[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 145 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H8535-H8541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4546, BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
conference report on the bill (H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations 
for fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill:
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  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.
  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 H.R. 4546, the bill under consideration.
  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, I hope that we are at the end of a long and difficult 
struggle that has been engaged in by Democrats and Republicans on this 
most bipartisan of measures, which is the defense bill passed by the 
House and now by the Senate and worked in conference over the last many 
weeks.

                              {time}  1830

  This is a $393 billion bill. We have had a very thorough discussion 
and debate as the House package was moving, as the other body did 
moving their package. We all understand the urgency. We know that we 
have large increases in very important elements with respect to the war 
against terrorism, and in particular, we have included increases of 
$1.7 billion for aircraft operations and flying hours, $1.7 billion for 
facility maintenance and base support, $586 million for ground force 
operations, $562 million for training accounts, and $10 billion for 
ongoing costs of conducting the war against terrorism.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, we have a 4.1 percent military pay raise in this 
bill, with targeted increases up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade and 
senior noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers.
  We also extend critical recruiting and retention bonuses through 
December of 2003. We also reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for 
military personnel by increasing housing allowances to cover 92.5 
percent of housing costs, and we also provide some $10.4 billion for 
military construction and family housing.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for his great work to move this bill, which is 
named after our chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and 
which really manifests a lot of his values with respect to rebuilding 
national defense.
  This has been a very difficult conference. Let me address the issue 
that has been a tough issue. It has been a tough issue out in the 
countryside, and has been a tough issue in Congress, and the issue that 
has held up the conference, one of the issues that has held up the 
conference for a period of time.
  We have the so-called ``concurrent receipt'' issue. That is a 
question of whether disabled veterans who are also military retirees 
can receive their military retirement check, and also receive at the 
same time a disability check.
  That issue was voted on in the House, and we voted up a package that 
said that retirees that were severely disabled, that is, 65 percent and 
greater disabled, would, in fact, receive both checks at the same time. 
The other body had a more generous package. We went into conference and 
we had a lot of arm-wrestling over how we were going to get this thing 
passed.
  Let me tell the Members what we have done in this very important 
area. We decided that the people, in this time of limited funds, the 
first people, the people who should be given priority, were the people 
who have gone out in combat and put their lives on the line and 
actually been hit by enemy gunfire. That is the definition of a Purple 
Heart, when you are injured by enemy fire in combat. That is the only 
way one can receive a Purple Heart.
  For the people who receive Purple Hearts, for those injured in 
combat, they are going to receive fully both their retirement check and 
whatever disability they are entitled to as a result of the wounds that 
they received in the field of combat. That means if it is a 10 percent 
disability, if it is a 20 percent, if it is a 30 percent, if it is a 40 
percent, all the way up to 100 percent, Mr. Speaker, those people who 
went out and received enemy gunfire and got a disability as a result of 
that are going to receive both checks.
  I think every American veteran would have it that way, that the first 
people who should receive both disability and a retirement check are 
the people who put their lives on the line and received wounds at the 
hands of the enemy.
  Now, we have a second category. That second category is what we call 
combat-related. That means they may be in a combat zone undertaking 
military operations and may be injured. As they are moving logistics, 
they may have a truck roll over and disable them. They may have 
something else happen to them that does not amount to enemy fire and 
something that would justify a Purple Heart, but nonetheless, they are 
injured in some type of a role that relates to combat. If that injury 
is 60 percent or greater, which is the standard that the House had in 
its concurrent receipt bill, they are going to receive both their 
disability and their retirement.
  Now, we also said, okay, if one is undertaking a hazardous operation, 
for example, if they are in a submarine or a swift boat or some other 
activity that is military-related, combat-related, and is a hazardous 
operation, even though they may not be exchanging gunfire with the 
enemy in that particular area of operations, and if they have a 60 
percent or greater disability they also will receive both checks.
  We also said if one is training for combat. That means if one is a 
paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, or they are with the 82nd Airborne 
at Fort Bragg and they have a jump operation and the parachute 
malfunctions and they injure their pelvis in that jump, because they 
are training for combat, if they have a 60 percent or greater 
disability, they also are going to receive both checks, Mr. Speaker.
  So in this time of limited funds, we have tried to do what we think 
is the right thing; that is, to go first to our people who have been in 
combat, and then to people who have been in combat-related activities 
and also people who have been training for combat and give them both 
checks, both their disability check and their retirement check.

[[Page H8536]]

  So, Mr. Speaker, we have worked this out. We think this is a great 
package. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who 
carries on the long tradition, as we do on both sides of the aisle, of 
trying to put together what I think is the most bipartisan bill that 
this House produces, which is the defense bill. I want to thank him for 
everything that he has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4546, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. I will go into the reasons 
momentarily, but first let me compliment my friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), as well as the committee chairman, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for the work they did in shaping 
this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this was the farewell voyage as our chairman for the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). The seas were far from smooth in 
this legislation and the issues were particularly difficult, so I 
applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the 
leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Duncan) in recognizing 
the totality of this legislation.
  I do want to raise a note of caution, however. Mr. Speaker, it is 
unusual to consider a conference report on a defense bill under 
suspension of the rules. I am not totally comfortable with that 
process. All other things being equal, it would be preferable to 
consider the bill in a more deliberative fashion.
  I also recognize that there is little time remaining in this session. 
Passage of this bill is vitally important. The fact that we are 
considering this bill today reflects the commitment of the members of 
the Committee on Armed Services, who must provide for the men and women 
of our country when they are sacrificing in so many ways to defend our 
country.
  I am not delighted with the outcome of every issue, either, far from 
it, but I might point out that our troops need the authorization for 
the 4.1 percent pay raise. They need authorization for special pay to 
compensate and help retain those who have special skills. Our bases 
need military construction and family housing authorization, for those 
projects are critical to maintaining both adequate infrastructures and 
quality of life for our servicemen and women. They can now move forward 
with that authorization.
  We need to authorize the money for military operations, flying hours, 
steaming days, and tank miles, and allow our troops to be the best-
trained and the best-prepared in the world.
  I would also mention the concurrent receipt. The gentleman from 
California fully spelled out the end result of the very difficult 
negotiations that occurred, hard-fought issues, and a very, very 
important issue to so many of those military retirees who have done so 
much for our country.
  Nevertheless, the conference agreement is a significant step in the 
right direction, and by providing concurrent receipt to Purple Heart 
recipients and to other retirees with high-percentage combat-related 
disabilities, we provide a basis for further consideration of this 
issue in the years ahead.
  I am pleased that we were able to reach satisfactory agreements on 
the other difficult issues relating to end strength, environmental 
provisions, missile defense, abortion, and various foreign policy 
questions. This bill moves the military substantially forward toward 
new ways of fighting. It helps the Army and Marine Corps move faster 
and increases the Air Force's qualitative edge.
  Perhaps more than at any other time in the last decade it is 
essential that this House take action to provide for our military men 
and women and the programs and activities of the Department of Defense. 
This vote will be seen not only in Kabul and Baghdad, but Diego Garcia, 
Fort Irwin and Norfolk. We need to send a message to the American 
public and to our adversaries and allies that we in Congress are 
prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support and 
protection they deserve.
  I want to commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), 
and our friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), for whom this 
bill is named, for a job well done and the cooperation they have given.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is essential that the Record accurately 
reflect the intent of the House managers regarding section 315 of this 
conference report relating to the incidental takings of migratory birds 
during military readiness activities.
  Subsection (b) of this provision requires the Secretary of Defense, 
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to ``identify 
measures'' to minimize, mitigate, and monitor impacts of military 
readiness activities on migratory birds.
  I note that the provision does not state ``identify and implement.'' 
Am I correct in assuming that this choice of words indicates the 
conference committee's clear intent that the Department of Defense 
shall not be required directly, or indirectly through the regulations 
promulgated by the Department of the Interior under subsection (d), to 
implement the measures identified pursuant to subsection (b)?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is 
correct. The language means precisely what it says: The Department of 
Defense is not required to implement the measures it identifies in 
subsection (b), nor is the Department of the Interior required or 
expected to include any of the identified measures in the regulations 
issued under subsection (d).
  To the contrary, subsection (b) merely requires the Department of 
Defense to inventory measures that it might voluntarily choose to adopt 
to protect migratory birds during both the interim statutory exemption 
period created in the legislation and the ultimate regulatory exemption 
period. It would completely undermine the specific intent of section 
315 to read subsection (b) as imposing a new duty to implement the 
identified measures on the Department of Defense, or to impose on the 
Department of the Interior a duty to incorporate some or all of the 
identified measures into the exemptive regulation issued under 
subsection (d).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that.
  I would like to further clarify another question related to section 
315. Subsection (d)(1) imposes an obligation on the Secretary of the 
Interior to exercise her authority under section 3(a) of the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act not later than 1 year after section 315 is enacted to 
prescribe regulations to exempt the Armed Forces for incidental takings 
of migratory birds during authorized military readiness activities.
  Subsection (d)2 further specifies that the Secretary of the Interior 
must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense in exercising 
this authority. Since the Secretary of the Interior must obtain the 
concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior 
may find it challenging to complete agency rule-making within 1 year.
  Is the Secretary of the Interior required to issue the regulation 
within 1 year?
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, this is 
not the meaning of the plain language of the provision. It does not 
state that the Secretary of the Interior shall issue regulations under 
subsection (3)(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to exempt the Armed 
Forces. Instead, the Secretary of the Interior is required within the 
1-year period to begin the process of exempting the Armed Forces' 
military readiness activities from the incidental taking prohibition of 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Secretary of the Interior is not 
required to complete the process within 1 year.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. That is my 
understanding of the intent of the conferees, as well.
  I take it, therefore, that if the process is not completed within 1 
year, the interim statutory exemption conferred by section (c) would 
continue to run

[[Page H8537]]

beyond the 1-year period identified in section (d)(1), plus the 120-day 
period for seeking judicial review identified in section (e)?
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is correct. The language of the provision 
is absolutely clear on that point. In subsection (c), it is expressly 
stated that the interim period of legislative exemption ends ``on the 
date on which the Secretary of the Interior publishes in the Federal 
Register a notice that'', among other things, ``all legal challenges to 
the regulations and to the manner of their promulgation (if any) have 
been exhausted . . . and the regulations have taken effect.''
  Any number of circumstances could delay that effective date. As I 
discussed earlier, subsection (d) does not require the Secretary of the 
Interior to conclude the rulemaking within 1 year, only to commence it.
  Securing the concurrence of the Department of Defense as required by 
subsection (d)(2) could also be time-consuming. Subsection (e) does not 
require that judicial review be concluded within 120 days, only that it 
commence.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is aware, such litigation can be quite 
protracted. If the litigation resulted in the invalidation of the rule, 
then the rulemaking, concurrence, and judicial review process would 
commence once again, further extending the interim period of statutory 
exemption, because that period ends only upon the determination of the 
Secretary of the Interior upon subsection (c)(2) and (3) and ``all 
legal challenges have been exhausted and the regulations have taken 
effect.''
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for these important 
clarifications. I think it is important that we are clear on what the 
conference committee meant when we enacted it in this form.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  (Mr. LARSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
the legislation and with the opportunity to engage the chairman in a 
colloquy if the gentleman would see fit. I want to associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and 
especially the outstanding work that was done by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), whom this great piece of legislation is named 
after, and at this point I would like to enter into a colloquy as it 
relates to concurrent receipt and concerns I have with the language 
that are outlined in the bill.
  With respect to the bill, my specific questions deal with sections 
that talk about what will happen to any retiree who has at least a 60 
percent disability rating or more for combat-related disability and the 
various categories that it breaks that down into. Under those specific 
categories are: A, if the disabling condition was incurred as a result 
of armed conflict; B, while engaged in hazardous service; C, under 
conditions simulating war; and D, caused by an instrumentality of war, 
examples of which include a person steps on a mine, accidents involving 
military combat, sicknesses or caused by fumes or gas or military 
ordnance. And I want to know if that applies specifically to Agent 
Orange and Gulf Syndrome?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising this 
issue, and I can assure him the conference agreement does nothing to 
preclude DOD's consideration of disabilities related to Agent Orange or 
other disabling circumstances for which the VA has a presumption of 
causality.
  The agreement does require the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
process and criteria for evaluating whether a disability is combat 
related. We know that DOD already has some criteria in place to 
evaluate combat disabilities. If the Secretary of Defense builds on 
these criteria to implement this conference agreement, they would 
appear to be broad enough.
  For example, in looking over the items the gentleman has listed, they 
are the criteria as he stated, a direct result of armed conflict while 
engaged in hazardous service or in the performance of duty under 
conditions simulating war or through an instrumentality of war.
  Certainly Agent Orange, which I saw in Vietnam, was intended to 
defoliate areas of forest that were close to American base camps and 
areas of operation to keep the enemy from being able to close around 
you undiscovered. That would be considered to be an instrumentality of 
war and therefore would be covered as an agent that would be covered 
under this particular provision.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
comments, and I assume that would apply to Gulf Syndrome as well.
  I know in Connecticut, having constituents that have been afflicted, 
I believe under the new language that this would be applicable; but 
inasmuch as it is not specifically outlined here, the gentleman's 
comments are most appreciated.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would say in doing some research into the 
Gulf War Syndrome and the potential of what I consider to be the actual 
blow back of agents that went over American troops, that the release of 
those agents would certainly be considered to be an instrumentality of 
war, and I think the legislation intends that that is the case.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take a minute at the outset to talk a 
little bit about the individual after whom this bill is named. The 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) comes from Arizona. After the 
announcement of the gentleman's retirement, this bill was named the Bob 
Stump Military Authorization Bill of 2003.
  Let me discuss the lifetime service of the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Stump) that many Members may not know about because it is quite 
remarkable. At the age of 16 in 1943, during of course World War II, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) joined the Navy and for the rest 
of the war he played a very active role taking part in the invasion of 
Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and of course those were very dangerous places to 
be in those days. But having known the gentleman from Arizona for the 
last 18 years, dangerous places have never fazed him. He certainly is 
not a bashful guy with respect to those types of things.
  In 1959, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) ran for the first 
time for the Arizona State legislature and worked his way through the 
State legislature until he became, in the early 1970s, the President of 
the State Senate. In 1977, he came here to Congress and became a member 
of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Armed 
Services, and again worked his way to the chairmanship of the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs and then on the Committee on Armed Services. 
Announcing his retirement made us sad, but this bill, the Bob Stump 
Defense Authorization Bill of 2003, is a tribute to a gentleman with a 
great lifetime of service to this country and we all thank him for it 
and want him to know we will miss him.
  One other thing about this bill which I think is extremely important, 
working through this bill with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter) and with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), this bill 
worked through an open process with a whole series of compromises, 
compromises that perhaps did not leave anybody on either side terribly 
happy, but it was the best we could do with the amount of money that we 
had at our disposal.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I worked 
with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Synder) and others to craft the 
legislation in a way that we could do the best with the dollars that we 
had available to us, and I think we have done that.
  Other compromises involved operational kinds of things. For example, 
this bill includes funding for 13 additional C-17s in 2003. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I probably did not think 
that was enough; but again, with the dollars we

[[Page H8538]]

had available to us, we did what we could.
  Actually with regard to this subject of the C-17, I happen to think 
that with the Army transformation going forward and the ability to 
deploy to a necessary area within the required time, according to the 
Army which is 96 hours, I do not think that we will have near enough C-
17 airplanes even when the total complement, which is currently 180, is 
procured. I think the number is probably closer to 300 airplanes that 
we are going to need, and perhaps some day we will get there. Today, we 
have our sights set on too few and are getting them too slow, but that 
is the nature of compromise.
  Still it is a good bill in this global atmosphere, worthy of the 
support of every single Member on both sides of the aisle. I ask 
Members to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and also want 
to add my accolades to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). He was 
the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  I do want to express some dissatisfaction with the process here 
tonight that we have been dealt. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) mentioned the problems of doing this with a suspension bill, 
which means a very limited time period for debate. I am more concerned 
about the notification. I found out about this in the airport late this 
afternoon that this bill was going to be coming up tonight, when we had 
been told for several weeks that the conference reports would be coming 
up on Wednesday or Thursday. I understand we are at the end of the 
session in a lame duck and we are not sure how long we are going to be 
here, but democracy was not intended to be an efficient process, and 
sometimes we can be too efficient. I think there is a substantial 
number of Members that do not know that this debate is going on 
tonight.
  Like many Members, I spent Veterans Day at events the last couple of 
days and through the weekend, and a lot of veterans came up to me and 
asked about the issue of concurrent receipt and why the President 
threatened to veto it and why the House leadership did not want to do 
the bill before the election.
  I would have liked to have taken the language that is in the bill 
that we are voting on tonight and send to my veterans back home and 
have them comment on it before we come to the floor today. But, 
unfortunately, that did not occur. I would hope that we would have a 
process more in accord with the open kind of notification that a 
democracy really demands.
  I rise in support of the bill and appreciate all of the work that the 
staff and Members have put into this, and I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) for stepping in in the absence of the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I extend my great appreciation and 
admiration to the acting chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and of course our 
full committee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who 
has done such yeoman's tasks, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Saxton) just described so eloquently a few minutes ago, and to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) for his support and his great work 
on this.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the conversations and statements that 
have been made here in recent minutes past that this evening's 
consideration of this particular conference report is surrounded by 
what I think is an understandable controversy on one issue, and that is 
of concurrent receipt.
  The discussions suggests that for the first time in more than 4 
decades, passage of a defense conference report is not a foregone 
conclusion. And given where the Congress, the Nation, and most 
importantly our military personnel find themselves on this day in 
history, such a defeat would be a disastrous failure to fulfill our 
responsibilities at this fateful point in our history.
  I want the record to show that I consider myself a strong supporter 
of concurrent receipt. It is no secret that in recent years the House 
version of the defense bill has been silent on this issue. The 
realities of fully financing the provisions, some $45.8 billion over 10 
years routinely cause us to forego any action whatsoever; and as such, 
veterans suffer.
  After having the honor of assuming the chairmanship of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel 2 years ago, I was surprised and 
very, very pleased to be able to work with both sides of the aisle, the 
leadership in the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as the 
bipartisan members of the Committee on the Budget, certainly led by the 
efforts of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the first time ever 
to include some $17.8 billion over 10 years in the House budget 
resolution that led to our defense bill for the first time ever to 
provide full retirement and disability benefits to any veteran 60 
percent or greater disabled. But like most every Member of this body, I 
considered that a positive initiative but really a minimum, a first 
step in correcting toward what we all feel is a very unfair policy.
  Unfortunately, there are certain realities in the legislative process 
that we cannot avoid, and that is it takes three parties to enact a 
provision into law: The House, the Senate, and the White House.

                              {time}  1900

  The fact of the matter is that while this provision is not what many, 
if not all of us, wanted, certainly it is progress. It takes us a step 
in the right direction. To defer reaction and answering to our 
veterans' needs and not passing this bill would be a disastrous 
abdication of our responsibilities, particularly at this very, very 
tenuous time in our Nation's history. With all of the other good 
provisions, pay increase, military end strength, veterans and military 
health care systems cooperation, I think certainly we should stand 
forward and support this bill.
  I urge all of our colleagues to vote in the affirmative.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, I 
would like to wish my very heartfelt thanks and farewell to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). He will be sadly missed. He served 
this Nation very well since the early 1940s as a young seaman in the 
Navy and he has been a great Congressman. If the gentleman is watching, 
we are sure going to miss you. You are a great guy.
  Mr. Speaker, the procurement portion of this bill does a lot, but as 
all of us always feel at the end of the year, we have never done quite 
enough. The fleet is still the smallest it has been since 1933. But I 
am pleased to announce that the bill would fund the building of two 
Aegis class destroyers, one Virginia class submarine, one LPD-17, four 
service life extensions for LCACs, two submarine conversions, one 
submarine refueling, two small-waterplane twin-hull mine hunters, one 
T-AKE, which I hope the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will 
help me put some American propellers on; and $54 million to the title 
XI shipbuilding program for our domestic shipbuilders.
  Aircraftwise, we are going to build 23 F-22s, 48 F/A-18s, 12 C-17s, a 
multiyear procurement for C-130Js, 35 JPATS trainers, one JSTARS, 35 
UH-60 Blackhawk variants and a variant for 15 Navy versions of that 
helicopter; six training helicopters and 11 V-22s.
  As far as ground forces, there will be 35 MLRS systems, 45 upgrades 
to the Bradley armored personnel carriers, 332 Stryker interim armored 
vehicles, and upgrades to 31 M1A2s.
  But like all of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned and 
somewhat disappointed that we could not do a better job on concurrent 
receipt. If the gentleman from California would, I would like to engage 
in a further colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from California is a Vietnam vet 
and he has mentioned this scenario of Agent Orange. I happen to have a 
staffer who in the past year has become

[[Page H8539]]

very, very sick as a result of his service in the Gulf War. After much 
testing, it was determined it was a result of mercury poisoning, and 
the only thing that any doctor can conclude is that it is from the air 
he breathed while he was in Desert Storm. My question would be, he was 
a young man when this occurred so he is not a military retiree. But had 
that happened to someone who had served 20 years or more, they have no 
visible scars, they did not receive the Purple Heart, they served, they 
went when their Nation called, and as a result of that they have been 
poisoned.
  How does this bill address that? Because again, I understand the need 
to reward, to compensate the person who has lost an arm, a leg, their 
vision, their ability to have children, but this is someone who has 
truly been poisoned as a result of his service to our Nation. What will 
we do for them with this concurrent receipt language?
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, I can offer to my good 
colleague what would be my intent and my understanding of what we have 
done and that is this: One category for disability that is compensable 
is for disabilities that are caused by an instrumentality of war. Just 
like the Agent Orange spraying that was done in Vietnam was, in my 
estimation, an instrumentality of war which was meant to defoliate the 
areas that were around American operations, American base camps, 
American centers so that the enemy could not close undetected and get 
up close to American soldiers, that that spray, that herbicide, was 
definitely an instrumentality of war that was utilized in carrying out 
the military mission.
  Similarly in my analysis, and everybody has their own opinion and has 
seen their own set of facts and seen the base facts on what happened in 
the Gulf War, my opinion is that some of the agent that was stockpiled 
by Saddam Hussein in the last war, the canisters of which were ruptured 
during the war itself, some of that agent had a blowback over American 
troops. I think there was some contamination of American troops by that 
agent. In that situation, if that is found to be the cause of an 
injury, that blowback of agent would certainly be considered to be an 
instrumentality of war and carried out in the mission of war.
  So my answer is yes, it would be included.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, if I may, since I have seen 
a tendency for some people in the bureaucracy of government to somehow 
lose sight of the value of our veterans, would you consider a letter to 
that extent to the Secretary? The Secretary has got a lot of things on 
his plate. Maybe he does not deal with individuals to the extent that 
you and I as representatives of 700,000 people do, but would you 
consider a letter to the Secretary along those lines telling him of our 
strong interest in accomplishing just that?
  Mr. HUNTER. Certainly. I would be happy to put what I have just said 
in a letter and send it to the Secretary.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Again, as a part of that letter, I would 
like to hear the Secretary's response because I would sure as heck hope 
that we do not have to wait another year before some of these 
injustices are finally made right. I thank you very much for your 
explanation. I look forward to working with you on that letter to the 
Secretary.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my great 
friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who has received short 
shrift throughout this conference on his issues.
  Mr. HANSEN. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, reluctant support, of this bill. I 
have great respect for Bob Stump, my neighbor to the south in Arizona, 
and my good friend, Duncan Hunter. Mr. Speaker, I rise more as a 
chairman of the Committee on Resources who has been able to see that 
there are many things that overlap, many things that are done in 
Resources that I have signed letters to Bob Stump because I thought 
they were important that he has the right to do it.
  One of those in the 1906 Migratory Bird Act. The Migratory Bird Act 
is something that overlaps with military every day when you have bird 
strikes. More and more, we are having bird strikes. We know about that 
very poor judicial decision that came out of the Ninth Circuit Court 
which, in effect, says it is a taking if a fighter plane hits a bird. 
The Marine and Mammal Act, which was not acted upon in this bill, will 
have to be acted upon and the Endangered Species Act. I think some 
people are more interested in how they are scored with the League of 
Conservation Voters than they are in training our boys and the girls 
who fight in this thing.
  We stand up here and we always talk about the idea we train the way 
we fight. Well, we are not doing it this time. This time we are just 
bending over backwards to make sure that we take more care of the slimy 
slug than we do the guy in the tank or on the ground or in the 
airplane.
  Sometimes compromise is a good thing and I have heard that politics 
and compromise are synonyms. I hardly believe it in this particular 
case. It comes down to the idea that on the Endangered Species Act and 
on the Migratory Bird Act, it would have been better if we had not have 
taken it. What we sent from the House was excellent. I have heard from 
the Pentagon today. They said, ``Mr. Chairman, we would just as soon 
not have had the compromise that came out.'' I think that should be the 
case.
  On our test and training ranges, when we have now lost most of Camp 
Pendleton, when we have now lost most of Ford Hood, when we have now 
lost most of the Utah test and training range and others because of 
some of these areas, it really pains me that we have found ourselves in 
that position.
  The Committee on Resources today put a shot across the bow in that 
hopper down there. It will just take the heart out of some people. It 
will not pass for a while, but I hope some people look at it. That is, 
to change the Endangered Species Act that it does not apply on military 
ground, that it does not apply on private property, and that it does 
not apply on plants. If anyone is just gasping at this and losing their 
breath, let them take into consideration to go read the 1973 Endangered 
Species Act because that is what they intended when it was passed, not 
to go out and ruin the things that we are doing.
  I am going to vote for this. I have such great respect for Bob Stump 
and Duncan Hunter, I will vote for it. I will sign the report as the 
second guy after the gentleman from California here and soon to be as 
just another citizen, I am glad that you have let me say these things.
  I thank the Speaker for the time, I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
for the time, and I thank the gentleman from California for the time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill is appropriately named for Chairman Bob Stump. We came to 
Congress together in January 1977 and he has performed great service to 
our Nation, first as chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and 
then as chairman of this committee. It is fully appropriate that we 
name this bill for him for the great and outstanding work that he did. 
We thank him for his efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also say the staff has done such phenomenal work 
on a very difficult bill, with issues that seemed unsolvable. A special 
thanks to Jim Schweiter and his crew, to Robert Rangel and those that 
work with him and all of the professional staff that we have. We are 
truly blessed to be able to put together this authorization bill.
  These are difficult times, Mr. Speaker, for America. I am convinced 
that those in uniform will be challenged to the best that is in them. 
That is why it is important that we in the Congress and that we on the 
Committee on Armed Services authorize all that we possibly can to help 
them with their work in defending America, American lives and American 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I extend special thanks to Duncan Hunter for his work in 
putting this bill to a successful conclusion.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2003. This legislation supports our troops as they continue to 
wage the war against terrorism and prepares them to engage in 
additional contingencies to ensure the security of our nation and the 
world.

[[Page H8540]]

  I am very pleased that the conference report includes agreement on 
many provisions directly relevant to Guam. Over $75 million in military 
construction is authorized for installations and facilities on Guam, 
including a new water supply system at Andersen Air Force Base and 
Phase III of the Guam Army National Guard Readiness Center. The people 
of Guam welcome the military build-up and appreciate the recognition 
that this legislation provides to the contributions our island offers 
to U.S. national security. Furthermore, I am especially pleased that 
agreement was reached in conference to establish a Weapons of Mass 
Destruction Civil Support Team for Guam. This specially equipped and 
trained team of the Guam National Guard will prove to prepare us for 
any disaster involving a weapon of mass destruction.
  The Senate has also receded to two House provisions that authorize 
National Guard members use of the commissary when they are called to 
state duty during a national emergency, as was experienced after 
September 11, 2002, and that require a single point of contact to be 
established within the Department of Defense to address matters 
involving unexploded ordnance.
  Lastly I want to draw attention to agreement on a particular 
provision that affects Guam and the readiness of our troops. The 
conference report includes language that will provide flexibility under 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to ensure the restoration and non-
interruption of essential training on Farallon de Medinlla (FDM), an 
island north of Guam in the Northern Marianas.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report and thank our 
Chairman and our Ranking Member for their exceptional leadership and 
continued support of Guam.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in support of the pending 
conference report on the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2003. I would like to commend the conferees for their hard work in 
bringing this report to the floor, and particularly for including 
several provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs that will increase the cooperation and resource 
sharing between medical facilities and programs of the Armed Forces and 
those of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Sections 721 through 729 of the conference report would mandate new 
health care resource sharing programs between the Departments of 
Defense and Veterans Affairs, and would provide strong, unprecedented 
incentives for the Departments to work as true partners in delivering 
health care to the military-veteran community.
  Mr. Speaker, last June, I along with Veterans' Affairs Committee 
Ranking Member Lane Evans and others, introduced H.R. 2667, the 
Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Health Resources 
Access Improvement Act of 2001, legislation designed to increase the 
level of cooperation and sharing between the health care systems of DOD 
and VA. Despite legislation authorizing resource sharing being on the 
books for two decades, these massive health care systems of VA, Army, 
Navy and Air Force, have failed to take significant or even commonsense 
actions to cooperate and collaborate to share their resources when and 
where appropriate. Our legislation was designed to jump-start this 
process through practical and achievable means.
  On March 7, 2002, our Subcommittee on Health held a joint hearing 
with the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel to examine 
H.R. 2667. At that hearing, we received significant support from 
veterans' organizations, Administration officials and Members of both 
Subcommittees. Using the feedback from that hearing, we were able to 
achieve a significant compromise that is now incorporated in the 
Conference Report.
  Specifically, the Conference agreement would: Mandate, rather than 
permit sharing where feasible; require VA and DOD to jointly plan for 
the future of both health care systems; provide funding incentives for 
facilities that have forged ahead and demonstrated the advantages of 
sharing resources--initially limited to three sites; make VA and DOD 
develop information systems and management structures to allow their 
respective pharmacy services to become interoperable; and encourage 
combined training for health care providers.
  Let me be very clear what these provisions do not do.
  They do not combine the Federal health care systems; they do not 
merge the two systems; they do not reduce overall delivery of medical 
services; and they do not lower the level of funding for either health 
care system. Rather, this legislation takes advantage of opportunities 
to better serve both populations--when and where it makes sense. By 
sharing equipment, facilities, technology or personnel, VA and DOD can 
achieve efficiencies that would then be reinvested to provide expanded 
services to even more veterans, active duty military, retirees, and 
military dependents and survivors.
  I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the Conference language 
on sharing has the support of The American Legion, the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the National Military Veterans' Alliance, the Military 
Coalition for Health Care, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the 
Disabled American Veterans.
  While legal authority for resource sharing between the departments 
has existed for 20 years, the level of sharing between the VA and DOD 
remains abysmally low, accounting for only two-tenths of one percent of 
their combined $40 billion health care budgets. My committee staff made 
16 site visits last year to DOD-VA sites, and just recently during our 
August recess Health Chairman Moran and fellow Committee Member Jeff 
Miller visited the Navy Medical Center in Pensacola, Florida and Eglin 
Air Force Base. They reported to me that this particular Panhandle 
area, with so many military facilities and a growing population of 
older veterans and military retirees, is ripe for additional DOD-VA 
sharing.
  All our visits to sites where VA and DOD health care activities are 
in very close proximity are carefully documented in a Committee staff 
report filed earlier this year. I commend that report to all the 
conferees here today, but let me briefly give you a couple of 
compelling examples of what we believe are the kinds of problems this 
legislation can solve.
  Charleston, South Carolina is home to a Navy Hospital and a VA 
Medical Center. During a visit last year by our Committee staff, the 
Navy Hospital's Executive Officer, in the course of discussing the 
issue of resource sharing, talked about the difficulty he had in 
recruiting and retaining pharmacy technicians to handle a daily backlog 
of 500 prescriptions. Directly across the street from the Navy Hospital 
is a VA Consolidated Mail-out Pharmacy, which fills 60,000 mail-out 
prescriptions daily for VA's patients. The Navy hospital officer was 
completely unaware of this facility's capabilities.
  Crossing the street with my staff, they visited the VA pharmacy for 
the first time, took a tour, and talked to the chief pharmacist, who 
said that he would have no difficulty filling 500 daily prescriptions 
for the Navy, an amount barely noticeable in his massive workload. To 
date, a year later, it appears nothing has changed. It's inexcusable in 
my view to waste such opportunities.
  I know from my own experience how difficult it can sometimes be to 
just get the four service branches to cooperate between themselves. My 
own congressional district in New Jersey over the past 22 years has 
either contained or been in close proximity to several military 
installations, including the Army's Fort Dix, the Air Force's McGuire 
Air Force Base, and the Navy's Naval Research Laboratory in Lakehurst. 
I remember visiting them some years ago and it seemed as though you 
needed to get a passport just to cross from Fort Dix to McGuire.
  We all know of institutional resistance to change, but that 
resistance must be overcome. With the demand for health care services 
rising, and the cost of care also going up, we cannot wait any longer 
to take real, meaningful actions to find ways to serve both populations 
more effectively and more efficiently. For two decades, VA and DOD have 
had the authority and the charge to improve sharing of health care 
resources, and the results have been dismal. We don't need more studies 
or more reports; we need action.
  Our VA-DOD sharing language in the Bob Stump Authorization Act will 
be a major step forward in that regard, and I commend the conferees for 
retaining the provisions in the final conference agreement that is now 
before the House. I want to thank our Committee's Ranking Democratic 
Member, Lane Evans, Health Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Filner for their hard work in this 
legislation. In addition, I want to thank Armed Services Committee 
Chairman Bob Stump, a former Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Ranking Member Ike Skelton, Subcommittee Chairman Bob 
McHugh, and Ranking Member Dr. Vic Snyder, for all of their work to 
reach this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report also includes language providing 
additional benefits to military retirees who have incurred significant 
combat related disabilities. Unfortunately, this agreement is not as 
generous as an earlier provision on concurrent receipt that was 
approved by the House and I expect that many Members will be working on 
this issue during the 108th Congress. I will support these efforts.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass without also 
adding some words to commend my dear friend, predecessor and long-term 
colleague, the Honorable Bob Stump. It is indeed a fitting tribute to 
Bob Stump that this measure be titled the ``Bob Stump National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''. Bob Stump has been a friend 
of those who serve in the Armed Forces since his own experience as a 
Navy corpsman serving in the South Pacific theater during World War II. 
Although Chairman Stump has

[[Page H8541]]

been known to shun the spotlight, his words and actions speak volumes 
about his dedication to all those who served.
  For those who may not be familiar with some of his more notable 
legislative accomplishments, I would like the record to reflect the 
following list of his accomplishments during the six years that he 
served as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs from 
1995 to 2000. Working on a bipartisan basis in cooperation with 
veterans' service organizations, the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs achieved significant legislative success on behalf of our 
Nation's veterans and their families. The following items only 
highlight what was accomplished during the six years of Bob Stump's 
chairmanship.
  VA Health Care Budget--For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided the 
largest budget increase for VA health care in history, $1.7 billion.
  Health Care Eligibility Reform--In 1996, under Chairman Stump's 
leadership, Congress passed eligibility reforms that removed barriers 
to outpatient care and allowed greater flexibility to the VA so it 
could pay for care closer to where the veteran lives.
  1998 Benefits Expansion--In 1998, Congress passed a significant 
benefits expansion totaling $1.5 billion over five years for 
improvement to veterans' and survivors' education benefits and benefits 
for disabled veterans and surviving spouses of totally disabled 
veterans.
  Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act--What has been 
called the Millennium Act is the most comprehensive veterans' benefits 
improvement legislation in decades. Some of the more significant 
provisions mandate nursing home and long-term care and allow the VA to 
pay for some emergency health care services.
  Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement--Public Law 106-419 increased the 
value of the monthly education benefit by nearly $100 per month to 
$650. During the six years of Chairman Stump's tenure, the Congress 
increased the monthly benefit by 48 percent.
  National Cemetery Expansion--Since 1997, 7 new national veterans' 
cemeteries have opened, including one in Oklahoma that was required by 
the Veterans' Committee as part of the Millennium Act. Under Chairman 
Stump's guidance, Congress also required the VA to begin immediately 
the planning for 5 national cemeteries in Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, 
Oklahoma, Sacramento, and Detroit.
  Arlington National Cemetery--Legislation was enacted in 1999 to 
expand the boundaries of Arlington National Cemetery, extending its 
useful life beyond the projected closing date of 2025 so that in-ground 
burials of veterans can continue until approximately the year 2041. 
Chairman Stump also cared passionately about preserving the integrity 
of the Nation's premier National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia. 
During the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congress, Bob Stump sponsored 
legislation that was approved by the entire House of Representatives to 
codify eligibility requirements for Arlington. His legislation would 
have preserved eligibility for career service members while denying 
eligibility to Members of Congress who did not have the requisite 
military service.
  For these and all of the other measures which Chairman Stump helped 
to move through this and many preceding Congresses, I extend the 
gratitude of the millions of veterans of this nation who benefited so 
much from Bob Stump's leadership. We all wish him the very best as he 
returns to his home in Arizona.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this Conference Report. It deserves 
to become part of Bob Stump's legislative legacy.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the 
Fiscal Year 2003, National Defense Authorization Act. It represents a 
down payment on military readiness sustainment that we all recognize as 
critical to national security.
  It is not a perfect bill. I wish more money were available to address 
some of the readiness matters that have been deferred. I remain 
perplexed when I reflect on the impact that the resource shortages are 
having on every facet of our military. For example, we need to do more 
to ensure the readiness of our reserve components. Much more is 
required to adequately address the training readiness of our dedicated 
civilian workforce. The core infrastructure maintenance accounts remain 
short of the desired level of funds.
  Let there be no doubt that this bill will not do all that needs to be 
done. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is better than no bill.
  I am especially pleased that we were able to reach some 
accommodations with the administration on concurrent receipt. At a time 
when we are preparing to become engaged in another conflict situation, 
we can ill afford not to address a matter than affects those who have 
already served. While concurrent receipt is not addressed as a directly 
related readiness matter, no one can deny that it does have a potential 
significant readiness impact. It is the right thing to do at this time. 
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. Today provides 
another opportunity for us to do our part in providing for the national 
security of this great nation during a very trying period.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 
4546.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed 
to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________