preaching temperance.
Secondly, we have said in Afghanistan, in Iraq, we are these days
likely to be in the posture not of war against a people, say, as in
World War II but in an effort to rescue a people from an oppressive
government. How welcome will our wagon be when it comes to nuclear
arms? Do we tell the people of Afghanistan, do not worry, we will free
you from the Taliban by using nuclear weapons within your country. Do
not worry, we will overthrow Saddam Hussein with nuclear attacks in
Iraq.
I think you undercut the whole notion that America can be coming to
the rescue of the victims of oppression. The United States is hardly a
pitiful giant weakened without nuclear weapons. We just saw in
Afghanistan no shortage of overwhelming American power. It was not a
lack of force, a lack of potency. To destroy the distinction between
nuclear and non-nuclear weapons as we have heard is with very grave
error.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about a new nuclear
weapon. That is not the discussion here. We are talking about an
attempt to repackage an existing nuclear weapon for a new threat that
we have to deal with. We know the Russians have 13,000 tactical nuclear
weapons.
If you really want to stop proliferation, I would like to see my
colleague from Massachusetts offer an amendment to negotiate for a
serious reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. These tactical nuclear
weapons are a real threat to us. The Russians have 13,000 of them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that there has been a
policy among a number of nations in the Western democracies, including
our allies, that would respond to chemical or
[[Page H2341]]
biological attack with nuclear systems. We have never foreclosed that.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania
invited either myself or my colleague to offer an amendment on
nonproliferation, but the problem is that the way the Committee on
Rules has been working, at your behest, it would not have been in
order. That is why we did not bother to try.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
I felt that same way just a few short years ago. I understand the
gentleman from Massachusetts' frustration.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey
amendment to halt development, testing or use of so-called mini nukes.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his continuing leadership
on nonproliferation issues.
Let us make no mistake about it. Developing these mini nukes would
make their use more likely, which would make a nuclear war more likely.
The fact is if we sanction their development, we only provide
legitimacy for other nations to do exactly the same.
My constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, like most
Americans, have made it very clear that they support a reduction in
America's nuclear arsenal. They are rightly demanding that we take a
reasoned approach toward nuclear weapons policy, not a renewed buildup
of nuclear arms. Without the Markey amendment, United States nuclear
policy will take a U-turn that would prompt more nuclear competition,
threaten our national security, and undermine nonproliferation efforts.
Reject this vision. Support the Markey amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a mini nuclear weapon. I do not know where
that term came from, but it is totally incorrect. A deep earth
penetrating weapon is a large weapon designed to do damage. In fact, in
our committee we called for a report, again with the bipartisan spirit
of our members on the other side, for a study of the effects of this.
This amendment should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have always found it rather odd that some of our most
difficult battles in the area of national security are preventing our
own people by limiting our options and tying our hands behind our back.
There are some military capabilities that we may decide are not worth
the time to pursue, and there are some capabilities that in the
priority of things we may want to leave behind. But I find it very
troubling that some people do not even want us to explore options which
could be critical for our future national security.
Frankly, I am skeptical that any Member of this body can know for
certain all of the circumstances that any President in the future will
face in a world full of chemical and biological and radiological and
nuclear weapons, and we want to say we are not even going to consider
those options to deal with all of those things. I think that would be a
mistake.
To have a credible deterrent, that means political adversaries, and
even friends have to believe in that deterrent. If we say up front, if
you burrow down in the ground we cannot touch you because our
conventional capabilities have obvious limitations, and so if we say we
are not even going to consider going after buried targets in any other
way, then we are simply saying, ``Go to it. We'll leave you alone.'' We
are encouraging people to bury their communication, their factories,
their silos, and we will not be able to do anything about it.
{time} 1645
Mr. Chairman, we know Russia has buried targets deep. We have seen
what al Qaeda has done in Afghanistan. We know Iraq is burying things.
So to take an option off the table, to say we are not even going to
explore it, that we are going to tie our own hands behind our backs,
even in a world with all of these difficult, complex situations I think
would be a tragic mistake. We should reject the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has 1
minute remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has
1\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon)
has the right to close.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the question is not whether we should
permit targets to be buried deep; the question is whether we are going
to permit peace to be buried deep.
We have a nonproliferation treaty that stops nuclear weapons from
becoming a sword of Damocles hanging over this world. We had an ABM
Treaty that stopped the United States and Russia from engaging each
other. We had START II and START III that was the basis of getting rid
of nuclear weapons. We had a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty waiting to
be signed. Now, we have gone from that kind of a hopeful approach to
sustain the world to an approach that puts the world at an abyss, to an
approach that envisions target nations, nuclear first strike, bunker
busters.
It is time that we took a stand for peace. It is time that we took a
stand for the continuation of life on this planet. Why should that be
hard to do, even for the Congress?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
We do not use biological weapons in Afghanistan. We do not use
chemical weapons in Afghanistan. We do not use this present generation
of nuclear earth penetrators in Afghanistan because we know it is
wrong, and because we just have to ask al Qaeda how well our existing
conventional bombs did in destroying them. I have not heard anyone say
that there was some problem that needed nuclear weapons to be dropped
on Afghanistan.
The consequences of opposing the Markey amendment will be that a new
generation of nuclear testing, breaching the test ban between the
United States and the Soviet Union, sending a signal to countries all
around the world that nuclear weapons are now usable, even though we do
not need them in Afghanistan, we do not need them in Iraq; we can
destroy, level those countries. If we use nuclear weapons in Tora Bora,
it will only be in order to ensure that the rubble is bouncing, not
that we have destroyed the entire country already with conventional
weapons.
This is the wrong road to go down. We are breaching a barrier which
would be a very serious mistake for our country.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of the time.
Mr. Chairman, we have just completed almost an hour's worth of work
of starting a new era in our relationship with Russia on nuclear
weapons. It has been bold. It has been bipartisan. It has been
bilateral. We have shown, without any doubt, that we are willing to
move into a new era. But, Mr. Chairman, as we saw on September 11,
there are those people who do not play by the rules. Anyone who would
take out almost 3,000 lives in the most unbelievable way thinkable
would not hesitate to do work in one of 10,000 underground bunkers and
caves around the world, most of which are in our adversaries'
territory, to develop and potentially use weapons of mass destruction.
This amendment would go to the extreme. It would prevent the President
from even doing a feasibility study.
This is not about peace. I am a teacher by profession. Nobody wants
peace more than I do. We do not have a handle on peace with a certain
few in this body. This is about giving the President legitimate ability
to protect us against those threats that we see emerging in the 21st
century. I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Markey amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Markey
amendment, and I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Rahall and Mr.
Markey, for their leadership in standing up for the environment.
[[Page H2342]]
The Defense Authorization Bill as written grants the Department of
Defense sweeping the blanket exemptions to existing environmental laws.
The American public doesn't want fewer environmental protections.
They want more. Eighty-five percent of registered voters surveyed on
this question believe that the Department of Defense should have to
follow the same environmental and public health laws as everyone else.
We have already seen efforts to roll back protections on our air and
water. It is time to stand up and put a stop to these assaults on our
environment.
Biodiversity is essential to our national heritage. We have an
obligation to our children and to their children to protect that
biodiversity.
And so, I urge you to adopt this amendment. It does not impose any
unreasonable restrictions on the Department of Defense. It simply
ensures that the U.S. government will abide by existing U.S. laws.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 51,
noes 360, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 140]
AYES--51
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Clay
Condit
Conyers
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Frank
Hinchey
Honda
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller, George
Mink
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Roemer
Schakowsky
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Waters
Wu
NOES--360
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Boucher
Burton
Cannon
Cox
Crane
Davis (IL)
Dooley
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Nussle
Ose
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Smith (MI)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
{time} 1719
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair will
reduce to 5 minutes the time for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 243, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 141]
AYES--172
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
[[Page H2343]]
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--243
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Davis (IL)
Hall (OH)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Ose
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Smith (MI)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Young (AK)
{time} 1738
Mr. CROWLEY and Mr. FORD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Part A, Amendment No. 1, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1, as modified, printed in part A of House Report 107-
450 offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362,
noes 53, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 142]
AYES--362
Abercrombie
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--53
Ackerman
Baldwin
Becerra
Bonior
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
DeFazio
DeGette
Dingell
Doggett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
Lee
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller, George
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Rangel
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--19
Aderholt
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Hall (OH)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Ose
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Smith (MI)
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Young (AK)
{time} 1749
Mr. MEEHAN and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
[[Page H2344]]
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 142, I should have voted
``no.'' I mistakenly voted ``yea.''
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tierney
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Tierney:
At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 49, after line
17), insert the following new section:
SEC. 234. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SPACE-BASED
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.
No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the
Department of Defense may be used for a space-based national
missile defense program.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is clear from the size of this Department of Defense budget,
including the $48 billion-or-so increase, that the administration and
others here are using the circumstances of our involvement in
Afghanistan and the circumstances of September 11 to put money into
this budget for all manner of programs whether or not they deal with
priority threats to this country now and here.
Every Member of this body is concerned and wants the best defense
possible for this country. We all want support for the men and women
who serve. We want fair pay, decent housing, working weapons. We are
collectively concerned with the security of this country, and we need
to be certain we allocate our limited resources toward programs that
target those threats and risks which are the most likely to endanger us
now and in the near future.
This amendment then focuses on just that. It is to make the point
that this bill is a repository for already-repudiated programs, some of
which our own Secretary of Defense is surprised to still see in this
bill. The amendment does it by prohibiting the Department of Defense
from using funds this fiscal year for space-based national missile
defense, or Star Wars. Not sea based, not air based, not land based,
not components of any of those. We should debate those matters. But
this amendment focuses on space-based, or Star Wars, programs, the same
concept which was here before, on which we spent billions of dollars
and lost that money.
This bill authorizes $54 million for a Boost Program Space-Based
Lasers, which act as interceptors in space, as well as the kinetic
physical interceptors. This space-based interceptor has gone through
two iterations already. They are behind schedule and over budget.
Testing for this space-based laser system has been pushed back
indefinitely. And that is just the testing for the system. Nobody can
even predict when such a space-based system might actually be deployed.
How does continued funding for this program serve us towards a more
agile force? We should not repeat the past errors, like Safeguard,
which was the first stab at a failed missile defense space wars system
in the 1970s. Rushing to fund an untested program with the questionable
capabilities of this one makes no sense. It jeopardizes strategic
judgment and wastes our much-needed money.
At the very least, we should be alarmed that we are not taking the
time as a Nation to have a thoughtful dialogue on this and the
ramifications of this national missile defense system. There are
billions in this budget that have little to do with our priority
realistic threats to our security. This Star Wars program is but one
small part of that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues, we are in space. We are in space in a way that is
inextricably linked with not only our missile defense system but almost
all of our systems.
If we take a look at the architecture for our space systems, we have
in space literally everything from weather and the environment, to
navigation, to surveillance and reconnaissance, to missile warning, to
communications. The successful intercepts that we have made now out of
the Kwajalein Test Range took place 148 miles above the surface of the
Earth.
I want to read the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney): ``No funds appropriated for fiscal year
2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for a space-based
national missile defense program.''
Now, in the first place, we simply have a missile defense program,
not a national missile versus a theater missile defense program,
because we are now dealing with a number of missiles which have varying
rates of speed and distances. For example, we have the old Model T scud
that goes fairly slowly, several hundred miles, all the way up to the
fast-moving ICBM that will go several times the speed of a high-powered
rifle bullet when it reenters the atmosphere aimed at an American city.
So we are putting in place an architecture which is layered, which
will give us, hopefully, several shots at these missiles as they
progress toward either our troops in theater or the United States of
America and our cities. We have to have space assets to be able to
intercept those incoming missiles.
Now, one thing we have seen in this debate today is what I would call
the new imposition of Marquis of Queensbury rules on our side. We just
had an amendment in which the other people may drive an airplane into
an American tower and destroy thousands of American civilians, but it
is against the rules for us to go after their leadership if they are
buried deep underground and we use a nuclear penetrator. That is not
Marquis of Queensbury rules. And no matter what the other side does, we
must play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Well, we are already in space. It does not make any sense to have a
very broadly worded amendment that, if we take it literally, would ban
the very systems that we are testing right now.
There is another aspect of this, and that is this: we had the
predator over in Afghanistan, and the predator is our unmanned
aircraft. And from that aircraft we take certain recon capability,
certain sensors, and we target the enemy. And then we use another
platform, whether it is from a ship or a plane or a land-based unit, to
hit that enemy that was targeted by the predator. And our war-fighting
commanders, who were trying to win the war over there, with as few
Americans as possible being killed, said this: They said, maybe we
should just use that airborne unit up there. Instead of just using that
for information and relaying that information to the ground, why do we
not just put a hell fire missile on that particular UAV and go ahead
and strike the enemy with the UAV? In other words, let us use this
recon unit for both a reconnaissance and for the attack shot.
So we are becoming more efficient in the way we use technology. So
the idea that we have to play by some obscure Marquis of Queensbury
rules that says we cannot use space to stop a missile that may be
incoming to an American city does not make any sense.
So I would just urge all Members to vote against this amendment. This
is a dangerous amendment. If taken literally, it freezes our present
programs in place.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
[[Page H2345]]
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 46,
noes 356, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No 143]
AYES--46
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Condit
Conyers
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Frank
Hill
Holt
Honda
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller, George
Mink
Oberstar
Olver
Pelosi
Rush
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Waters
Weiner
Wu
NOES--356
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--32
Ballenger
Bentsen
Berman
Boucher
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Nethercutt
Ney
Ose
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Sanders
Simpson
Souder
Stump
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1826
Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. BEREUTER and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Massachusetts in a colloquy about his amendment.
The gentleman from California was just showing us a number of space-
based systems, satellites and sensors, that are in one way or another
connected with ballistic missile defense.
Is it the gentleman's intention in this amendment to prohibit funding
for space-based sensors that are instrumental to the airborne laser and
ground-based and sea-based ballistic missile defense systems?
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. TIERNEY. No, the amendment does not affect space-based sensors.
It only affects space-based interceptors.
Mr. SPRATT. So, specifically, your amendment would not prohibit or
affect funding for what we call SBIRS-High, space-based infrared
sensors, SBIRS-High or SBIRS-Low sensor programs like this?
Mr. TIERNEY. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for these clarifications.
Therefore, the gentleman's amendment would prohibit funding for the
space-based ballistic missile defense interceptors, $54 million is
requested, but it would not affect sensors at all.
Mr. TIERNEY. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for the clarification. The space-
based interceptor, as some know, has gone through a couple of
iterations, both of which have eventually been discarded. I think the
Missile Defense Agency has already a full plate. It ought to stay
focused on ground-based and ship-based interceptors. For that reason,
with this clarification, I can support the amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The problem here is we are not dealing with the amendment as the
gentleman from Massachusetts would rewrite it. We are dealing with the
amendment as it is written, because that is the amendment that is going
to be dealt with by DOD lawyers. It says, ``No funds appropriated for
fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for a space-
based national defense missile program.''
The point is we have to deal with the law as it is written, not as he
would rewrite it. If he is going to rewrite it, I would recommend he
come back next year with another text. This thing would basically put a
freeze on the programs that we have right now.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, space-based missile defense is the true
faith-based initiative because it takes a mighty big leap of faith to
believe we can master the technology, distinguish the decoys and
achieve perfection.
Of course, in the real world this spacey shield idea has been rather
hit or miss, mostly miss, since you need perfect weather and a honing
beacon on the incoming missile for it to work. But the experience never
seems to faze those who have seen so many Star Wars sequels that they
abide by the questionable principle, ``build it and it will work.'' I
prefer the wisdom of Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning
physicist at the University of Texas, who says this system will
``worsen our security'', and that of
[[Page H2346]]
former Defense Secretary William Perry, who warned that ``a relatively
small deployment of defensive systems could have the effect of
triggering a considerable nuclear arms race.''
If terrorism is now our greatest threat, if we have learned anything
from September 11, we know an ICBM is not the most likely way to wreak
devastation and that putting so many more taxpayers' dollars in this
one NMD basket makes so little security sense.
We can spend billions trying to build a shield to blunt every sword
or we can invest our resources and diplomacy more wisely to keep the
sword, or missile from ever being drawn.
{time} 1830
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney amendment to ban
spending on space-based national missile defense systems in fiscal year
2003. Before funding space-based weapons, we should have a consensus on
the wisdom of space-based warfare and today there is no such consensus.
The Missile Defense Agency has requested $35 million to do R&D on a
space-based laser which has not completed concept definition and was
killed by the House Committee on Appropriations last year. The
administration wants to resurrect space-based kinetic interceptors to
shoot down missiles in the boost phase. This approach has been tried
and rejected twice before on technological and cost grounds.
The Missile Defense Agency should focus on getting the most mature
systems like PAC 3 and THAAD to the field to protect our troops, not to
invest in systems that will make outer space the next battlefield.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Tierney amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, this is a 1980s amendment;
Ronald Reagan was President. The term ``Stars Wars'' is again
resurrecting itself. It has no relevancy to what we are doing today.
This is not a discussion of whether or not we are going to deploy a
strategic defense initiative. That discussion is over; it ended in the
1980s and 1990s. There is no national missile defense, so the amendment
is not relative.
In fact, if we take this amendment, it is so poorly worded, which is
why the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had to get
clarification, because even he has concerns, but to get clarification,
he is trying to qualify some things. It is so poorly worded we could in
fact end the only joint program we have with Russia. Does the gentleman
know about the RAMOS program which the Russians proposed that we do,
which Carl Levin on the Senate side led the fight to restore? That
program is 2 satellites. Under the gentleman's amendment, we cut the
funding for the RAMOS program because, heaven forbid, satellites are in
space.
But wait a minute. What about all of my colleagues here who care
about Israel's security? We funded with our money the Arrow program. We
spent almost $500 million on Arrow, the most successful missile defense
program operating today.
Well, guess what? Maybe the gentleman does not know this, but we are
now retrofitting Arrow so it can interact with our systems. So what the
gentleman wants to say is no more national missile defense.
Well, guess what? To Israel, Arrow is their national missile defense,
and we funded it.
So the fact is that while the gentleman may have wanted to end one
specific program, the amendment is so vague that it applies to
everything, and it really does not make any sense. It really was
designed for a Ronald Reagan-era debate when Stars Wars could be used
like Darth Vader, that somehow we were advocating some obscene process
to start war in space. That is not the case.
We have a very deliberate program that has been supported by
Democrats and Republicans because we have confidence, perhaps more than
ever, in the director of our Missile Defense Agency. General Kadish is
respected by Democrats and Republicans for giving us a thoughtful,
interconnected, multi-layered approach to missile defense. There is no
more national missile defense. It does not exist. It is no longer a
term used in the jargon. To say somehow we are going to end it is a
misnomer.
In terms of space, if we ended the space assets, whether it is
airborne or higher, we would basically end a whole ton of programs that
are now under way, and we would deny eventually the ability of Israel
to do what she is going to have to do. We cannot have it both ways on
this debate. If my colleagues want to defend the people of Israel
against the Shahab III missile from Iran, which is there today, Israel
cannot shoot that missile down midstream. Because like the Patriot, it
will rain on the people. Israel needs to take down that Scud missile
when it is launched. We cannot do that without assets that allow us to
take it out in the boost phase. That is going to eventually require
some type of space-based assets.
So we are having a debate for the 1980s. Let us all join hands and
sing peace songs and let us all hug each other and say we are all for
peace, but this amendment is absolutely outrageous. I encourage my
colleagues to vote no, and let us sing Kumbaya together in voting no.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am told the gentleman is like that all
the time, so I will not carry on, except to note that the chief
investigator of the director of Operations, Testing and Evaluation has
said that the deployment of this is so far into the future, it is
beyond the horizon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Actually, Mr. Chairman, there are some people who
believe that the world does have the possibility to live in peace and
that the instrumentalities of violence will eventually give way to
human reason and that our ability to talk to each other as human beings
may be the basis for peace in the world as opposed to weaponizing
space.
The gentleman's amendment is well taken because, according to an Air
Force briefing, the space-based laser is being contemplated for anti-
satellite missions, denying access to space, disrupting satellite
communications, knocking out high altitude aircraft, or unmanned aerial
vehicles. These missions go far beyond intercepting missiles, and they
echo the Quadrennial Defense Review's call for the United States to
exploit space for military purposes, and the Air Force's wish in a
Joint Vision 20/20 document for full spectrum dominance in space.
What colossal arrogance it is to assume that we can seize the high
heavens and control the world through space. Yes, work for peace on
earth, and when we do that, we will not have to worry about a later
generation creating peace in space.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to just remind my colleagues that when we are considering this
amendment and we consider all of the things that our military uses that
are space-based right now, right from a marine platoon leader's GPS, it
tells him where he is, to the recon satellites that we have to, yes,
the cueing system that we are going to have to hopefully be able to
intercept missiles before they impact our cities, I think we are going
to come to the conclusion that the American people do not have too much
tolerance for the argument that is being put forward.
There are no people in space. There are people in those towers that
got hit by those incoming planes. If we ask the American people would
you accept a space-based system that might have protected the Twin
Towers, they probably would say yes. We do not care if we are violating
the Marquis of Queensbury rules by somehow using assets that are in
space. So this is an argument that I think should be given short shrift
by the American people. We are in space, other nations are in space,
and the idea that we are going to take from General Kadish, who
Democrats and Republicans trust and feel is a good steward of this
program, the idea that we are going to take one of his options that he
has laid out to
[[Page H2347]]
test, we are going to move it off of the table because we want to
impose our judgment in place of his judgment is not a good thing.
We have given him this set of options. We have let him pick them. We
are going to let him go through with the test. We have a robust testing
schedule ahead of us. He is going to throw the losers out and reward
the winners by trying to get something that can stop incoming ballistic
missiles in the next 4 to 5 years. That is a good goal. We should leave
this package that he has intact. Let us let him make some decisions and
let us let General Kadish have some discretion. Please vote no on this.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, it is Mr. Kadish's plans, which the
director of Operations, Testing and Evaluation said had no testing
regime that anybody could trust or that would work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, while there are many things in the defense
authorization bill that I support, national missile defense is not one
of them, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is seeking to eliminate
one of the more senseless parts of the supposed national missile
defense system.
The proposed missile defense system would not work as designed, as
wishing will not overcome the physics. It could be confused with the
decoys, it could be bypassed for suitcase bombs, pickup trucks, sea-
launched missiles. It would be billions of dollars down the drain. But
it is not just a diversion of resources. It is worse than a waste.
Simple strategic analysis tells us that provocative yet permeable
defenses are destabilizing and would reduce our security.
Americans have been awakened in recent months to threats to our
national security and they understand that a space-based missile
defense will not help. Americans have learned in recent months that we
need anthrax defense, we need container ship defense, we need bridge
and tunnel defense. We do not need space-based national missile
defense.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 15
seconds remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tierney
amendment to prohibit the Bush administration from spending taxpayer
dollars on a space-based, 21st century version of a Stars Wars missile
defense system.
The simple question we should always ask is does this system make us
safer? Are my children and my grandchildren safer if we spend these
millions of dollars? I believe the answer is no. Not now, and not in
the future.
Today we do face some very real threats. Warnings are issued on a
regular basis of possible terrorist attacks. Interceptors from space
are not going to help us. We need better intelligence to intercept
phone conversations and shoe bombs and biological weapons at our
airports, seaports, trains and highways.
Long-range, weaponizing space, bringing weapons into another
dimension, is not a formula for security. Rather, as the Union of
Concerned Scientists contend, such a move destabilizes arms control as
we know it.
The only Stars Wars any Members of this Congress should see will be
at a theater near you on May 16. I strongly urge a yes vote on the
Tierney amendment.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman from California
on his debating tactic. He has me focused on how that space-based
interceptor was going to stop the attack on the World Trade Center when
no one knew the attack was coming. Maybe it has psychic powers. So I do
not know what else I am supposed to talk about.
Except I would note that I was struck, when forced to defend this
notion of a space-based system, we are told that it is for Israel. I
have to say, in addition to all of Israel's other problems, getting
schlepped into every defense debate when my colleagues are short of an
argument seems to me an unnecessary burden on them. Yes, people are
prepared to deal with the Arrow and support the Arrow.
As to the gentleman's amendment, it is not perfectly worded because
of the process we have. He had another amendment, a very specific
amendment that the Committee on Rules kept out. If we were in a normal
situation, we could have amended the amendment. It is clear what is
intended. If this amendment passes and goes to conference, the colloquy
will be carried out.
The question is this: Everywhere but on the floor of the House,
people on the other side talk about how we are going to have these
space-based interceptors that are going to come down and probably knock
down the planes at the World Trade Center when we did not know there
were planes that we should have been going after, and do all of these
other things. The fact is that we do not believe that putting billions
and billions of dollars, when we are already underfunding all manner of
other priorities, into a space-based system makes sense.
I have heard people say if we do not do this, we are going to
encounter a space-based Pearl Harbor. Well, fortunately, there is no
space-based Japan of 1941. We have it to ourselves.
Finally, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, time and again we are told
America is terribly weak and we have to spend all of these billions.
That is totally at variance with the reality of a very strong America,
and the need to spend these additional billions on these ill-thought-
out programs does not exist.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, during the testimony when General Eberhardt was before
our committee, and a question was put to him as to what is of utmost
importance for the future, his answer was what we call SBIRS, Space-
Based Infrared System.
{time} 1845
I think that is very, very important to the defense of our country,
based upon General Eberhardt's comments to us that day.
Now, based upon the colloquy between the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), it is
apparent that the SBIRS, or the space-based infrared systems, are
exempt from the language and the intent of this amendment, which allows
me, based upon that, to support this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Missouri, for yielding to me.
I want to start by applauding my friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter); my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Weldon), and this side of the aisle for putting together a good
bill that I rise in strong support of.
I rise in strong support of the ability of the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) or anybody else in this body to stand up and
offer motions to adjourn because they have not had the opportunity to
offer an important amendment.
I rise in strong support, Mr. Chairman, of the principles in this
great House of free debate and free speech on a bill that has been on
this floor in the past for 2 and 3 weeks, yet somehow we want to get it
through in hours today.
There are very many important amendments that were denied the
possibility of being debated in the Committee on Rules on this floor.
Why is that important? Back in 1969, a man by the name of Robert
Wilson, the first director of the Fermilab, a particle physics
facility, was asked to testify before Congress.
Congress asked him, What does your testimony and your lab have to do
with the defense of this country? And here is what he said: ``This new
knowledge has all to do with honor and country, but it has nothing to
do directly with defending our country, except to make it worth
defending.''
[[Page H2348]]
Now, ``make it worth defending'' is when we can have the amendment of
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on base closure debated on
the floor; when we can have a Crusader missile amendment, which even
the Secretary of the Defense Department wants to eliminate, debated on
this floor. That is in the best interests of this country.
The Secretary of Defense has said we can save the taxpayer $11
billion, yet the Committee on Rules, run by the Republican Party, said
they are going to deny five different amendments the opportunity to be
debated on this floor.
Mr. Chairman, when those terrorists attacked our country in New York
City and at the Pentagon, they attacked more than our people and more
than our buildings. They attacked the principles of free speech. They
attacked what we stand for in this country.
Let us not let the people's House deny the people of this great House
the opportunity to offer their amendments. Let us let the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) offer that amendment, and let us give the
taxpayer the opportunity for an amendment to save $11 billion.
Mr. SKELTON. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I again reiterate, based
upon the colloquy between the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and those
concerned about the future of the SBIRS system, I can fully support the
amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, this is a three-sentence amendment.
When it takes a colloquy to explain what a three-sentence amendment
means, we know we are in trouble.
This amendment, as it is written, would freeze our present programs
with respect to testing missile defense. Please vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tierney
amendment. Considering the poor results that recent N.M.D. tests have
had, it's mind-boggling that funding for a national missile defense
system is still being debated.
Since 1940, the U.S. has spent $5.8 trillion dollars on nuclear
weapons programs . . . more than on any other single program, except
Social Security! The U.S. has already spent more than $100 billion on
missile defenses with little to show--so why do we keep throwing good
money after bad?
Mr. Chairman, where are our priorities? Instead of investing in
missile defense programs--we should be spending our scarce financial
resources on our real domestic needs . . . like our children's
education; our seniors, and their health care; our families and their
financial security.
If this Congress wants to really increase U.S. security, we must
invest in people, not weapons.
I urge my colleagues to support the Tierney amendment.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 48,
noes 356, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 144]
AYES--48
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Clay
Condit
Conyers
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Filner
Frank
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller, George
Mink
Oberstar
Olver
Pelosi
Schakowsky
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wu
NOES--356
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Bartlett
Boehner
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Dooley
English
Gallegly
Hall (OH)
Hilleary
Hinojosa
John
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ose
Oxley
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Stupak
Thomas
Tierney
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
{time} 1917
Ms. McCOLLUM and Messrs. WYNN, BRADY of Texas and Kingston changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as aboved recorded.
Part A Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tierney
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H2349]]
Recorded Vote
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 253, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 145]
AYES--159
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Mink
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--253
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
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)
NOT VOTING--22
Boehner
Burton
Cannon
Crane
Edwards
Hall (OH)
John
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Ose
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Sherwood
Thomas
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
{time} 1935
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Spratt:
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 INCREASE AMOUNTS FOR PAC-3
MISSILE PROCUREMENT AND ISRAELI ARROW PROGRAM.
(a) Increase for PAC-3 Procurement.--The amount provided in
section 101 for Missile Procurement, Army, is hereby
increased by $65,000,000, to be available for an additional
24 PAC-3 missiles.
(b) Increase for Israeli Arrow Program.--The amount
provided in section 201(4) for research, development, test,
and evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby increased by
$70,000,000, to be available within program element 0603881C,
Terminal Defense Segement, only for the Israeli Arrow
Ballistic Missile System program.
(c) Corresponding Reduction.--The amount provided in
section 201(4) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by $135,000,000,
to be derived from amounts for the Missile Defense Agency for
program element 0603883C, Boost Defense Segment, of which--
(1) $54,393,000 shall be derived from project 4040, Space-
Based Boost;
(2) $24,810,000 shall be derived from project 4043, Space-
Based Laser; and
(3) $55,797,000 shall be derived from project 4020, Sea-
Based Boost.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
until it is amended.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to move $135 million
within the ballistic missile defense account. Not outside it, not away
from it, not to take a dime out of the top line, but to rearrange $135
million within the $7.8 billion account in the following manner:
First, we would move $65 million into production of 24 additional
PAC-3 missiles. The PAC-3, the most advanced missile, the only missile
defense system that we will really deploy for nearly the next 5 years,
is woefully short in supply at the present time. We could very well
need it in the near future. And so this would move $65 million into the
PAC-3 line and allow 24 additional PAC-3s to be purchased.
There is an economic effect. By buying more, we buy more efficiently.
We run the plant at a higher and more efficient rate; and as a
consequence, these 24 missiles will cost nearly $1 million a copy less
than they would otherwise cost if we were buying fewer.
Secondly, this amendment would move $70 million out of other accounts
into manufacturing and development for the Arrow missile, which is
being manufactured at a plant in Alabama, a Boeing plant in Alabama.
Once again, this would provide us with a system which may be needed in
the here and now, in the near future. This is a system that is ready to
go but is not fully funded for production.
Now, where does this money come from? Under my amendment, we would
take first of all funds out of space-based interceptors. Mr. Chairman,
we have in the past, since the inauguration of SDI in 1983, we have
developed at least two iterations of a space-based kinetic kill
interceptor. The original
[[Page H2350]]
space-based interceptor was based on a satellite. A number of different
interceptors would have been garaged on a single satellite and deployed
from that satellite. Because such a satellite is a highly valuable and
highly visible target in a fixed orbit circling the Earth at given
times constantly, it becomes an easy target to take out. Because of its
vulnerability, it was discontinued. Actually, it was defeated here on
the House floor; discontinued the next year by SDI.
In its place, SDI proposed something called Brilliant Pebbles. The
idea was to make these interceptors single autonomous satellites and so
prolific they would be too prolific for any adversary to take out
enough to make a difference. Well, Brilliant Pebbles II, after the
expenditure of several hundred million dollars, was abandoned and
discarded.
What I am proposing here tonight, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a
full plate already for the Missile Defense Agency. We are trying to
bring to fruition the mid-course interceptor. We are trying to develop
a boost-phase intercept for the Navy. We are trying to develop a mid-
course intercept system based upon a Navy ship. We have an airborne
laser system. Given the full plate that the MDA, Missile Defense
Agency, already has for the systems it has started up or is starting
now, it does not need to complicate its problems with an additional
space-based system, particularly after we have already abandoned two
iterations of it.
Secondly, we would deplete the funding except for $10 million for
further feasibility and concept definition studies of the space-based
laser, a truly futuristic and, in my opinion, highly dubious system. We
take the money out of those systems; and we put it in theater missile
defense where the danger is clear, present, and imminent.
That is the purpose here, to rearrange money. Not to take money out
of missile defense, but to rearrange it and to accomplish some near-
term needs of systems that we very well may have to call upon in the
near future.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has an amendment that
would rearrange my rearrangement. He would leave in place the
allocations I have made, but he would allow General Kadish to determine
which systems would be debited in order for these two systems to be
plussed up. And I can live with the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to offer the
substitute at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hunter as a Substitute for the
Part A Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Spratt
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment offered as a
substitute for the amendment.
The text of the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment
is as follows:
Part A amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hunter as a
substitute for part A amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Spratt:
At the end of subtitle C of title II (page 218, after line
15), insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO INCREASE AMOUNTS FOR PAC-3
MISSILE PROCUREMENT AND ISRAELI ARROW PROGRAM.
(a) Increase for PAC-3 Procurement.--The amount provided in
section 101 for Missile Procurement, Army, is hereby
increased by $65,000,000, to be available for an additional
24 PAC-3 missiles.
(b) Increase for Israeli Arrow Program.--The amount
provided in section 201(4) for the Missile Defense Agency is
hereby increased by $70,000,000, to be available within
program element 0603881C, Terminal Defense Segment, only for
the Israeli Arrow Ballistic Missile Defense System program.
(c) Corresponding Reduction.--The amount provided in
section 201(4) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-wide, is hereby reduced by $135,000,000,
to be derived from amounts available to the Missile Defense
Agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is very excellent with respect to the requirement
or the proposal that we increase in two areas in missile defense, one
of which is for additional PAC-3 missiles. Those in fact are the
missiles, the antimissile system that we are deploying in the near
term. We started deploying those around September of 2001. We are
moving ahead to deploy that first battery. We are in what is known as
low-rate initial production right now, finishing up EMD; and we are
starting to move out with that program. And it is a great improvement
over the Patriot missile that we utilized during Desert Storm. So it
makes sense to try to get as many of those in the field as quickly as
possible.
Similarly, we have been the prime mover in the Arrow missile program,
which is also a theater antimissile system. It is an excellent system.
It has been proven out and is in deployment right now, and we are
trying to increase the deployment and get a third battery up for the
Arrow missile. So both of those adds, I think, are good adds, Mr.
Chairman.
What we do that is a little different in the substitute, the way we
modify Mr. Spratt's amendment, is instead of designating certain places
where we mandate cuts in the missile defense program, we are not
replacing General Kadish's discretion with our own. We are leaving him
the discretion to move money around and decide where he is going to
take the money from to come up with this additional $135 million-or-so
for these two missile programs.
So if the gentleman will accept our substitute, I am inclined to
accept his amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I will indeed.
I do, however, Mr. Chairman, still wish to reserve my time so I can
recognize others to make comments upon the amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 55,
noes 336, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 42, as follows:
[Roll No. 146]
AYES--55
Abercrombie
Baldwin
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Frank
Hill
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Mink
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pelosi
Rodriguez
Schakowsky
Shows
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wu
NOES--336
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
[[Page H2351]]
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
DeFazio
NOT VOTING--42
Ballenger
Berman
Blunt
Boehner
Boucher
Burton
Cannon
Clay
Combest
Cooksey
Crane
Dooley
Everett
Foley
Ganske
Gillmor
Gordon
Hall (OH)
Hinchey
John
Johnson, Sam
Kennedy (MN)
LaFalce
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Norwood
Ose
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Royce
Simpson
Thomas
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Waxman
{time} 2011
Messrs. BACHUS, FERGUSON and LaHOOD changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. RODRIGUEZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has 13
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has
10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina and I
have discussed his accepting of my substitute and our accepting of the
amendment. I know he has several speakers. We do not have any more
speakers. What I would be happy to do is yield my time on the
substitute to the gentleman from South Carolina's speakers and maybe we
could move this process along.
Mr. SPRATT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), the ranking member of our committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment by my
friend from South Carolina, and I compliment him as well as the
gentleman from California.
This amendment addresses what I see as a relevance problem. I have
looked at the future and found it wanting. There just is not enough
money to carry out the current defense program through the next few
years.
But instead of keeping its priorities on what the troops need, we see
the Department of Defense canceling programs with real-world relevance
while throwing money at any missile defense item that comes down the
pike.
As a gesture of national unity, Democrats last year foreswore a
significant debate on missile defense. We did not debate the 57 percent
increase in spending. We have not debated Secretary Rumsfeld's removal
of most of the controls and oversight required of all other major
defense programs. We have not debated other significant changes.
But I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can at least begin, with this
amendment, to reestablish relevance as a consideration when spending
the national treasury.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me
and I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I was the first Member of Congress in January
2001 to see the Arrow system deployed at Palmachim Air Force Base in
Israel. It was very exciting to see the radar, the launchers, and also
to see some members of the United States Navy working on the
interoperable aspects of the system.
{time} 2015
An important thing for this House to understand is that this system
is interoperable. The cost-sharing between our country and Israel has
produced a system that will protect Israel against current and future
missile attacks, and these are real threats, but also will protect U.S.
troops deployed in the field. The work we have done on this system and
the costs we have shared with our democratic ally, Israel, will help us
as we develop our own more advanced theater missile defense and
national missile defense systems. This amendment transfers money in
this defense authorization bill to support more advanced deployment of
a system Israel needs now, and to support the continued development of
missile defense systems for the United States. It is a win-win; a win
for our ally, Israel; a win for our troops and our homeland.
At a time when our homeland is under serious threat, an issue I
devote a lot of my time to, this amendment will assure that we are more
capable against a missile threat.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, which provides for a strong
defense for our nation. This chamber and this Committee, of which I am
a former member, have a long record of providing our armed forces with
the capabilities needed to win wars overseas. The overwhelming success
of the ongoing operations in Afghanistan demonstrates these
capabilities, and attests to the skill and dedication of our armed
forces.
We now face a new challenge. While our military forces will be called
to win wars overseas, the nation must also wage a war at home. This is
not a war we can win with artillery or uniformed troops. It is a war of
intelligence, of technology, and of wills.
Similarly, the war against terrorism in Afghanistan was not won with
the force structure and equipment of the Cold War. We relied on long-
range platforms, on stealth, and on precision-guided munitions.
Technology is replacing the need to put our uniformed personnel in
harm's way and providing situational awareness to commanders thousands
of miles away. While we will maintain the ability to go it alone, the
ability to lead a coalition will frequently replace the need to
shoulder the burden exclusively.
The bill before us today is a step in the right direction in
transforming the military to a truly modern fighting force. The
authorization of programs to protect the homeland shows an
understanding of the threats we now face. The authorization of
uninhabited vehicles, of stealthy aircraft, and improved communications
and sensors embraces new technologies.
This bill moves down the path of defense reform. To be sure, there
still is more to go. I urge my friends on the committee to continue
[[Page H2352]]
the fight against legacy systems and programs, to replace them with
agile and smart systems, and to improve the poor tooth to tail ratio
through better business practices in the defense establishment.
Finally, I am proud to represent the aerospace capital of the
universe. The companies in my district forge the reconnaissance and
communications satellites, UAVs, and other cutting edge technologies
that will drive the new defense. I support these programs, and I
support this bill.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner), in whose district the PAC III is built.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I think it is important for us to understand what this amendment is
really all about. It is the intent of the sponsors of these amendments
to be sure that our troops are prepared to deal with what we may
potentially face if we are involved in a land battle in a country like
Iraq.
Today we have only 20 PAC III missiles in our inventory. We
authorized 72 additional missiles last year. They are not on line yet.
What that means is if we get into a battle, a land battle where our
troops need the protection from those Scud missiles coming from Iraq,
we will simply not have the protection our troops should have.
The PAC III missile is the only hit-to-kill missile that we have that
has been proven to be successful. The old Patriot missiles are a
different technology. We will certainly want as a House tonight to
stand behind our troops and ensure that an additional 24 missiles are
authorized under this bill.
The Army says they need over 2,000 PAC III missiles in their
inventory. We will have to appropriate money for a decade to get that
inventory to that level. But we can take a small step tonight by
authorizing an additional 24 missiles for PAC III, as well as the
authorization for additional funding for the Arrow missile, which is
also a missile that will defend against the Scud missiles of Iraq.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me first of all state my support for this
legislation as it relates to the funding of the military personnel in
this country. I support the increased compensation that this
authorization bill will provide.
Let me also thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for
a very thoughtful amendment as it relates to dealing with the missile
activities in the theater or grounded missile activity. I support that
kind of utilization of missile defense, in the theater, on the ground.
I think it is important to note that I do oppose in its totality the
utilization of $7 billion for missile defense in this particular bill.
I think the thoughtful amendment that the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) has that deals with the particular distribution of the
funds, particularly as it relates to Israeli defense, is very helpful.
However, let me share with my colleagues my concerns about missile
defense.
First of all, Operation Enduring Freedom is costing roughly $1.8
billion per month. This bill funds missile defense at $7 billion, and
we will also use $7 billion in 4 months for Operation Enduring Freedom.
The money for Missile defense was put in this legislation even after a
top defense official has said that a successful U.S. missile defense
system which was completed recently does not realistically duplicate
conditions of an actual attack, a fault in the missile defense. We also
find that kinetic kill as a concept for destroying long-range ballistic
missiles is even more problematic at this stage. There is no empirical
evidence to support the contention that kinetic kill for ICBM defense
will work.
So I simply say that the amendment before us, the Spratt amendment,
with the distribution of funds as he is offering to do, is an amendment
that makes sense, because it is related to ground missile defense. But
I am opposed, Mr. Chairman, to the utilization of $7 billion for the
missile defense program as offered in this bill and in the President's
budget. I ask my colleagues to support the Spratt amendment.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank him for accepting my amendment.
This Arrow missile was a program that we started in 1987. Members of
the Committee on Armed Services contacted Mr. Rabin and Mr. Abramson
and said you have to develop a system against incoming ballistic
missiles because at some point we are going to see them coming from
neighboring countries built presumably by Russia. We saw that. We are
going to see more of it. This is a prudent move. The PAC III is also an
excellent addition. I thank the gentleman for accepting this
substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I move the substitute at this time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Operation Enduring Freedom is
costing roughly $1.8 billion per month. Within four months time that
amount will climb to $7.2 billion, while funding the ballistic missile
defense program in H.R. 4546 will cost approximately $7.784 billion.
The Ballistic Missile Defense system has failed most of its tests.
Kinetic kill as a concept for destroying long-range ballistic missiles
is even more problematic at this stage. There is no empirical evidence
to support the contention that kinetic kill for ICBM defense will work.
The military personnel conducting the war in Afghanistan are showing
measurable victories in achieving the United States goals. While the
ballistic missile defense program is not a proven deterrent, let's not
fund an unproven, instead let's fund success. By diverting the funds to
military personnel we are insuring their welfare and the welfare of
their families, which results in increased security for America.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56,
noes 339, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No 147]
AYES--56
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Condit
Conyers
DeGette
Delahunt
Doggett
Filner
Ford
Frank
Hill
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lynch
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks (NY)
Miller, George
Mink
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rodriguez
Sanchez
Schakowsky
Shows
Solis
Stenholm
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wu
NOES--339
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
[[Page H2353]]
Coyne
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schiff
Schrock
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--39
Ballenger
Barr
Boehner
Boucher
Burton
Cannon
Clay
Clayton
Combest
Crane
DeFazio
Edwards
Everett
Gillmor
Gordon
Grucci
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hoyer
John
Kennedy (MN)
LaFalce
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Millender-McDonald
Nethercutt
Norwood
Ose
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Riley
Roukema
Simpson
Stark
Traficant
Watson (CA)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
{time} 2043
Mr. TIBERI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in part A of House Report 107-450.
Part A Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Sanchez
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 7.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Sanchez:
At the end of title VII (page 159, after line 14) insert
the following:
SEC. 7 . LIMITING RESTRICTION OF USE OF DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO PERFORM ABORTIONS
TO FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 1093(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``in the United States'' after ``Defense''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 415, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment about freedom, safety, and
choice. Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to a quality of life
equal to that of the Nation they are pledged to defend.
____________________