[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4111-H4119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H4111]]

House of Representatives

             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

                              (Continued)


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt:
       Page 34, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take $30 million out 
of the space-based kinetic intercept program, leaving $14 or $15 
million for concept definition, which is the status of it anyway, and 
instead, shift that $30 million to another program, a vitally important 
program as part of missile defense which has been debited by this bill, 
the airborne laser bill.
  So it would not decrease by any means the total amount appropriated 
by this bill for ballistic missile defense. It would simply reallocate 
within those accounts $30 million, shifting it, as I said, from the 
space-based boost phase interceptor over to the airborne laser system 
to make up for 50 percent of a cut which the committee has made in that 
particular program.
  Mr. Chairman, some 15 years ago when the SDI program, Strategic 
Defense Initiative, was first begun, it was to be a layered defense. 
There were to be ground-based layers and space-based layers.
  One of the space-based layers was a space-based intercept system. It 
would have been a satellite which would have housed many different 
smaller satellites, each of which would have housed many different 
interceptors, each of which could be fired at missiles as they were 
launched, or even in the midcourse, as they came towards the United 
States.
  The problem with this system, in addition to the fact of being an 
enormous system, was that in a fixed orbit in space a target this large 
with that many interceptors on it was a very valuable target and a very 
vulnerable target; and any country able to fire at us an ICBM that 
really put us at risk would also be able to build what is called a 
DANASAT, a direct ascent ASAT, to take out that defensive system.
  So to avoid the inherent vulnerability of having predeployed 
satellites in space, the idea of Brilliant Pebbles was conceived. This 
system, the SBI system, was abandoned and Brilliant Pebbles was taken 
up.
  The idea of Brilliant Pebbles was to make this target not so valuable 
and not so vulnerable by making each satellite a single interceptor. 
Each would have been self-sufficient and able to sense what was coming 
on and able to propel itself towards that oncoming missile and take it 
out.
  Members can imagine how daunting this technology is. Because the 
technology was so daunting and the cost of lift and other things was so 
enormously expensive, the Brilliant Pebbles program was abandoned, as 
well.
  We have spent substantial sums of money, therefore, on space-based 
interceptors and boost phase interceptors in space. We have abandoned 
both. We should learn from our mistakes. We should learn from our 
mistakes and concentrate on what has worked and put our assets where 
they are likely to pay off in the near term. That is exactly what we 
are trying to do today.
  I am not opposed to boost-phase intercept. In fact, what I am trying 
to do is shift some money from a system not likely to work any time 
soon into a system that shows the promise of being an effective space-
based or boost-phase interceptor, the ABL, the airborne laser.
  Why do I do this? One reason for doing it is that if we look at what 
the Missile Defense Agency, the BMD agency is doing today, we will see 
they have a full plate, a fuller plate than they have had since SDI 
began. They are developing a ground-based midcourse interceptor; they 
are developing two or three variations on a ship-based mid course 
interceptor and a ship-based boost-phase interceptor; they are 
developing theater systems like the PAC-3, the THAAD, the MEADs. They 
are developing laser systems, airborne laser systems, and space-based 
laser systems.
  They need to winnow down some of these systems and focus on what 
works and try to bring those things that are most feasible to fruition, 
as opposed to going off in pursuit of a million different ideas. So 
that is what we would try to do here, refine the focus of the program 
on a system that is likely to work, taking out of a system that has 
been proven not to work in at least two iterations over the last 15 
years.
  Let me say that this system right now, this so-called space-based 
boost-phase intercept system, is relatively, relative to the defense 
budget, a small system. It is $23 million, or $23.8 million is the 
funding level for this year. The President requested $54.4 million. We 
would leave in the budget $14 million for this program; but as I said, 
we would shift the program.
  Now, it does not seem like it is really crowding anything out at that 
level of funding. What we have to do is look at what the MDA, the 
Missile Defense Agency, has provided us in a backup and justification 
charts for the cost growth they expect in this particular program, the 
boost-phase intercept program. They expect the cost to go up to $510 
million.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, this program will go from today's modest

[[Page H4112]]

level to $510 million in just 10 years. When it gets to that level, it 
is going to crowd out and preclude something else.
  The ABL, on the other hand, the airborne laser, needs money to buy, 
number one, a second airframe, a Boeing 747; and, number two, and even 
more critically, it needs some money to buy long lead time items that 
will make this airframe a suitable platform for a laser that will weigh 
200,000 to 250,000 pounds and has to have absolute stability if it is 
going to work and be functional at all.
  What we would put back in this budget, we would take the money out of 
one program and put it back in the ABL so we could buy those critical 
long lead items. If we do not buy those critical items, if we let the 
$30 million deletion stand in this budget, we are going to find that 
this program is going to be stretched out and out and out, and it is 
not going to be ready to be tested to determine whether or not the 
power system, the laser system, will have the power necessary to be an 
effective system by the year 2005 or 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very constructive amendment, and it does not 
take a dime out of the overall program. It will enhance the prospects 
for boost-phase intercept. It will ensure that the money we are 
spending on ballistic missile defense is being spent more effectively 
and is being spent towards accomplishing the purposes that we have set 
out for the program.
  I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise to try and strike this item on a 
point of order, but the gentleman from South Carolina is such a quality 
gentleman, he had done the homework on this amendment in a fashion so 
that it is not subject to a point of order.
  But in the meantime, let me say that the thrust of his amendment, 
really an intent, has essentially the same purpose as the amendment 
that I did object to, regard space-based missile defense. He does speak 
to the question of putting funding back into airborne laser.
  I might mention to the gentleman that this bill increases funding for 
that program, increases it enough so that the Department will have a 
decision to make whether they want to put the money into a more robust 
program or to go to the second aircraft. So I think we have really met 
that challenge within the work of the bill.
  On the other hand, the question relative to space-based kinetic 
energy I think is a matter that was fully discussed in the authorizing 
committee and on that bill as it moved through the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the 
amendment?
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has made a very important case 
here. The Airborne Laser program is one I have followed closely. I 
think it is on the verge of being tested, and I just want to commend 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who I think is the most 
knowledgeable person in the Congress on these issues, for the good work 
that he has done over the years in following these issues.
  We do not want to do anything to slow down this first test on the 
airborne laser so we can find out that it will work. In fact, last year 
I urged the committee to put money in so we would not let the test be 
delayed. So I urge the committee to adopt the Spratt amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. 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 South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) will be postponed.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the areas that I am most deeply concerned about 
in the course of our dealing with the Department of Defense deals with 
the consequences of military activity over the course of the last 2 
centuries. Unfortunately, we have left a legacy of unexploded ordnance, 
toxic waste that is involved from border to border, from coast to 
coast. It is in every State and virtually every congressional district.
  Unexploded ordnance, UXO, as we talk about it, is left over from 
military training exercises at some 2,000 formerly used defense sites 
and closed bases in every State; and in fact, we really do not have an 
inventory of actually how many millions of acres; it may be 10 million, 
it may be 50 million.

                              {time}  1230

  These sites include bombing ranges, testing facilities that were once 
located in underpopulated areas. However, we find that, today, distance 
is no longer a protective factor; and sites are now often bordered by 
housing developments or schools or contained within parks and other 
public lands.
  Recently, there was a gentleman rototilling in his yard in a 
subdivision in Arlington, Texas.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we think this amendment is a very important 
area. We will take a look at it and see if we cannot add money to this 
field. There is no question in mind that the gentleman has hit an area 
that a lot of Members are interested in. We will take care of the 
problem.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments and interest; and I guess I do not need to get up and thump 
the tub any further. But I would be interested if the chairman of the 
committee has any observations about the work that we may be able to do 
to deal with the research and development and the cleanup of unexploded 
ordnance.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
bringing up this important subject. I could not respond any better than 
my colleagues from Pennsylvania did, and we look forward to working 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the gentleman's 
interest and activities; and, too, I look forward to working with the 
gentleman.
  I would note that there appears to be a growing awareness on the part 
of Members across the country. I will save my stump speech, but I would 
just mention that there is one site we had a hearing on yesterday that 
is still, the campus of the American University, that 84 years after 
World War II we are still cleaning up chemical weapons.
  I think there is lot we can do. I appreciate the assurance and look 
forward to working with the gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise to commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for their excellent work on 
this bill. I look forward to working with them on the training of our 
National Guard. I know that the Guard is about to deploy in 
Pennsylvania. General Centraccio in my home State of Rhode Island has 
been very active in making sure our Guard is prepared and trained.
  We are relying on the Guard more than ever, and they are part of our 
total force, especially in this war on terrorism. I think they need to 
get the needed training and equipment that they need to do their job 
successfully.
  I know this bill goes a long way to doing that. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) to ensure 
that they continue to get the best training available.
  I rise today to commend Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha for 
their work on this legislation. Their task hasn't been an enviable one, 
given the limited budget allocations that they were forced to work 
with.
  In the end, they made it work. Looking at the bill that they 
produced, everyone can see that Chairman Lewis and Congressman Murtha 
are dedicated to our military and the security of our Nation at home 
and abroad. The safety and security of our Nation and the training and 
readiness of our military came first--just as it should.

[[Page H4113]]

  I'd also like to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Murtha 
made when the Appropriations Committee was discussing this legislation.
  He expressed his belief in the importance of ensuring that our 
soldiers receive the best training in the world to fight in our war on 
terrorism. He reminded us that the National Guard and the Reserves are 
a vital component in winning this war. He mentioned that the 
Pennsylvania Guard is about to deploy to Bosnia to initiate operations. 
In Rhode Island, General Centraccio is leading the Rhode Island Guard 
on a similar course. These Guard personnel are dedicated men and women, 
average American citizens, who are putting their lives on the line for 
their country.
  As Mr. Murtha mentioned, we owe it to them to ensure that they have 
the absolute best training and equipment available to do their job 
right in areas like marksmanship which I know is important to both Mr. 
Murtha and Mr. Lewis.
  I deeply appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on 
these and other issues. I look forward to continuing the good work we 
have begun to ensure that our men and women in uniform have access to 
the best training available.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . Of the total amount appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act for any component of the Department of Defense that the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget has 
     identified (as of the date of the enactment of this Act) 
     under subsection (c) of section 3515 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as being required to have audited financial 
     statements meeting the requirements of subsection (b) of that 
     section, not more than 99 percent may be obligated until the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Defense submits an 
     audit of that component pursuant to section 3521(e) of title 
     31, United Sates Code.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want the gentleman to know I 
am inclined to accept his amendment if we do not have to spend a lot of 
time discussing it, since we have discussed the matter already.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and 
certainly would yield to his higher wisdom.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, with that, we will accept the 
amendment if we can move forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tierney:
       In the item relating to ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', after the dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(reduced by $121,800,000)''.

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this particular matter, an amendment, goes 
to reducing the budget by $121.8 million that is now earmarked for the 
construction of five silos at Fort Greely. This does not deal with 
research but rather the construction.
  You will remember that earlier in our remarks we talked about the 
fact that the Department of Operational Testing and Evaluation had come 
before committees in this Congress to indicate that the national 
missile defense system, particularly this mid-range system, is nowhere 
near a point where it had been tested adequately to sufficiently give 
anybody confidence in its reliability; and, in fact, the experts and 
director of that department had indicated we should not move forward 
with construction until we adequately test it.
  The fact of matter is that is why Congress passed the act setting up 
the Office of Operational Testing and Evaluation, because we had in the 
past allowed services to go forward and build weapons systems that were 
not adequately tested, resulting in enormous losses of money and great 
losses of time in trying to build the defense of this country. So the 
fact of the matter here is we concentrate on the premature construction 
and not the research of this.
  You will remember that when Mr. Coyle, who was the former director of 
that agency, came before Congress and testified that the testing regime 
was inadequate, the answer we got from the Department of Defense was to 
pull it in and say they will now do an entirely different system of 
testing. This one would lump all the research and development and 
construction together, and it would be more difficult to separate one 
out from the other. They would also do what they call the capabilities-
based system, as opposed to a system where we set out goals and tried 
to meet those goals as we went forward and we could measure and 
identify the progress in developing a system and whether or not it was 
working.
  When asked about the real capabilities of these Fort Greely 
interceptors, General Ronald Kadish, the head of the Missile Defense 
Agency, seems to be of two minds. On one hand, he calls it a limited 
capability, a residual protection, not perfect by any means, but then 
he testified before the Committee on Armed Services in February and 
said he had high confidence that this would be capable to be put in 
place by 2004.
  The fact of the matter is that that is not the case, and because it 
is not the case we should not be spending money to construct something 
that has not been adequately tested.
  Now the problem that we have here is that usually we would have a 
Test and Evaluation Master Plan, or what we call a TEMP, by which we 
could judge where this is going, but the administration has not given 
us one. We would devise specific tests and goals and time lines. That 
was originally due in June. It has yet to be completed. It has now been 
pushed off to the fall, maybe later.
  Normally, as an alternative, Congress would have certain minimum 
requirements established by military planners in so-called operational 
requirements documents, but the administration has canceled those as of 
January.
  Pentagon officials have also failed to deliver many other technical 
documents, including the program implementation plan. So, essentially, 
they are leaving us all out there without any guide or direction as to 
whether or not we can measure the progress on this. They are ignoring 
the technology. They are rushing ahead on construction without any 
thoughtful testing regimen and forcing us to get a situation where we 
will have to retroactively correct mistakes and errors, costing 
billions of dollars and a great deal of time.
  So we had a hearing and a briefing. We called in Mr. Coyle, and we 
called in people of the Union of Concerned Scientists, experts on this 
matter, for specific questioning about whether or not these programs 
and aspects of it, separate components of it, were really going to be 
operational and capable by 2004. We learned that that will not be the 
case.
  We first asked about the X-Band Radar System. The Pentagon thought 
this system is essential to any ground-based system. We were told that 
it will not be in place by 2004.
  Then we asked about the space-based infrared satellite system, the 
so-called SBIRS. We were told that those would not be in place near 
operational and capable by 2004. In fact, we are looking a decade or 
more out on that.
  We then talked about whether or not we would have a Cobra Dane Radar 
as a substitute for the X-Band Radar, even though it would not come 
anywhere remotely close to doing all of the things that the X-Band 
Radar was called upon doing; and we were told at best that would be 
extremely limited and would not serve the purposes of testing or having 
it be operational at that point in time.
  We talked about whether or not flight tests would be conducted with 
significant information being provided by the interceptor before the 
launch, because essentially that is what we have been doing. We have 
been telling the interceptor ahead of time where the target is. You can 
bet no enemy is going to do that.
  By 2004, Mr. Coyle and the Union of Concerned Scientists told us that 
we would not have had a single test conducted without advanced 
information on trajectory for the incoming missile given to the 
interceptor. Nor would we have an opportunity to have any tests done 
without first telling the interceptor where the launch location was. So 
it is noes all the way down the line to there.

[[Page H4114]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tierney was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we then asked whether or not the flight 
intercept tests by 2004 would be able to tell us whether or not 
countermeasures would be effectively taken into account in the test; 
and we were told that, no, that would not be done.
  We then asked whether or not it was important to test the system for 
different kinds of weather, and we were told it was, but those types of 
tests would not be done by 2004.
  We asked whether or not there would be a simple target sweep or a 
complex target sweep and whether or not there would be tests done on 
complex target sweeps, and we were told that that would not be done.
  We talked about the fact that, so far, any target has had a beacon on 
it so that the enemy setting it up would have to have a red light 
telling it where it was to be hit, and they said there would be no test 
without the beacon being on target ahead of time.
  So right on down the line we have had a system of boosters that have 
been plagued with problems, and we were told that any booster 
productivity by 2004 would be extremely unlikely. More likely that is a 
decade out. So we are using a booster system that will not even be the 
final one when this becomes operational.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line on all of there is there is no way we 
should start building this, no way we should start building it until it 
is fully tested. We cannot under any conditions, by the former 
operations and technical person at the Pentagon, have this in place and 
operational and capable by 2004.
  Why are we spending taxpayers' hard-earned money when we have so many 
other needs in defense? Primary among those are homeland security 
issues, pay for our troops, housing for our troops, right on down the 
line. Instead, just because someone treats this program like religion, 
we are out here allowing them to get away with starting to build 
something that we have not tested. We are throwing good money after 
bad.
  The worst part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that now the Pentagon tells 
us, because they were found out about how bad their testing regime is, 
now they will classify everything so nobody will get the information.
  You can bet every time they have a test they will tell you it is a 
success. What they will not tell you is that they are testing it 
knowing where the launch point was, knowing what the trajectory was, 
knowing there is a beacon on the target, knowing there are no 
countermeasures, knowing everyone will know the answer before it 
starts, and that does not serve the American taxpayer well in the 
defense of this country.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but the gentleman is a 
member of the authorizing committee and he knows full well this has to 
do with authorizing policy. The fact is, we have begun spending money 
and we have already provided a considerable amount of money to build 
those silos in Alaska, that are designed to do the testing he says we 
are not interested in doing.
  The reality is that this amendment takes the heart out of our ability 
to even consider ground-based missile defense, which is pretty 
fundamental when we consider possibilities for protecting our country 
in the future.
  Because of that, I very, very strongly object to this amendment. I 
would do so even if I did not object to the fact that the gentleman did 
not discuss it with us before we came to the floor.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) for the work he has done on this and ask the gentleman if he 
would answer a question.
  In looking at this presentation here, am I to understand that what 
the people in charge of this program have done is that they have 
basically failed to prove in any way that this system can work?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely accurate, and when they 
failed to do that they then tried to change the nature in which they 
proceed with the system to make it harder to measure, and now they are 
trying to classify it.
  If I could add one word and make note of what the chairman said, this 
is strictly a matter of money in this case. It identifies only 
construction issues and not research issues and in no other way impedes 
the Department of Defense moving forward research on this. In fact, the 
very point is, let us research and know what it is we are building 
before we start throwing bad money after good.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate what the gentleman 
says. Let us just conduct our own simulation here.
  Here is an incoming missile. Is there going to be a beacon on an 
incoming missile?

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, the way they have structured it so far, 
there will not be any tests before 2004 where the beacon will not be 
present.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So there is an incoming missile for this test that has 
a beacon on it?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, it or some of the target suite will have a 
missile beacon on it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Have they had tests where they had a beacon on it and 
they failed that test?
  Mr. TIERNEY. It is possible, though some of the earlier tests had 
that scenario.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, so they had earlier tests when even when 
they put a sign on it that said hit me, they were still unsuccessful?
  Mr. TIERNEY. That is right.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, so from my colleague's recitation here, 
what my colleague is saying basically and what has been testified to is 
that the tests have been basically tricked up to make it appear that 
this system works?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I am saying that the testimony was from the Pentagon's 
own person, the person who was in charge of doing operational testing 
and evaluation, Mr. Coyle. It was his job on behalf of the Pentagon, as 
directed by this Congress, to evaluate whether or not the testing 
regime was adequate, and it was not. It was basically found that all of 
these things would not be ready by 2004 and that the whole testing 
program fell short of giving us any reasonable amount of confidence 
that the system would be reliable.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let us just go over 
this now. My colleague is saying that in these tests they are giving 
advance information, this missile coming in, they have advance 
information on what the trajectory is going to be and what the speed is 
going to be and what time it is going to be launched and where it is 
going to be launched from and what the countermeasures might be; and 
even though they have advance information, they still cannot make this 
work?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, they have a history of having failures. 
They have had some successes, but none of the successes without those 
additional components.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, where they have had success, they 
have been given advance information. Now in a real life scenario are 
they likely to have advance information on trajectory and speed and 
launch time? Is that likely?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, no, it is not likely; and Mr. Coyle made 
that point, that they do not have the realistic testing scenarios in 
place and planned for execution before 2004. That is what they should 
be doing. They should be having realistic scenarios in place and done 
and completed and be evaluated before we get to the point of building. 
We have a very bad history in this country, prior to the legislation we 
passed to set up Mr. Coyle's Department, of having built things before 
they were adequately tested.

[[Page H4115]]

  Mr. KUCINICH. So basically we have a system here where they are 
testing technology, but they are not accepting the results?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, we have a system here where they are 
testing, and they have not tested adequately to get to the point to 
where they should be constructing.
  Mr. KUCINICH. If we were to adopt the gentleman's amendment, how 
would this effect a beneficial purpose for the American taxpayers?
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, it would at 
least stop them from starting to build something that they have not 
adequately tested. They could continue to research. They could continue 
to move in the direction of trying to find a way to make a system like 
this work; but we would not be spending money on building something 
only to run the extreme risk of having to change it later on at a 
higher cost and much delay in the program, and that money could then be 
used more fruitfully on some of the higher priorities of our defense, 
including homeland security.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
work on this, and I am supporting his amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, what I really appreciate about this country is that we 
can have an open forum and allow two lawyers to talk about rocket 
science. What the gentleman just brought up here is 12 parameters on a 
rocket test. I would like to talk just a little bit about speaking on 
only 12 parameters on a rocket test. The facts of the matter is that 
there will probably be close to 12,000 parameters addressed in the 
series of tests that we are going to be doing out of Fort Greely, 
Alaska. I think before I go on, I want to talk a little bit about why 
we are going to have these tests.
  There is a need to have protection from incoming intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. Today we know that Russia has those capabilities as 
do some of the former Soviet countries that were part of the former 
Soviet Union, USSR. We know China has that capability. India is working 
on that capability. North Korea is working on that capability and has 
launched a three-stage rocket. Fortunately, the third stage did not 
fire, but it is just a matter of time.
  Iran, Iraq is also pursuing this technology; but we are not doing it 
for today. Listening to the previous discussion, it sounded like we 
were expecting something to be ready either by this December or we 
should not do it at all. This is a very complex system, but this is a 
complex system that has had successful tests; and even the gentleman 
admitted, yes, there have been some successes.
  The success was that we fired a rocket off out of the Pacific, a 
second intercepting rocket was launched from a land-based location, and 
in essence, a bullet hit a bullet thousands of miles from the location 
from where either of these rockets were launched, thousands of miles, a 
bullet hitting a bullet, tremendous success, wonderful success.
  I do not think we can get two lawyers, one on each end of the 
Capitol, have them shoot at each other, ever get a hit on a bullet; but 
these scientists were able to do this at thousands of miles, a 
tremendous technical achievement.
  We are expecting it to happen immediately, or we should do not it at 
all? Well, it is going to take time to continue this technology so that 
we can be successful in protecting, not ourselves necessarily, but our 
posterity, our children. North Korea does not have an intercontinental 
ballistic missile yet, but they will have. Countries that are rogue 
nations, with rogue leaders will have that capability in the future. We 
do have a constitutional requirement to provide for the common defense 
of our citizens. We cannot do it without a system like this. It does 
not happen overnight. We have to work on it overtime. We have to invest 
time; we have to invest money. We have to expect some failures. But it 
is an incredible technology.
  For us to shut the water off on this is very shortsighted. It ignores 
the future. It ignores the safety of our citizens, my children, our 
children. We cannot turn our backs on this. It is a reality. It is an 
achievable technology. It is a necessity, and for us to stop this is 
very shortsighted and I think, hopefully, improbable. I think that is 
the general feeling here in the House is that we should provide for the 
common defense of our children, and that is a viable means of doing 
that.
  One of the other things I wanted to say about the location is that 
Fort Greely, Alaska, is probably the best location to run this battery 
of tests, to measure these parameters. The location has been studied. 
Construction has already started. It is very important that we continue 
with this program; and I think that the Pentagon, the administration, 
the rocket scientists have a very good plan. It is a well-thought-out 
plan. It measures every facet. It starts with a design concept. It 
develops documents as to what test requirements are going to be 
required, what the statement of work, the total environment of this 
test activity, every little stress point on these rockets that is going 
to be measured. It is going to be able to hit a bullet with a bullet, 
thousands of miles over the Pacific or over areas remote from our 
country; and that is something that we need to think about as a 
priority for our children, because the reality is, it is going to 
occur.
  My colleagues cannot convince me that Mu'ammar Qadhafi or Saddam 
Hussein or some future despot is not going to want to use that leverage 
on America. How do we protect ourselves from that? We have to have a 
system, an umbrella around our citizens, around our children. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I ask that this amendment be opposed and that we continue on 
with the business of the day.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I, first of all, want to congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee as well as the ranking member for constructing a very good 
bill. There is no question that this is a very good piece of 
legislative work. Nevertheless, I rise here this afternoon to support 
this amendment because I think it makes a very constructive improvement 
to the legislation that we are currently considering.
  A week ago today, the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew the 
United States of America from the antiballistic missile treaty which 
had been in effect since 1972. This is a treaty which has stood the 
American people and the people of the world in good stead for 30 years. 
It has had the effect of reducing tensions, reducing the likelihood of 
a nuclear attack by any country; and it is a treaty that I think ought 
to continue to be in existence, but the administration withdrew us from 
that treaty so that they could begin the construction of these 
facilities in Alaska and elsewhere.
  In doing so, the allegation is, and we have just heard an exposition 
of that from the gentleman from Kansas just a moment ago, that all of 
this is designed to improve our security; but in fact, I think what we 
are seeing is the opposite is happening. As a result of our withdrawal 
from the ABM treaty, the Russian military is already talking and 
pressuring the leadership in Russia to put their missiles on higher 
alert. They are already discussing multiple, independently targeted 
reentry vehicles, in other words, MIRVing the system, putting more 
warheads on their missiles. In other words, the effect of the 
withdrawal from the treaty has already begun to increase tensions on 
both sides and putting the Russian nuclear missile system on a higher 
position of alert.
  What this amendment does is prevent the expenditure of $181-plus 
million for the construction of these silos. It is a very thoughtful 
and very prudent initiative, and it is one that we ought to follow. We 
ought to follow it because the expenditure of that money is premature; 
and if we do expend it and this construction goes forward, it is going 
to increase tensions additionally even further.
  We have also heard it expressed very, very clearly that the physics 
of this system has not been proved, not in any sense. The success that 
we heard about just a moment ago is a false success. It is a success 
that has demonstrated over and over again that in spite of the fact 
that we know where the launch is coming from, what time the launch is 
occurring, the trajectory of that launch,

[[Page H4116]]

where the missile will be at a precise moment in time, in spite of 
that, the tests have failed over and other and over again. There has 
been some minimal success, but the preponderance has been failure.
  Such that, as we heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) a moment ago, Phillip Coyle, who is the former Pentagon chief 
investigator, said earlier this year in February that some aspects of 
this tall order are virtually impossible; and the overwhelming evidence 
from the scientific community agrees with that. Scientists over and 
over and over again studying the physics tell us that we have not 
tested this system enough to demonstrate that it is going to work; the 
physics of it are impossible.
  So what we are offered here today is an opportunity to improve this 
bill, reduce the expenditures by $181 million, and instead of 
increasing tensions and reducing national security, to improve national 
security by the adoption of this amendment.
  I support the amendment, and I hope that the House will do so as 
well.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I had not intended to speak on this amendment, but heard the 
gentleman before me when I just came back from the energy conference to 
my office. I believe there is a credible nuclear threat against the 
United States of America. There is a possibility that a rogue nation or 
terrorist group will deliver a nuclear device to the United States of 
America, but it will not be on the tip of a missile.
  This misbegotten technology, if it ever worked, would not defend 
against a depressed launched trajectory missile from a submarine, 
against stealth missiles, against bombers, against all those other 
threats. But not even those are the real threats, and that is not the 
real failing of this. It will not defend against the container, one of 
the 500 million that come to the United States every year. That is the 
most likely vehicle for a nuclear bomb in the United States of America. 
A simple bomb attached to a GPS device gets to a certain point in the 
United States and it blows up.

                              {time}  1300

  And guess what? While we are spending $100 billion or more of our 
hard-earned tax dollars to try and take this totally failed and 
continually failing system, one that has to be notified in advance, has 
to have a GPS device tracking the incoming missile, one that cannot 
take on any sort of devices that would cloak or hide the missile or in 
any way make it more difficult to hit, they are going to be attacking 
us in another way.
  It is a real shame. The one thing we have that really works are our 
satellites and our detection capability. The second that one of those 
rogue nations launches a missile against the United States, we will 
know it, and in 20 minutes that nation would no longer exist.
  They are not going to launch missiles against the United States. They 
might buy a junk freighter, they might sneak it into a container, or 
they might put it in a van and drive it across the border from Mexico 
or Canada. There is a whole bunch of ways they might deliver a nuclear 
weapon to the United States. And while we are wasting money on this 
program to enrich the defense contractors with failing technology, they 
will be making their plans.
  It is just extraordinary to me after 9-11, when they commandeered our 
civilian aircraft and used them as weapons of mass destruction, that we 
are still obsessed with trying to build technology to fight a threat 
that does not exist.
  Yes, the North Koreans. The North Koreans once launched a missile 
that, if it had worked, might have reached the United States; and 
someday they might have two or three of them. Well, the leader of North 
Korea might be nuts, but he is not nuts enough that he wants to turn 
his country into nuclear glass.
  Our assurance of deterrence, mutually assured destruction, in this 
case, is not mutually assured. They might hit some tiny corner of the 
United States, which would be very tragic, and I doubt very much they 
will even try to do that, but we would totally devastate them. That is 
not the way they will deliver these threats.
  There are credible threats. Let us invest some of this money in a 
technology to screen the 500 million containers coming into the United 
States, to screen the Mexican semis that are about to start streaming 
across the border to all points in the United States with no 
inspection.
  How do my colleagues think they are going to deliver it? They are not 
going to try to build a missile and then shoot it at us and let us 
detect it. They will put it in a truck, they will put it in a 
container, maybe a suitcase or maybe a van. And while we are wasting 
all this money for technology that probably will not work anyway, they 
are going to be planning a credible attack.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of September 11, there is even more 
interest than usual in rushing legislation through the House. Certainly 
all of us respect the time, effort, and expertise of this subcommittee 
in trying to develop the best bill. There is not a Member of this House 
that does not want to provide every dollar that is essential to 
securing the future of America and of every American family. But I 
believe it is appropriate, as is happening here on the floor of the 
House today, that we at least devote as much time to this expenditure 
of $354 billion of taxpayer money as we normally allot to a bill naming 
a post office.
  I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courage in 
advancing these amendments, because the most recent sequel of the 
Administration's Star Wars plans is considerably similar to the most 
recent sequel of the Star Wars movie. It depends in the main on 
gimmicks and special effects.
  One of our colleagues has told us today about the success of one of a 
number of tests that was done with a bullet hitting a bullet. If my 
colleagues believe that our adversaries will choose a clear night, will 
announce the launch time to us, will ensure there is good weather along 
the full route of the missile, and, in addition, they will place a 
homing beacon in the missile they are firing at American cities, then, 
perhaps, with those disclaimers, this is a system worth considering, 
with one major exception. Because even under those circumstances, even 
under the best-case scenario, I have yet to hear a single official or a 
single advocate who has any knowledge about this system who is willing 
to say that it will be 100 percent successful.
  Indeed, most people who have explored this realize that the whole 
Fort Greely plan is based on the premise: ``Build it and it will 
work''. And when it works, it will not work 100 percent of the time.
  Well, consider with me again the tremendous horror that we all feel 
as we reflect on September 11, the damage, the destruction, that gouge 
in the earth that one can see at Ground Zero in New York City; and 
think for a moment how much worse it would have been if it had been a 
nuclear device and how many more tens of thousands of families would 
have suffered, as so many have already suffered from September 11.
  Are we to accept as a security system for American families a system 
that can permit just one New York City or one Chicago or one Austin, 
Texas that was 85 or 95 percent effective in stopping most of the 
missiles from coming in? I suggest that is like going out in the rain 
with an umbrella full of holes. It is better to consider whether there 
is not a better way to stay dry than to use that kind of leaky 
umbrella.
  It builds a sense of false security. It encourages adventurism. It 
encourages a foreign policy that promises the American people 100 
percent security when, in fact, experts agree we are going to expose 
some Americans to a nuclear catastrophe to an extent that we have never 
seen in the history of the world. It would make a Hiroshima or a 
Nagasaki look like a small disaster in comparison.
  I would suggest that, there is not an expert around that does not 
think if we build at Fort Greely and begin this kind of effort that we 
will not have more missiles designed to be targeted to the United 
States by our potential adversaries.
  If the Chinese build more missiles, and there has been a suggestion 
that they would as a result of this kind of

[[Page H4117]]

construction at Fort Greely, what impact might that have on the Indians 
who are a little closer than San Francisco to China? If the Indians 
begin building more missiles because the Chinese are building more 
missiles, what impact might that have on the Pakistanis right across 
the border? And if the Pakistanis build more missiles, what impact 
might that have on the Iranians, with whom they have had some 
competition in Afghanistan? And if the Iranians build more missiles, 
what impact might that have on Israel? And if Israel builds more, what 
impact might that have on Egypt?
  What we are looking at in Fort Greely is the beginning of a system 
that will lead to destabilization and to an arms race, the ultimate 
effect of which will be jeopardizing the security of American families.
  It is because we share a commitment as deep as the advocates for this 
bill in the desire to defend our country that we speak out today 
against Star Wars and in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, because we believe the true security of our Nation rests 
on stopping the false security of this phony Star Wars system.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill and to 
oppose this amendment and particularly to thank the chairman, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for their work with me, as 
well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), on finding a proper 
replacement for the Crusader.
  I want to thank the gentlemen and staff for all their work in 
protecting those technologies and the brain trust that goes with those 
jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2003 
Defense Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Lewis and Congressman 
Murtha, the ranking member, as well as their staff, for their work.
  We are still a nation at war, and our first and foremost priority at 
this time must be to the men and women we have called upon to fight. 
Rightfully, this is the first of the regular FY03 Appropriations bills 
that this body will consider, and that it should be the first of the 
FY03 appropriations bills to be sent to the President's desk for his 
signature.
  Since the tragic events of September 11, we have asked a great deal 
of our military. And Congress has acted to provide them with additional 
funds to purchase ammunition and equipment, to pay them better wages, 
and to make sure their families have a decent place to live, access to 
health care, while their loved ones are fighting for our freedom in 
Afghanistan, the Balkans, South Korea, the Middle East and around the 
globe.
  But while it is important that we continue to meet the immediate 
needs of our armed forces, we must begin to look ahead at their future 
needs, and focus on what investments are truly worthy.
  When it comes to war, we want overwhelming superiority in every way. 
We want our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, along with their 
guard and reserve components, to have the most advanced, most 
revolutionary, most lethal systems possible.
  I am pleased that this bill contains $57.7 billion for research and 
development on the next generation of fighter jets, ammunition rounds, 
communications equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and other critical 
weapons. This is $4 billion over the President's request and $8 billion 
over last year's level.
  However, this bill does not contain funding for one critical R&D 
project--the Crusader Self-propelled Howitzer, which Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld proposed terminating. This system would have 
brought revolutionary technologies to the battlefield and provided a 
true ``leap ahead'' from the currently fielded Paladin.

  While this bill on the floor today meets the administration's 
objective of terminating the Crusador program, this committee has 
recognized the need for ground-based indirect fire support 
capabilities, and it supports a large leap ahead toward developing the 
Army's next generation of these systems. I want to take this 
opportunity to thank Chairman Lewis and Mr. Murtha and his staff for 
working closely with me and Mr. Sabo to shape the direction of the 
Army's replacement for the Crusader. They have put in long hours, and I 
believe they have crafted a compromise which keeps the Crusader's 
``brain trust'' intact while moving ahead with the development of a 
lighter, more mobile, more lethal system.
  Air superiority alone cannot win all our nation's future wars. We 
must maintain robust ground warfare capabilities, including a range of 
direct and indirect fire support systems. Our soldiers on the ground 
need direct and indirect fire support systems that can hit their 
targets, day or night, rain or shine.
  One system that will fill that need to provide ground-based fire 
support is the Lightweight 155mm Towed Howitzer, which the committee 
has fully funded. This joint Marine Corps and Army program will provide 
a means for our soldiers to fire the Excalibur precision munition 
round. The importance of getting this system in the hands of our 
soldiers and Marines, sooner rather than later, is more critical given 
the cancellation of Crusader.
  Further, to address future indirect fire support needs, the Committee 
has provided $368.5 million to begin development of a future Army 
objective force vehicle. These funds include $195.5 million for the 
maturation and transfer of indirect fire support capabilities from the 
Crusader, as was requested in the President's recent FY03 Budget 
Amendment. Additionally, the Committee provided $173 million for the 
integration of revolutionary cannon technologies onto a new, lighter 
platform.
  As a result of the language so carefully crafted by the chairman and 
his staff this will allow us to harness the ``brain trust'' behind the 
development of Crusader's revolutionary technologies--the liquid-cooled 
cannon, automated loading mechanism, crew compartment and software--and 
imbed them in a lighter, more mobile, more lethal replacement system. 
Many of the scientists and engineers responsible for developing these 
revolutionary Crusader technologies work for the Program Manager for 
Crusader at Picatinny Arsenal in my district.
  I am confident that Picatinny's ``brain trust'' is up to the 
challenge of developing a system that possesses the capabilities and 
advances that Crusader would bring to the battlefield in a package that 
is half the weight, and can become part of the Army's arsenal within 
the next six years.
  Also contained in this bill is funding for a broad range of projects 
at Picatinny in areas as diverse as homeland defense, smart munitions, 
nanotechnology and environmental remediation, which I support because 
they provide our soldiers in the field with the tools they need to win.
  I urge my colleagues to stand in support of the men and women who are 
fighting on behalf of our nation, and to vote for this bill.
  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.
  Mr. TIERNEY. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins

  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Collins:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to relocate the headquarters of the United States Army, 
     South, from Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, to a location in the 
     continental United States.

  Mr. COLLINS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to the 
defense appropriations bill as a technical correction to a situation 
dealing with the Army South Headquarters. I have discussed this with 
Chairman Lewis, Chairman Hobson, and Chairman Young; and I do believe 
that the Chair also discussed it with the ranking member.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their support of the amendment.

[[Page H4118]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: The first amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), and the second 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The noes prevailed by voice vote, so the amendment is 
rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Spratt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The ayes prevailed by voice vote, so the amendment is 
agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Tierney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 314, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               AYES--112

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larsen (WA)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--314

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allen
     Boehner
     Burr
     McCarthy (NY)
     Northup
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Traficant

                              {time}  1336

  Mrs. TAUSCHER and Messrs. OTTER, GEKAS, LANGEVIN, CANTOR, PICKERING, 
KENNEDY of Rhode Island, HINOJOSA and TOM DAVIS of Virginia changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. INSLEE, WYNN and SAWYER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2003''.

  The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments to the bill, under 
the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5010) making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2003, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 461, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page H4119]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this vote will be followed by two 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on the following measures:
  House Concurrent Resolution 424;
  H.R. 3034.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413, 
nays 18, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 270]

                               YEAS--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     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)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     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 (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     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
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     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
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--18

     Baldwin
     Brown (OH)
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Filner
     Frank
     Jackson (IL)
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Payne
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Northup
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. BROWN of Ohio, JACKSON of Illinois, and PAYNE and Ms. BALDWIN 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________