[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 101 (Tuesday, July 23, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H5308-H5314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        COST OF WAR AGAINST TERRORISM AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4547) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense and to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4547

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Cost of 
     War Against Terrorism Authorization Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amounts authorized for the War on Terrorism.
Sec. 3. Additional authorizations

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

            Subtitle A--Authorizations to Transfer Accounts

Sec. 101. War on Terrorism Operations Fund.
Sec. 102. War on Terrorism Equipment Replacement and Enhancement Fund.
Sec. 103. General provisions applicable to transfers.

            Subtitle B--Authorizations to Specified Accounts

Sec. 111. Army procurement.
Sec. 112. Navy and Marine Corps procurement.
Sec. 113. Air Force procurement.
Sec. 114. Defense-wide activities procurement.
Sec. 115. Research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide.
Sec. 116. Classified activities.
Sec. 117. Global Information Grid system.
Sec. 118. Operation and maintenance.
Sec. 119. Military personnel.

            Subtitle C--Military Construction Authorizations

Sec. 131. Authorized military construction and land acquisition 
              projects.

             TITLE II--WARTIME PAY AND ALLOWANCE INCREASES

Sec. 201. Increase in rate for family separation allowance.
Sec. 202. Increase in rates for various hazardous duty incentive pays.
Sec. 203. Increase in rate for diving duty special pay.
Sec. 204. Increase in rate for imminent danger pay.
Sec. 205. Increase in rate for career enlisted flyer incentive pay.
Sec. 206. Increase in amount of death gratuity.
Sec. 207. Effective date.

                    TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Establishment of at least one Weapons of Mass Destruction 
              Civil Support Team in each State.
Sec. 302. Authority for joint task forces to provide support to law 
              enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism 
              activities.
Sec. 303. Sense of Congress on assistance to first responders.

     SEC. 2. AMOUNTS AUTHORIZED FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM.

       The amounts authorized to be appropriated in this Act, 
     totalling $10,000,000,000, are authorized for the conduct of 
     operations in continuation of the war on terrorism in 
     accordance with the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
     (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and, to the extent 
     appropriations are made pursuant to such authorizations, 
     shall only be expended in a manner consistent with the 
     purposes stated in section 2(a) thereof.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATIONS

       The amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act are 
     in addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     military functions of the Department of Defense for fiscal 
     year 2003 in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2003 or any other Act.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

            Subtitle A--Authorizations to Transfer Accounts

     SEC. 101. WAR ON TERRORISM OPERATIONS FUND.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 2003 the amount of $3,544,682,000, to be 
     available only for operations in accordance with the purposes 
     stated in section 2 for Operation Noble Eagle and Operation 
     Enduring Freedom. Funds authorized in the preceding sentence 
     may only be used as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Transfer Authority.--Subject to section 103, the 
     Secretary of Defense may, in the Secretary's discretion, 
     transfer amounts authorized in subsection (a) to any fiscal 
     year 2003 military personnel or operation and maintenance 
     account of the Department of Defense for the purposes stated 
     in that subsection.

     SEC. 102. WAR ON TERRORISM EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AND 
                   ENHANCEMENT FUND.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense 
     for fiscal year 2003 the amount of $1,000,000,000, to be 
     available only in accordance with the purposes stated in 
     section 2 and to be used only as provided in subsection (b).
       (b) Transfer Authority.--Subject to section 103, the 
     Secretary of Defense may, in the Secretary's discretion, 
     transfer amounts authorized in subsection (a) to any fiscal 
     year 2003 procurement or research, development, test, and 
     evaluation account of the Department of Defense for the 
     purpose of--
       (1) emergency replacement of equipment and munitions lost 
     or expended in operations conducted as part of Operation 
     Noble Eagle or Operation Enduring Freedom; or
       (2) enhancement of critical military capabilities necessary 
     to carry out operations pursuant to Public Law 107-40.

     SEC. 103. GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--Amounts transferred pursuant to section 
     101(b) or 102(b) shall be merged with, and available for the 
     same purposes and the same time period as, the account to 
     which transferred.
       (b) Congressional Notice-and-Wait Requirement.--A transfer 
     may not be made under section 101(b) or 102(b) until the 
     Secretary of Defense has submitted a notice in writing to the 
     Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the proposed transfer and a period of 15 days has elapsed 
     after the date such notice is received. Any such notice shall 
     include specification of the amount of the proposed transfer, 
     the account to which the transfer is to be made, and the 
     purpose of the transfer.
       (c) Transfer Authority Cumulative.--The transfer authority 
     provided by this subtitle is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Secretary of Defense 
     under this Act or any other Act.

            Subtitle B--Authorizations to Specified Accounts

     SEC. 111. ARMY PROCUREMENT.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2003 for procurement accounts of the Army in amounts as 
     follows:
       (1) For ammunition, $94,000,000.
       (2) For other procurement, $10,700,000.

     SEC. 112. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2003 for procurement accounts for the Navy in 
     amounts as follows:
       (1) For aircraft, $106,000,000.
       (2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes, 
     $633,000,000.
       (b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the procurement account 
     for the Marine Corps in the amount of $25,200,000.
       (c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the 
     procurement account

[[Page H5309]]

     for ammunition for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the 
     amount of $120,600,000.

     SEC. 113. AIR FORCE PROCUREMENT.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2003 for procurement accounts for the Air Force in 
     amounts as follows:
       (1) For aircraft, $214,550,000.
       (2) For ammunition, $157,900,000.
       (3) For other procurement, $10,800,000.

     SEC. 114. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES PROCUREMENT.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2003 for the procurement account for Defense-wide 
     procurement in the amount of $620,414,000.

     SEC. 115. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, 
                   DEFENSE-WIDE.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2003 for the research, development, test, and evaluation 
     account for Defense-wide activities in the amount of 
     $390,100,000.

     SEC. 116. CLASSIFIED ACTIVITIES.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2003 for unspecified 
     intelligence and classified activities in the amount of 
     $1,980,674,000, of which--
       (1) $1,618,874,000 is authorized to be appropriated to 
     procurement accounts;
       (2) $301,600,000 is authorized to be appropriated to 
     operation and maintenance accounts; and
       (3) $60,200,000 is authorized to be appropriated to 
     research, development, test, and evaluation accounts.

     SEC. 117. GLOBAL INFORMATION GRID SYSTEM.

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 
     for the Department of Defense system known as the Global 
     Information Grid may be obligated until the Secretary of 
     Defense submits to the Committees on Armed Services and the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives the Secretary's certification that the end-
     to-end system is secure and protected from unauthorized 
     access to the information transmitted through the system.

     SEC. 118. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

       Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     year 2003 for the use of the Armed Forces for expenses, not 
     otherwise provided for, for operation and maintenance, in 
     amounts as follows:
       (1) For the Army, $14,270,000.
       (2) For the Navy, $5,252,500.
       (3) For the Marine Corps, $11,396,000.
       (4) For the Air Force, $517,285,000.

     SEC. 119. MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Defense for military personnel accounts for 
     fiscal year 2003 a total of $503,100,000.

            Subtitle C--Military Construction Authorizations

     SEC. 131. AUTHORIZED MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND 
                   ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

       (a) Projects Authorized.--Using amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary of the military department concerned may 
     acquire real property and carry out military construction 
     projects for the installations and locations, and in the 
     amounts, set forth in the following table:

                           Projects Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Installation or
      Military Department                location             Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Army.........  Qatar..................      $8,600,000
Department of the Navy.........  Naval Station,               $4,280,000
                                  Guantanamo Bay, Cuba..
                                 Naval Station, Rota,        $18,700,000
                                  Spain.................
Department of the Air Force....  Bolling Air Force Base,      $3,500,000
                                  District of Columbia..
                                                         ---------------
                                   Total................     $35,080,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the 
     military construction projects authorized by subsection (a) 
     in the total amount of $35,080,000.

             TITLE II--WARTIME PAY AND ALLOWANCE INCREASES

     SEC. 201. INCREASE IN RATE FOR FAMILY SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.

       Section 427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$125''.

     SEC. 202. INCREASE IN RATES FOR VARIOUS HAZARDOUS DUTY 
                   INCENTIVE PAYS.

       (a) Flight Pay for Crew Members.--Subsection (b) of section 
     301 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the table and inserting the following new table:

``Pay grade:                                               Monthly Rate
  O-10............................................................$200 
  O-9.............................................................$200 
  O-8.............................................................$200 
  O-7.............................................................$200 
  O-6.............................................................$300 
  O-5.............................................................$300 
  O-4.............................................................$275 
  O-3.............................................................$225 
  O-2.............................................................$200 
  O-1.............................................................$200 
  W-5.............................................................$300 
  W-4.............................................................$300 
  W-3.............................................................$225 
  W-2.............................................................$200 
  W-1.............................................................$200 
  E-9.............................................................$290 
  E-8.............................................................$290 
  E-7.............................................................$290 
  E-6.............................................................$265 
  E-5.............................................................$240 
  E-4.............................................................$215 
  E-3.............................................................$200 
  E-2.............................................................$200 
  E-1...........................................................$200''.

       (b) Incentive Pay for Parachute Jumping Without Static 
     Line.--Subsection (c)(1) of such section is amended by 
     striking ``$225'' and inserting ``$275''.
       (c) Other Hazardous Duties.--Subsection (c)(1) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``$150'' and inserting 
     ``$200''.
       (d) Removal of Air Weapons Controller Crew Members From 
     List of Hazardous Duties.--Such section is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (12);
       (B) in paragraph (11), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period; and
       (C) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) in subsection (c), as amended by subsections (b) and 
     (c) of this section--
       (A) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 203. INCREASE IN RATE FOR DIVING DUTY SPECIAL PAY.

       Section 304(b) of title 37, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``$240'' and inserting ``$290''; and
       (2) by striking ``$340'' and inserting ``$390''.

     SEC. 204. INCREASE IN RATE FOR IMMINENT DANGER PAY.

       Section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$150'' and inserting ``$250''.

     SEC. 205. INCREASE IN RATE FOR CAREER ENLISTED FLYER 
                   INCENTIVE PAY.

       The table in section 320(d) of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Years of aviation service                                Monthly rate
  4 or less...................................................$200 ....

  Over 4......................................................$275 ....

  Over 8......................................................$400 ....

  Over 14..................................................$450.''.....

     SEC. 206. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF DEATH GRATUITY.

       Section 1478(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``$6,000'' and inserting ``$12,000''.

     SEC. 207. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendments made by this title shall take effect on the later 
     of the following:
       (1) The first day of the first month beginning on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) October 1, 2002.
       (b) Death Gratuity.--The amendment made by section 206 
     shall apply with respect to a person covered by section 1475 
     or 1476 of title 10, United States Code, whose date of death 
     occurs on or after the later of the following:
       (1) The date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) October 1, 2002.

                    TITLE III--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF AT LEAST ONE WEAPONS OF MASS 
                   DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT TEAM IN EACH STATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams are 
     strategic assets, stationed at the operational level, as an 
     immediate response capability to assist local responders in 
     the event of an emergency within the United States involving 
     use or potential use of weapons of mass destruction.
       (2) Since September 11 2001, Civil Support Teams have 
     responded to more than 200 requests for support from civil 
     authorities for actual or potential weapons of mass 
     destruction incidents and have supported various national 
     events, including the World Series, the Super Bowl, and the 
     2002 Winter Olympics.
       (3) To enhance homeland security as the Nation fights the 
     war against terrorism, each State and territory must have a 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team to respond to 
     potential weapons of mass destruction incidents.
       (4) In section 1026 of the Bob Stump National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 as passed the House of 
     Representatives on May 10, 2002 (H.R. 4546 of the 107th 
     Congress), the House of Representatives has already taken 
     action to that end by expressing the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense should establish 23 additional 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams in order to 
     provide at least one such team in each State and territory.
       (5) According to a September 2001 report of the Comptroller 
     General entitled ``Combating Terrorism'', the Department of 
     Defense plans that there eventually should be a Weapons of 
     Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams in each State, 
     territory, and the District of Columbia.
       (b) Requirement.--From funds authorized to be appropriated 
     in section 101, the Secretary of

[[Page H5310]]

     Defense shall ensure that there is established at least one 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team in each State.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
     Team'' means a team of members of the reserve components of 
     the armed forces that is established under section 12310(c) 
     of title 10, United States Code, in support of emergency 
     preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any 
     emergency involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
       (2) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
       (d) Deadline for Implementation.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall ensure that subsection (b) is fully implemented not 
     later than September 30, 2003.

     SEC. 302. AUTHORITY FOR JOINT TASK FORCES TO PROVIDE SUPPORT 
                   TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CONDUCTING COUNTER-
                   TERRORISM ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Authority.--A joint task force of the Department of 
     Defense that provides support to law enforcement agencies 
     conducting counter-drug activities may also provide, 
     consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, support 
     to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism 
     activities.
       (b) Conditions.--Any support provided under subsection (a) 
     may only be provided in the geographic area of responsibility 
     of the joint task force.
       (c) Funds.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated 
     for fiscal year 2003 in the amount of $5,000,000 to provide 
     support for counter-terrorism activities in accordance with 
     subsections (a) and (b).

     SEC. 303. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON ASSISTANCE TO FIRST 
                   RESPONDERS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should, to the extent the Secretary determines appropriate, 
     use funds provided in this Act to assist, train, and equip 
     local fire and police departments that would be a first 
     responder to a domestic terrorist incident that may come 
     about in connection with the continued fight to prosecute the 
     war on terrorism.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
opposed to the motion?
  Mr. SKELTON. No, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the clause 1(c) of rule XV, the Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to control the time 
in opposition to the motion. Each side will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill under consideration, H.R. 4547.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half the time 
in support of the bill, that is the time that I have of 20 minutes, 
that half of that be designated to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for purposes of control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 18, the House Committee on Armed Services 
reported out the bill presently before the House, H.R. 4547, on a near 
unanimous vote of 50 to 1. To understand what this bill does, allow me 
to first provide a bit of background.
  The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 contained an 
unprecedented request for the Congress to establish a $10 billion war 
contingency fund that would allow the Department of Defense maximum 
flexibility in expanding these funds to prosecute the war on terrorism. 
In response, the House adopted a budget resolution in March that set 
aside $10 billion of the defense budget in a special reserve fund for 
this purpose.
  The operative language of the budget resolution establishing the 
procedure by which the House would be able to consider authorizing or 
appropriating the $10 billion fund requires that only legislation that 
provides new budget authority for operations of the Department of 
Defense to prosecute the war on terrorism will qualify to use this 
fund.
  On July 3, the President submitted to Congress a request to amend his 
budget to provide a bit more detail on how DOD proposes to expend these 
funds but would still essentially remain one large $10 billion 
contingency fund. When the committee and the House acted on the defense 
authorization bill earlier this year, we recognized that this approach 
would require that we split the defense authorization bill into two 
pieces. One would involve the requested defense program minus the $10 
billion, and the other would be the $10 billion which would follow at 
some later point.
  In passing the base defense bill, we also took preliminary action on 
the $10 billion bill by authorizing about $3.5 billion worth of 
programs that we judged to be more appropriately considered as part of 
the so-called ``cost of war'' fund. Since then, the Senate has passed 
its version of the defense authorization bill and chose to include the 
$10 billion, unlike the House. So at this point, we are disconnected 
with the Senate over the $10 billion as we prepare to go to conference.
  All this background brings us to today. The objectives of this bill 
are twofold: First, to preserve the prerogative of the Congress and the 
authorizing process by considering and issuing our recommendation on 
this remaining piece of the defense budget; and, second, to move this 
bill through the process so that we can go to conference with the 
Senate with both sides having acted on the totality of the defense 
budget for fiscal year 2003.
  H.R. 4547, as amended by the Committee on Armed Services, represents 
a compromise of sorts. It authorizes specific activities where we have 
received specific detail on how the Pentagon intends to execute war-
related activities and it grants the administration flexibility for 
these accounts that traditionally are nearly impossible to define in 
such a situation.
  This bill accomplishes a number of objectives: First, it preserves 
the action already taken by the committee by fulfilling our commitment 
to authorize the $3.5 billion worth of war-related items we deferred 
earlier in May. Second, it would keep intact all major elements of the 
budget request and authorize those amounts for which the administration 
has identified a specific purpose. Third, it provides the Department of 
Defense significant flexibility by creating two transfer accounts that 
the Secretary can use to move money around and to meet the needs of the 
war as they emerge.

                              {time}  2330

  Finally, it fully and specifically complies with the terms of the 
budget resolution by ensuring that all activities funded by this bill 
are directly for the prosecution of the war on terrorism. I would 
repeat that to my colleagues, that all the dollars that are expended in 
this bill must be compliant with the resolution that this House passed 
on September 14, 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, we are moving this bill through the House tonight on an 
expedited schedule for a good reason. The President has asked the 
Congress to send him first those bills that he needs to ensure that we 
continue to prevail in our war against terrorism.
  The House has done everything possible to comply with this important 
request, and tonight's expedited consideration of this war funding bill 
is a continuation of this commitment to properly support our men and 
women who are on the front lines of this challenge.
  In closing, I thank committee members on both sides of the aisle who 
worked so cooperatively to move this process forward with the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill was developed on a bipartisan basis with the 
mutual objective of striking a balance between congressional 
prerogatives and the need to provide the department with some 
flexibility in financing this unprecedented global war on terrorism. 
The bill represents a very reasonable approach that accomplishes all 
these goals. I urge Members to give it their very strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Synder).

[[Page H5311]]

  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I am a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and the committee considered this bill last 
week and I voted for it coming out of committee, but this is a very, 
very poor process.
  Members got the Blackberry a week or two after September 11, and we 
get notice when bills are going to be considered. I believe it was 8:47 
this evening I got a message that said that we were going to finish 
with the Cuban amendments on Treasury-Postal appropriations and go 
home.
  At 9:12 another message comes over it and says through this expedited 
process, we are going to consider a $10 billion bill, and we are going 
to give 20 minutes on each side. The Chamber is empty. Do not kid 
anyone, Members are not sitting in their offices watching the debate 
tonight. This is a time of war, a time when our country expects us to 
be paying attention to these kinds of bills, and we are not expediting 
the process, we are expediting the denial of democracy.
  I wanted to do an amendment on this bill. This process means there 
are no amendments. I had help with my amendment by the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), a well-respected Republican subcommittee 
chairman, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of 
the Committee on International Relations, were joining me on an 
amendment that we were going to go to the Committee on Rules to try to 
put on this bill.
  This process denies the right of any Member to bring an amendment on 
a $10 billion bill. I think it is a very, very poor way to do a process 
at any time, particularly at 11:30 at night when Members have gone 
home.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered this evening will complete the 
House's consideration of the second piece of fiscal year 2003 National 
Defense Authorization Act. The bill passed the Committee on Armed 
Services with broad bipartisan support. Passing this bill will allow 
the House to quickly proceed to conference with the Senate on both 
pieces of the authorization bill, thereby providing our men and women 
in uniform with all the tools they need to fight the global war and to 
protect the American people.
  The bill as passed by the Committee on Armed Services reflects a 
balanced approach to authorizing the $10 billion war reserve fund 
requested by the administration. The amendment carries forward the 
specific authorizations made by the committee when it first considered 
the bill earlier this year. It includes the wartime pay and allowances 
increases from that earlier consideration, and includes two new, 
operationally oriented transfer funds that should enable the Department 
of Defense to meet operational expenses associated with prosecuting the 
war against terrorism.
  Although the committee's approach may not provide the Department of 
Defense with complete discretion and use of the $10 billion, I believe 
it provides sufficient flexibility for the department.
  I also want to indicate my support for the premise of this bill that 
the funds we authorize today are tied to the resolution passed by 
Congress on September 14, 2001, that authorizes the use of force 
against those who attacked our great Nation on September 11. The effort 
here today is to provide the administration funding for activities that 
are directly related to prosecuting the war against terrorism.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so do I understand that this in no way 
authorizes the expenditure of monies for any attack on the nation of 
Iraq?
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, by its verbiage, this is limited to the 
resolution that passed Congress on September 14, 2001.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Which is a very narrow resolution tying it to the events 
of September 11?
  Mr. SKELTON. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, the funds authorized and the increases to 
pay and allowances included in this bill are critical to the Department 
of Defense's ability to continue to fight the war.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate both the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), for bringing this legislation before us. I 
rise in support of the legislation. I particularly appreciate the 
language that the committee has included in section 2 pertaining to the 
scope of the authorization in the bill. Section 2 states that the $10 
billion authorized in this legislation ``are authorized for the conduct 
of operations in continuation of the war on terrorism in accordance 
with the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 
USC 1541 note) and, to the extent appropriations are made pursuant to 
such authorizations, shall only be expended in a manner consistent with 
the purposes in section 2(a) thereof.''
  Section 2(a) of the Use of Force resolution authorizes the President 
``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, 
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, 
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future 
acts of international terrorism against the United States by such 
nations, organizations or persons.''
  Therefore, it is clear that the committee intends that funds 
authorized in this bill are only to be used for military operations 
against entities responsible for the September 11 attacks, or entities 
that harbor those responsible.
  Likewise, I believe funds in this bill cannot be used to expand the 
war on terrorism to other nations absent clear and compelling evidence 
that a nation was responsible for the September 11 attacks or is 
actively and willingly harboring those responsible unless subsequently 
authorized for such a purpose by Congress.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2340

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the 
committee for focusing in on that point because certainly it was not 
the intent of that committee to have that used for anything other than 
what is in the resolution of September 14 which, Mr. Speaker, I voted 
for.
  I want to say that while I know that is the intention of the 
committee, I would be very concerned about people in the administration 
who may interpret it to say, as it reads, that the President is 
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those 
nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, 
committed or aided the terrorist attacks.
  It is no secret when we look at the events of the last few weeks, we 
see headlines such as:
  ``Bush to Formalize a Defense Policy of Hitting First,'' New York 
Times, June 17.
  ``U.S. Plans Massive Invasion of Iraq,'' UPI, July 10.
  ``U.S. Capable of Quick Iraq Strike,'' Associated Press, July 10.
  ``We could have a situation where on Monday it first looks like there 
will be a war, on Friday troops are in Kuwait, and by the next Thursday 
they are in Baghdad.'' John Pike, Defense Analyst. Associated Press, 
July 10.
  ``U.S. Says Iraq Would Target Troops,'' Associated Press, July 13.
  ``According to officials who spoke to UPI, three dates are being 
discussed as possible times to launch the attack. The first would be 
before the November elections.'' UPI, July 10.
  ``U.S. Worries Iraq's Chemical and Biological Weapons Would Target 
Invading American Troops, Israel.'' Associated Press, July 13.
  One of the things that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is notwithstanding 
the assumption which the honorable gentlemen have here about how this 
money is going to be spent, I have here the House markup with the 
actual breakdown of the amount of moneys that are going to be used per 
category

[[Page H5312]]

in the cost of the war. I think it is more than interesting that we see 
for a war supposedly in Afghanistan an amount of almost a half a 
billion dollars is going to be used for chemical and biological 
defense. An amount of nearly $600 million would be used for conversion 
of Tomahawk missiles. An amount of $3.5 billion would be used for an 
operations fund. An amount of over a half a billion dollars would be 
used for combat air patrols. I think that is interesting because when 
you take that in the context of a New York Times report of a 
preliminary Pentagon planning document in an article written by Eric 
Schmitt, it suggests, according to the Times, that the military brass 
is considering a large scale air and ground assault involving as many 
as 250,000 American troops. Indeed, that has been the reportage that we 
have seen. This report goes on to say in an editorial that such a 
Pentagon plan for an invasion of Iraq would be backed by hundreds of 
warplanes. It goes on to say that Saddam Hussein may not be as easily 
deterred from using his hidden stocks of anthrax, botulinum, toxin and 
VX nerve gas.
  So when you put this document together with the report of the 
preliminary Pentagon planning document, I think this is one of those 
cases where one plus one equals an invasion of Iraq, notwithstanding 
the September 14 language or the fine work of our committee. I want to 
express that as a concern because there is some symmetry here on the 
issue of congressional oversight. Members of our Committee on Armed 
Forces fought very hard to assure there would be congressional 
oversight. Yet we have a fund of about $10 billion which is largely 
going to be beyond congressional control. The administration has 
repeatedly been trying to escape congressional oversight. That, Mr. 
Speaker, has really been the tenor of the debate we have had over the 
homeland security bill itself. I spent 15 hours in our government 
oversight committee. Much of the discussion had to do with the 
authority of Congress to have oversight over budgetary items and to 
have oversight over other areas which involve Congress' constitutional 
responsibility.
  I rise here because when I look at this report that is from the 
Congressional Research Service, we see an increase from the original 
May 1 markup to the July 18 markup of almost a total of $6 billion. I 
think that the facts that we are here late at night, it is a quarter to 
midnight, and most Members of Congress are on their way home or are 
already asleep, we really need to have the kind of full-fledged debate 
about this, because when you see the administration moving in a 
direction towards war with Iraq and certainly not being able to finance 
that war unless they brought a resolution specifically to do that 
before this Congress, the fact that this amount of money is available 
ought to be of concern to all Members of Congress, because 
notwithstanding the fine work of our committee, we have had people 
connected to the administration as well as our own Members of Congress 
state openly that this resolution of September 14 already gives the 
President the authority he needs to do what he may want to do and has 
said he wants to do in Iraq. I know what the bill says and I 
congratulate our fine members for doing that work, its due diligence, 
but I feel that this is an appropriate time to kind of stop the music 
and focus on this, because all around this country, people are 
expecting this Congress to step up to its responsibilities under 
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution with respect to Congress' war-
making authority. I voted for the resolution on September 14. But it 
was my intention in voting for that to see a focused response and now 
we hear our good chairman and ranking member speak in terms of a global 
war against terrorism but yet on one hand if it is a global war against 
terrorism, then it would appear that the administration would then be 
authorized to go beyond Afghanistan. Yet if it is only Afghanistan, 
then we ought to be very certain in our interpretation that that is 
exactly what it is going to be. But as I stand here at a quarter to 12 
on this evening, I can say that based on information that we have had 
from the New York Times and information that we have from our breakdown 
from the Congressional Research Service, I have real concern that the 
administration could take this money and will take this money and use 
it to prosecute a war against Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me reiterate, according to the language of this bill, that it is 
limited to the verbiage attached to the September 14 resolution. Let me 
also add it is my considered opinion, Mr. Speaker, that should there be 
contemplated action against the country of Iraq by the United States of 
America that this Congress has the duty to pass upon such authorization 
as we have done so in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, in part because I 
believe it strikes a proper balance between the flexibility needed in 
the executive branch and the due prerogatives of those of us in the 
Congress on this very important issue of the future prosecution of the 
war against terrorism.
  This bill leaves intact the law that exists as of today with respect 
to the future prosecution of the global war against terrorism. That law 
contemplates three circumstances. The first would be an emergency 
urgent circumstance where the President, consistent with his 
constitutional authority, could act to defend the country. This bill in 
no way limits, nor should it limit, that prerogative.
  The second circumstance that the present law contemplates is a 
circumstance where there is clear and compelling evidence of a 
connection between any other state or organization and the events of 
September 11 in fostering, harboring, planning, aiding and abetting the 
actions of September 11. Under those circumstances, under the law, the 
President is already authorized to take steps to defend the country and 
this bill leaves that intact.
  The third circumstance contemplated by the law would be a 
circumstance that is not emergency, where there is not a demonstration 
of a clear and compelling link between the actions of another state and 
the activities of September 11, and it is contemplated that under those 
circumstances the President, consistent with the Constitution, would be 
required to come to the House and to the Senate and seek authority to 
further prosecute activities in defense of the country.

                              {time}  2350

  That is the law, and that is the balance that is struck, and this 
bill leaves that balance intact. For that and for many other reasons, I 
would urge both Republican and Democratic Members to vote in favor of 
this very necessary funding to continue to prosecute our very 
successful efforts in this field.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we approach the midnight hour here in 
Washington, in our Nation's Capital. This bill was first noticed for 
consideration by the House less than 3 hours ago. One hour ago copies 
of the bill were not available for Members to review, and, in the time 
since then, there are fewer Members present here tonight than there are 
members of the National Security Committee.
  Any bill that authorizes the expenditure of $10 billion of taxpayer 
money for any purpose, no matter how worthy or important to the Nation, 
deserves better consideration than this. It is outrageous to be taking 
up such a matter under these conditions.
  Seldom has a day in recent weeks gone by without some administration 
official or commentator suggesting that the salvation for our Nation's 
security lies in expanding use of nuclear weapons, or that our Nation 
should alter its traditions by launching a surprise attack, or just a 
simple but dangerous cry, ``on to Baghdad.''
  Each of these alternatives would do more to undermine the security of 
American families than to assure that security. We need a full and 
complete debate about such a major change in

[[Page H5313]]

our national defense policy. No administration official has been able 
to connect a regime in Iraq, that all of us despise, to the terrorism 
of September 11. If they could, they surely would have done so by now.
  I am pleased that no one here tonight speaking in support of this 
bill claims that this bill is anything more than what I would term an 
attempt to put some limits, however modest they may be, on what 
otherwise would have been a $10 billion slush fund that the 
administration requested. If the administration wishes to make the case 
that it should invade Iraq, or any other country, for that matter, not 
connected to the events directly of September 11, it needs to come to 
this Congress and come to this country and make its case, not at 
midnight, but in the full light of day.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was on the floor to pay 
tribute to a fallen hero in our community, Judge Carl Walker, but I 
realize that the time will not allow us to do that tribute this 
evening.
  I want to acknowledge the concern that I have, but expressing as well 
the support I have for the ranking member's explanation about the 
limitation on this allocation. I think it would be important to 
enunciate the fears of the American people and the responsibility of 
the United States Congress as relates to the oversight over the 
determination of a country going to war.
  I would hope as this legislation moves through the House that we make 
it very clear that there can be no precipitous attack on Iraq without 
the oversight, the Constitutional oversight, of the United States 
Congress.
  There are three branches of government, the executive, the Congress 
and as well the judiciary. A venture or advance, if you will, into 
Iraq, without any participation by this Congress I believe would be an 
illegal act and would cause devastation in our relations with our 
allies around the world.
  This is not the direction to take, and I would hope this funding does 
not point us in that direction.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California and thank the 
gentleman from Ohio for their thoughtful presentation this evening. I 
think this is a very important bill that we should pass. It received 
very thorough discussion in the Committee on Armed Services and passed 
by a nearly unanimous vote out of that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let us suppose for a moment that these funds that were 
we are appropriating tonight are only for Afghanistan, that the half a 
billion dollars listed in this report for combat air patrols would in 
fact be used in Afghanistan.
  I would like to call to the attention of this House recent news 
accounts that indicate that hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians 
of Afghanistan have been killed accidentally in bombings by U.S. 
warplanes. I say that in an appeal to the administration to stop the 
bombing, because we have no quarrel with the Afghan people. The Taliban 
are overthrown, al Qaeda has fled, bin Laden has vanished, and yet, 
with this document, we see that the bombs will continue to drop 
indiscriminately.
  Is there any American who has not been shaken at the mere thought of 
the horrors of U.S. warplanes bombing a wedding celebration in the 
village of Bal Khel killing dozens of innocent civilians? Whatever 
moral authority our Nation had at the beginning of the conflict is 
being lost in such bombings.
  These types of acts do not represent America. Democracy does not wed 
terror. These acts must not be cloaked in the irresponsible and inhuman 
euphemism of collateral damage.
  I appeal to the administration to stop the bombing, let an 
international police force continue in Afghanistan, and let the humble 
people of Afghanistan be spared the friendly fire from the skies. 
Enough of bombing the villages to save the villages. Stop the bombing, 
I appeal to the administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I took this floor this evening so that questions which 
need to be asked in this House are in fact asked at a time when an 
administration is widely publicized to be preparing for a preemptive 
strike in Iraq. The administration sought and received an amount of 
money that is a virtual blank check to spend $10 billion any way they 
see fit.

                              {time}  2400

  Now, this idea, of course, has met resistance from members of the 
committee, and I will acknowledge that, ever since it was proposed. 
Legislators have said that they did not want to give the administration 
a blank check. But everyone who has looked at this knows that the 
administration request has been vague and, yet, with the breakdown that 
we have here, money for combat air patrols, money for chemical and 
biological defense, money for the conversion of Tomahawk missiles, in 
truth, this does not sound much like Afghanistan; it begins to sound 
like Iraq.
  When we take that in the context of the New York Times' discovery of 
the Pentagon preliminary planning document which talks about a large-
scale invasion, my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that notwithstanding the 
fine work of the men and women of our committee, that it is quite 
possible this administration will go in that direction. Indeed, the 
gentleman from New Jersey identified three specific areas where a 
President could proceed, and his comments were, frankly, quite in line 
with the assessments of other Members of Congress, not precluding the 
possibility of the use of these funds for something other than 
Afghanistan, notwithstanding the fine work of our committee.
  I think it is noteworthy, at a time when an administration is 
essentially abandoning multilateralists and articulating a first-strike 
approach in Afghanistan, I think it is noteworthy that this Congress 
has yet to have the kind of full debate that Members of both Houses of 
Congress are beginning to call for. I think it is important that when 
we see this cavalcade of headlines talking about massive invasions, a 
quarter of a million troops, policies of hitting first, anticipating 
that Iraq would target our troops; well, if there is an anticipation of 
that, then we are talking about an invasion and, above all that, doing 
this before the November elections.
  In previous legislation tonight, this House took action on a 
conference report on Defense and Homeland Security Supplemental 
Appropriations in providing an additional $14.5 billion in funding 
related to the U.S. military. Now, I think that the people of this 
country have a right to know if the administration is, in fact, 
planning to go into Iraq, and this Congress has a right to know and a 
right to participate fully in a full-fledged debate. As a matter of 
fact, even though myself and our esteemed ranking member may have a 
difference of opinion on that, whether or not we should do it, I think 
we agree that certainly Congress has a role.
  Essentially, I would say to the chairman that is what I am here to 
affirm, that Congress does have a role to play. Of course, I am opposed 
to any such invasion for reasons I do not need to get into right now. 
But even more important is that this Congress affirms its position with 
respect to its power to send men and women from our country into combat 
against Iraq or any other country.
  So I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for 
their diligence on this bill, but I also want to express my 
reservations, serious reservations about the symmetry between the 
contents of this bill and the planning document which The New York 
Times covered in full detail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to address just one point from my friend from Ohio, and that 
is that the combat air patrols that are listed in the bill and in the 
report are listed as Operation Noble Eagle, which is combat air patrols 
over the United States, over American cities, which have been ongoing, 
and I believe there are some $500-plus-million in the bill for that.

[[Page H5314]]

  I would further say that this bill came up in two pieces, which is 
extremely unusual for our system. One reason it came up in two pieces 
was because we were undertaking continuing military operations and, 
because of that, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), at whose direction I am acting today, worked with 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and we put together a 
bipartisan bill that did give some direction to where some of this 
money went.
  Let me just describe for the Members where some of the money went. 
Some of it went to what is known as combat pay enhancements. That 
includes increasing family separation allowance, increasing flight pay 
for crew members, increasing the death gratuity given to survivors, 
increasing career enlistment flying incentive, increasing diving pay, 
increasing hazardous duty pay.
  We also put in a number of required items that, in fact, the 
administration had requested that had been early on in the base bill. 
They include the chemical and biological antiterrorism program for 
homeland defense, $480 million; command and control, computers and 
intelligence, KC-135 tanker aircraft, linguists, military construction, 
war pay, and the list goes on.
  So we did leave some flexibility with the administration and we did 
give some direction. I would simply say that it was because of the hard 
work of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the hard work of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all of the members on our 
committee, and I think we have heard from several of our very 
thoughtful Members today on the Democrat side who participated very 
fully, such as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), I think, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) gave a very full evaluation of 
what this did.
  Once again, the key point that they reiterated was that this money 
can only go to the military programs that are allowed under the 
September 14 resolution, and, once again, I want to read that 
resolution, because this is a base resolution that these dollars are 
expended under.

       The President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or 
     aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to 
     prevent any future acts of international terrorism against 
     the United States by such nations or organizations or 
     persons.

  So this money is expended only in a manner, and can be expended only 
in a manner, consistent with that resolution of September 14. I might 
add, it is simply the last piece of the President's defense budget.
  Now, on the other side, the Senate passed the full $393 billion 
authorized or requested by the President. So they go to conference with 
a full budget, so to speak, and until tonight, we only go to conference 
with 383; that is, the budget less the $10 billion piece.
  So it was important for us to act quickly. We just got the details on 
this plan several weeks ago, we marked it up in the Committee on Armed 
Services in a bipartisan way, and it was important to get this second 
piece in place to be able to go to conference and do an effective job.
  So I want to thank all of the Members that participated in the 
debate.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4547, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________