[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 63 (Thursday, May 16, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E818-E819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 9, 2002

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration 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:

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003. This bill provides 
appropriations for an increase in pay for our armed services personnel, 
which I believe is very important for the security of our great nation. 
The authorization provides an across-the-board 4.1 percent pay increase 
for military personnel. The across-the-board and targeted raises would 
be the equivalent of a 4.7 percent across-the-board raise and will 
reduce the pay gap between the military and private sector from 7.5 
percent to 6.4 percent. Our service men and women work very hard to 
protect this country and its way of life. Therefore, I believe that by 
raising their pay and giving more than a billion dollars more than the 
President requested, this will increase morale, which is very 
important.
  On the other hand, this Authorization provides funds for flawed 
defense items. First, the Air Force's controversial F-22 Raptor 
Fighter, the next-generation premier fighter, which is intended to 
replace the F-15 and F-16. It is designed to have both air-to-air and 
air-to-ground fighter capabilities. This aircraft is plagued by cost 
overruns, technical problems and questions over whether the Air Force 
should direct its resources to expensive manned aircraft when newer 
technologies and strategies are more effective and less costly. The 
bill authorizes $1 billion for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 
procurement and research and development. UAV's have the ability to 
provide first-hand reconnaissance of opposition forces without placing 
lives at risk. Moreover, UAV's have proven particularly valuable in 
Afghanistan by identifying and tracking enemy targets, and conducting 
missions too dangerous for manned aircraft. By canceling the F-22, the 
Air Force can free up substantial funding that can be used to more 
aggressively pursue programs such as long range bombers. Yet, we fund 
this flawed and expensive jet fighter.
  Another flawed item is the controversial Crusader artillery system. 
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld signaled his intent to cancel the Crusader 
program, and to divert the $475 million in research and development 
funds earmarked for the program to another system. In addition, the 
President asked this Congress not to revive the $11 billion program, 
because he fully supported Secretary Rumsfeld's decision to scrap the 
artillery system and seek alternatives more in keeping with the current 
threat facing the United States. The Congress ignores the President's 
request and still proposes funds for this flawed and unwanted item.
  Along with these flawed programs, this Authorization will also relax 
environmental laws. Although, the bill authorizes the President's 
request for the Energy Department's environmental restoration and 
cleanup programs. The Defense Department environmental programs, 
relaxes some current requirements under our environmental laws which 
protects wildlife habitats on military installations. Here again, the 
Administration is trying to disrupt our delicate wildlife habitats to 
benefit its friends.
  However, the most problematic item within the authorization is the 
$7.8 billion ballistic missile defense. The reality with a ballistic 
missile defense system is that if a country is

[[Page E819]]

capable of building a long-range missile, and has the motivation to 
launch a missile against the United States, it has the capability and 
motivation to build effective countermeasures to any anti-ballistic 
missile defense system.
  Furthermore, the difficulty in developing a feasible ballistic 
missile defense system is not getting complex hardware to work as 
intended. It is that the defense system has to work against an enemy 
who is trying to thwart the system. Moreover, the attacking country can 
do so with technology much simpler than the technology needed for the 
defense system. This means that the attacker has the advantage, despite 
our technological edge.
  A year long study was conducted, that examined, in detail, what 
countermeasures an emerging missile state could take to defeat the 
missile defense system the United States is planning. The study showed 
that effective countermeasures required technology much less 
sophisticated than is needed to build a long-range ballistic missile. 
In addition, a high-level commission convened by Congress to assess the 
ballistic missile threat to the United States, noted that potential 
attackers could build such bomblets.
  I ask ``how is it possible that this problem is being ignored?'' The 
Pentagon is balking on how to proceed. It has divided the missile 
defense problem into two parts: (1) getting the system to work against 
missiles without realistic countermeasures and (2) getting the defense 
to work against countermeasures. Few doubt the first step could 
eventually be done.
  The Defense Department has tested and re-tested this ballistic 
missile defense system, and each time results have not achieved their 
desired intentions. But yet, the President wants to continue funding 
this flawed policy. In almost every case, post-test doubts 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. To assume otherwise is to base defense 
planning on wishful thinking. An effective defense is based on 
preparing for credible threats with workable systems. Not funding 
systems that have failed in tests as the Republicans have done in this 
bill.

                          ____________________