[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4585-H4599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H4585]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--Continued
Mr. HUNTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modifications be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Tactical Air and Land Forces, and the vice-chairman of the full
committee.
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for
yielding time to me.
If for no other reason, I would ask my colleagues to look at this
amendment en bloc because it contains perhaps one of the most
significant pieces of legislation that we have passed in this Congress.
Approximately 1 month ago, 25 Members of Congress, including the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I, introduced the Nuclear
Security Initiative Act of 2003. This bill is the first major,
comprehensive expansion of our efforts to work with the former Soviet
states to take away the threat of the use of weapons of mass
destruction.
The bill authorizes $78 million of funding, but, more significantly,
includes a whole vast, new array of engaging the Russians, including
the establishment of a Duma-Congress initiative to focus together on
nonproliferation, the establishment of fellowships between the
Kurchatov Institute and Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to focus on
nonproliferation, the killing in our policy to work with NATO and do
appropriate cooperative relationships in development and deployment of
theater missile defenses, to work with the Russians on early warning,
the Ramos program, to expand that, to create a Teller-Kurchatov
alliance for peace to work together, to provide more in the inherent
accountability and transparency on how we spend money in Russia to take
apart these weapons of mass destruction.
This particular bill, which is in fact as it was introduced, H.R.
1719, was endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment
for Peace, the Nuclear Threat Reduction Initiative, Sam Nunn's group,
the Physicians for Social Responsibility, all coming together, along
with the Vietnam Veterans Foundation, saying this is the direction we
should be moving in.
My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) on the minority side and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) on the Republican side, are original sponsors.
It is a major step forward, a major step forward for this Congress,
for this body in taking the lead on helping to secure these weapons of
mass destruction. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record letters from top Russian
leaders thanking this Congress for taking this bold step, including one
letter I received yesterday signed by 30 of the top leaders in the
Russian Duma thanking this Congress for its leadership role in helping
to provide a vision for a new relationship with Russia that goes beyond
the Nunn-Lugar program, that allows us to truly establish a new
framework in dealing with the issues of weapons of mass destruction
that still exists within the bounds of the former Soviet states.
The letters referred to are as follows:
Hon. Curt Weldon,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Weldon. With satisfaction we knew about
your new initiative (a Bill) towards higher cooperation with
the Russian Federation on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon
and other weapons of mass destruction.
We think that the Russian Federation and the United States
as the countries, which possess the biggest inventories of
nuclear warheads, are responsible to the world future in the
matter of deterrence and nonproliferation.
The especially important role belongs to transition of the
nuclear warhead industry to peaceful aims--development of
ecologically clean nuclear energy. The Russian and American
scientists are especially responsible for this. That's why
establishment of the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace may
be an important and useful step. It would be also extremely
important to engage students, post-graduates, and young
scientists in this work.
We consider that establishment of the Nuclear Treaty
Reduction Working Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group
will help to setup an additional control on international and
national programs in this field.
Dear Mr. Weldon, we wish you success in your initiative
promotion, and you can count on our understanding and
assistance.
With best regards,
------.
____
Hon. Curt Weldon,
Member Of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Weldon: We welcome your new initiative (a
Bill) towards higher cooperation with the Russian Federation
on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon and other weapons of
mass destruction.
We believe that the Russian Federation and the United Sates
specially account for the world future in the matter of
deterrence and nonproliferation being the countries, which
possess the biggest inventories of nuclear warheads.
The very important matter is to redirect the nuclear
warhead industry to peaceful
[[Page H4586]]
aims--development of ecologically clean nuclear energy. The
especially important role belongs to the Russian and American
Scientists in this process. That's why establishment of the
Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace may be an important and
useful step. It would be also extremely important to engage
students, post-graduates, and young scientists in this work.
We expect that establishment of the Nuclear Treat Working
Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group will help to
strengthen the control on international and national programs
in this field.
Dear Mr. Weldon, we wish you success in your initiative
promotion, and you can count on our understanding and
assistance.
Sincerely,
Vasily F. Kuznetsov,
Deputy of the State Duma.
____
Hon. Curt Weldon,
Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Congressman Weldon. With satisfaction we knew about
your new initiative (a Bill) towards higher cooperation with
the Russian Federation on nonproliferation of nuclear weapon
and other weapons of mass destruction.
We think that the Russian Federation and the United States
as the countries, which possess the biggest inventories of
nuclear warheads, are responsible to the world future in the
matter of deterrence and nonproliferation.
The especially important role belongs to transition of the
nuclear warhead industry to peaceful aims--development of
ecologically clean nuclear energy. The Russian and American
scientists are especially responsible for this. That's why
establishment of the Teller-Kurchatov Alliance for Peace may
be an important and useful step. It would be also extremely
important to engage students, post-graduates, and young
scientists in this work.
We consider the establishment of the Nuclear Treat
Reduction Working Group as a subgroup of Duma-Congress Group
will help to setup an additional control on international and
national programs in this field.
Dear Mr. Weldon we wish you success in your initiative
promotion, and you can count on our understanding and
assistance.
With best regards,
Valentina N. Pivnenko,
Chairman of the Committee on the Problems of the North and
the Far East of the State Duma.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his untiring cooperation, and
I thank the ranking member for his cooperation in making sure that
together we can bring this package forward.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Kline amendment, but I believe we
need to point out the realities of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides the Secretary of Education with
the authority to waive certain statutory or regulatory provisions
relating to student aid for higher education to benefit our Armed
Forces personnel.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce passed the first version
of this legislation last Congress after the attacks of September 11. I
applaud the gentleman from Minnesota for seeking to help our troops,
but I believe this amendment will still not respond to their needs.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of Education has done little to actually
help our troops with the authority he has been granted. The Secretary
recently granted two waivers under the existing HEROS authority, but
these waivers are going to have very little impact on the vast majority
of Armed Forces personnel with student loans. The response of the
Secretary in this area has been inadequate.
This amendment and existing law provide the Secretary with the
authority to ensure that those called up for active duty in the
military are not financially disadvantaged, but the student loans of
servicemen and women are still accruing interest while they are in
armed combat overseas. The minimum that can be done for these
individuals is to ensure that interest on their student loans do not
accrue while they are defending their country. Unfortunately, the
Secretary has not chosen to act in this area. I encourage him to do so.
This amendment is a good first start, but it does not directly or
forcefully address the real needs of our servicemen and women who have
student loans. I would like to work with the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kline) to make sure the Secretary uses the authority we grant him.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized for the
purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
I have an amendment in here that is trying to get rid of the
bureaucratic difficulty we have of getting firefighting assets of the
Air Force Reserve focused on a fire early on. The law right now, as it
is being interpreted, says that you must make sure that there are no
private assets that can do it.
I had a forest fire burning in my backyard last summer, 140,000
acres, and we had these planes sitting on the tarmac and could not take
off to go help with the fight.
I believe the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) and some others
have some questions about this.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for
yielding to me.
I want to express my concerns about the potential impact of the
Hefley-Gallegly amendment on the commercial firefighting industry.
I am aware that action by the FAA has caused some surplus aircraft
not to be certified as flightworthy. This action has raised concerns
about the availability of firefighting resources in the approaching
firefighting season.
I am also aware that the U.S. Forest Service is addressing ways of
examining the problem, but I believe in the short term it is unlikely.
I ask if I can obtain the gentleman's assurance that in conference on
this bill he will work with me to address my concerns about the
potential negative impacts of this legislation on the commercial
firefighting industry.
Mr. HEFLEY. I appreciate you bringing up these concerns. I think they
are legitimate concerns. We have no desire to put the private
contractors out of business. We only have eight planes in the Air Force
Reserve to do this, and they are scattered from coast to coast, so
there is no way it would put them out of business, anyway.
We have no desire to do that. The gentleman has raised a legitimate
concern, and I pledge to work with the gentleman. It is kind of a
dramatic gesture I made there, but I pledge to work with the gentleman
to try to solve this problem in conference. If we do not get it solved,
I will not let it go through.
Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct to the chairman
of the committee, the gentleman from California, the concerns that I
have as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) has. He is the chairman of the other committee
of concurrent jurisdiction with regard to this issue.
We want to raise our strong concerns to the way this amendment has
proceeded to the floor, as well as the way that the amendment is
drafted. We have some grave concerns about the necessity of it and
about the scope of it. It may go well beyond what both the Committee on
Armed Services and the Forest Service think is appropriate and
necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley/Gallegly amendment
to H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year
2004. This amendment creates a pilot program to improve the use of Air
Force and Air National Guard Modular Airborne Fire-Fighting systems to
fight wildfires. It should come as no surprise to anyone that I support
strengthening our ability to fight wildfires but this amendment is ill-
considered. The U.S. Forest Service tells me that this authority is not
necessary and they oppose it as does the Office of Management and
Budget. This will disrupt decades of contractual services provided by
competent private sector participants.
This amendment is identical to bills that were referred primarily to
the House Agriculture Committee. As Chairman of the committee of
jurisdiction on this issue, I intend to address this issue in
conference as a conferee. However, I would note, notwithstanding the
comments of the gentleman from Colorado, that he has never discussed
this issue
[[Page H4587]]
with me or members of the committee staff or asked that any action be
taken by the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would pledge to work to see that we have
a balanced result coming out of the conference and that we work with
the gentleman and the other gentlemen who have spoken of this.
Mr. HEFLEY. Let me just say, I am sorry about the procedure, but this
bill has been sitting in these two committees for 2 years. We have a
fire season coming up again, and we need to focus all the assets we
can.
When we have a war and when we have a blazing fire, and that is a
war, we want all the assets we can get on it. It is predicted we will
have 30 percent less assets this year than we had last year in terms of
planes because many of the private planes have been grounded, so we
need to solve this and we need to solve it now, not put it off for
another year or two.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman).
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc
amendment.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for their work on this year's National
Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is included in the en bloc, is
short and simple. It encourages the Secretary of Defense and the U.S.
Navy to work with their Israeli counterparts to make arrangements for
safe port visits by the U.S. Sixth Fleet to Haifa, and if such
arrangements can be made, to resume the regular visits to Haifa that
used to occur.
To be clear, the amendment does not require the resumption of visits
by the Sixth Fleet to Haifa and does not encourage such visits unless
appropriate means can be agreed upon to protect our ships and
personnel.
Mr. Chairman, Israel, like our nation, is confronting terror. The
visits of our Navy ships to Israel's chief port will send a critical
message of support and make clear our Nation's bedrock commitment to
the survival of the only real democracy in the Middle East.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
support, and I encourage Members to support the amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this broad amendment before
us. Included in this package is the text of H.R. 1412, the Higher
Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or the HEROS
Act. This legislation passed the House overwhelmingly on April 1, and I
urge its inclusion here to ensure its enactment into law.
As we know, many members of our National Guard and Reserves are also
students. This amendment will bring assurance to those men and women by
providing the Secretary of Education with the authority to waive
certain rules and requirements to ensure that as a result of war,
military operation, or national emergency, they are protected from
hardship in relation to their education or for their student aid
obligations. It is crucial that our military and others are protected
while the integrity of the student aid programs remain intact.
I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for
his support. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and
I thank the chairman of the Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter), for his support here.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the Build America Act Amendment,
which is a step towards ensuring that the United States defense jobs
are performed by United States defense workers. American defense
workers are 100 percent committed to our Armed Forces and to ensuring
that America has the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led forces
in the world.
Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, defense-related employment has
fallen by 67 percent. That translates into over 1 million jobs lost. We
need to do more to reverse this disturbing trend, and we must do more
on their behalf.
Just as we in Congress continue to fulfill our patriotic promise to
our men and women in uniform, we must also demonstrate our equal
commitment to those men and women who wear a different kind of uniform,
those who build, repair, and operate the machines that sustain and
strengthen our security here at home.
The Build America Amendment, which expands the scope of the United
States defense Industrial Base Assessment Program, seeks information on
why contracts are transferred outside this country and mandates an
action plan on how this critical sector can be revitalized and
restored.
{time} 1715
The amendment stands in solidarity with our workers, finding out
where jobs have gone and fighting to keep them in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
fine work on this bill and this section in particular.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
great State of Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment en
bloc but particularly to an amendment that I offered which supports our
Nation's reservists.
In the event of a domestic terrorism attack this country's
reservists, particularly the National Guard's weapons of mass
destruction team, could be called up at any time to protect and defend
their fellow citizens, working with their fellow first responders
across the country, police and firefighters. It would clarify that the
first response to a domestic terrorism attack will qualify reservists
for hostile fire and imminent danger pay. Ultimately, it is a matter of
appreciation for the service to our Nation's Reserve forces. I hope all
of you will join in supporting this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the fine gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me time, the ranking member on
Defense, and also the chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter), for allowing the inclusion in the en bloc
amendment, our Buy America Enhancement Provisions as well as our
Technical Assistance Provisions.
Let me just say that these dual amendments direct and require the
Department of Defense to consciously at the highest level support the
continuation and enhancement of our domestic industrial manufacturing
capabilities, particularly those defense industrial companies that are
essential to war production and face stiff foreign competition. It
specifies that when application of the Buy American Act is inconsistent
with the public interest, the Defense Secretary shall not consider the
provision of any trade agreement between the U.S. and a foreign country
that is in effect at the time of the determination.
We particularly ask the Department of Defense to focus on critical
technologies such as industrial molds, special dies and tools, cutting
tools and machine tools and accessories. Of course, in the foundry
area, attention is needed as well.
The technical assistance provisions and the center that is proposed
will also require the Department to reach out to the over 7,000 such
firms in our country that comprise our defense industrial base, many of
them small and medium sized companies, and connect them directly to the
Department of Defense so that contracts and subcontracts have broad
application, and small and medium size businesses are included.
The dual amendments thus require both a ``topdown'' and ``bottomup''
approach by the Department to engage this critical sector of U.S.
defense manufacturing.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their wonderful
investigative work on the Committee on
[[Page H4588]]
Small Business that has supported strongly the necessarity for these
provisions.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), who is a member of the
committee and has a great defense background.
(Mr. SIMMONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I support this amendment wholeheartedly in part because it
contains a provision requesting a report from the Secretary of Defense
which I have requested dealing with the issuance of security clearances
and updates on security clearance for defense workers.
My district has literally thousands of defense workers producing the
very best submarines in the world. But under a recently passed law
which we refer to as the Smith Act, some of these workers run the risk
of losing their clearances for activities that took place many, many
years ago and, yet, under the provisions of the Smith Act, may result
in denial of a clearance which for them results in denial or loss of a
job.
I look forward to the report which this amendment requests so that we
can work to eliminate this unintended consequence of the Smith Act.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendment being
offered by Chairman Duncan Hunter.
This amendment contains many important provisions. It includes
language I authored to require the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress on the granting or renewal of security clearances for
Department of Defense personnel and defense contractor personnel.
Those Members of Congress with Department of Defense contractors in
their districts know the importance of a security clearance to the men
and women who work for those contractors. As someone who has held a TOP
SECRET clearance for over 30 years, I fully understand the importance
of issuing these clearances to defense contractors and their employees.
My district is home to Electric Boat where thousands of hard working
people show up every day to design and build the finest submarines in
the world. Every 5 years Electric Boat workers are put through a
necessary review of their security clearances, which I support.
Unfortunately, a recent law contained language commonly known as the
``Smith Act'' which requires any person convicted of a crime and
sentenced to one year or more in jail to be automatically disqualified
from holding a security clearance. The law does not take into account
whether the individual actually served the sentence. But, the law says
conviction means no clearance, and no clearance means no job.
Mr. Chairman, over the past year many highly skilled veteran workers
from Electric Boat have appeared at my district office, frightened that
a conviction in their youth will suddenly come back to haunt them and
cost them their job. These are men and women who have often held their
security clearances for over 20 years. But because of the Smith Act,
those clearances are now in jeopardy.
These working men and women have families and contribute positively
to their communities, both in eastern Connecticut and around the
nation. And at Electric Boat they have been safely and securely
building the best submarines in the world for the U.S. Navy for over
100 years!
There are similar stories in other defense contractor facilities
around this great nation. While the intention of the ``Smith Act'' was
good, it is time to re-examine this law and see if there are more
effective ways to update and issue these security clearances.
My amendment does just that. It simply requires the Department of
Defense to report back to Congress within 60 days with recommendations
for legislation or administrative steps the Secretary of Defense
considers necessary to better carry out the business of granting and
renewing security clearances.
In searching for solutions to this problem, I am pleased to have the
support of both management and labor. Both parties are well aware of
the importance of security clearances to the defense industry and the
dramatic impact the loss of a clearance has on their employees.
Today I am pleased to share letters from both the President of
Electric Boat and the President of the Metal Trades Council of New
London County. Both letters express support for my efforts to improve
the Smith Act. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be inserted
into the Record.
In closing, let me thank Chairman Hunter and his staff for working
with me on this important amendment. I appreciate their recognition of
the need to review the unintended consequences of the Smith Act.
Finally, I look forward to reviewing the recommendations from the
Department of Defense and working with both the Pentagon and my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to craft a reasonable
solution to this problem.
Metal Trades Council of
New London County,
Groton, CT, May 15, 2003.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hunter: It has come to my attention that
Congressman Rob Simmons is currently working with you and
your staff on ways to improve Section 986(c)(1) of title 10
USC, also known as the ``Smith Act.'' As the president of the
Metals Trade Council union at Electric Boat in Groton (CT), I
am writing today to share my strong support of Mr. Simmons's
proposed changes to the Act.
As you know, the purpose of the Smith Act is to ensure that
individuals who have been convicted of a serious crime are
not given a Defense Security Service (DSS) security clearance
at controlled industrial areas like Electric Boat. Under the
Act, any person convicted of a crime and sentenced to
imprisonment for greater than one year is automatically
disqualified from a security clearance. Unfortunately, I have
seen firsthand the unintended consequences of the Smith Act.
All too often, an Electric Boat employee, whose security
clearance is being reviewed, is denied a clearance renewal
because of a minor criminal offense where the individual was
sentenced to more than one year in prison, yet served little
or no jail time. Sadly, losing a clearance means losing a
job.
Many of these working men and women have received their
clearances prior to the implementation of the Smith Act and
have been on the yard for more than 20 years. They are
skilled workers, proud of their work and their country. And
while I support efforts to protect controlled industrial
areas through tougher scrutiny of clearances, I would urge
you to strongly consider the proposed changes that
Congressman Simmons has drafted. These improvements to the
Smith Act will go a long way toward saving the jobs of
numerous laborers at Electric Boat.
Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration. We at
Electric Boat appreciate everything that you and your
Committee have done for the submarine capital of the world.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Delacruz,
President.
____
General Dynamics,
Groton, CT, May 15, 2003.
Hon. Duncan L. Hunter,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Hunter: Electric Boat Corporation enthusiastically
supports the efforts of Congressman Robert Simmons to amend
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > Part II > chapter 49 > Sec. 986,
Title: ``Security Clearances limitations'' (The ``Smith
Amendment''). In particular we support the proposed change to
Paragraph (c)(1) which presently states:
``Persons Disqualified From Being Granted Security
Clearances--A person is described in this subsection if any
of the following applies to that person: (1) The person has
been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime
and sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year.''
Electric Boat supports Congressman Simmons' proposal that
the language in Paragraph (c)(1) be changed to reflect that
an individual be disqualified from being granted a security
clearance if they have been convicted in any court of the
United States of a crime and subsequently served a sentence
of a year and a day or greater.
Electric Boat supports retaining the other three
disqualifying categories in Section (c).
Electric Boat Corporation is a DOD contractor performing on
classified contracts for the United States Navy. Our primary
business focus is the design, manufacture and maintenance of
United States Navy nuclear submarines. The nature of our
contracts, and the type of work we perform, requires that
virtually all 10,000 employees be eligible to receive and
maintain a DOD security clearance. In accordance with the
requirements of the Defense Industrial Security Clearance
Program, individuals who hold an active clearance must
undergo a ``periodic reinvestigation''. The Smith Amendment
in its present form adversely affects Electric Boat because
it states that the ``. . . Department of Defense may not
grant or renew a security clearance for a person to whom this
section applies.'' Unfortunately, a number of Electric Boat
employees who hold active/final DOD clearances either are, or
will be, negatively impacted by this law. In those instances,
although ``sentenced'' during judicial proceedings, they
actually served no time or less than one year due to the
circumstances of the law in their particular cases. They
should not now be penalized (in many cases years later) under
legislation that was passed without considering this
important distinction.
In the interest of fairness for Electric Boat employees,
and many other employees of defense contractors who are
adversely affected
[[Page H4589]]
by this law, Electric Boat supports Congressman Simmons'
recommended amendments to this legislation.
M.W. Toner,
President.
The following is an example of an Electric Boat employee
who is subject to lose her DOD Secret clearance as a result
of the Smith Act. This individual was identified because her
clearance was up for renewal/periodic reinvestigation.
Example (1): This employee is a valued member of management
as a trade superintendent in the shipyard. She began her
employment in the trades as a welder in 1974. Before starting
work with Electric Boat in 1974, the individual was convicted
of a drug offense and sentenced to 18 months. The sentence
was suspended, she was placed on probation, and she never
served any time in jail. The individual has an outstanding
work record over the course of the last 29 years. Of greatest
significance, she has held a DOD Secret clearance for
virtually all of her period of employment and has had her
clearance status periodically reinvestigated several times
without an issue.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for including in this en bloc
amendment, which I support, my amendment which I will address now.
Mr. Chairman, the greatest danger this country faces is that al Qaeda
or some other terrorist group will get nuclear weapons. The greatest
danger of that happening is that they will get weapons grade material
from the former Soviet Union, which has enough weapons grade plutonium
and uranium to manufacture 40,000 nuclear weapons lying around, not
guarded properly and subject to theft or sale on the black market.
What we ought to do is buy all this material from the Russians from
between 25 to $30 billion so we can take possession of it and protect
it from theft or sale.
My amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a study to
Congress examining the costs and benefits of purchasing all the ex-
Soviet Union's weapons grade plutonium and uranium in fiscal year 2005
and safeguarding it from smuggling or theft until it can be rendered
unusable for weapons.
I am glad that this study of doing what I regard as essential to
protect this country from the possibility of al Qaeda having a nuclear
weapon with which to attack us is included in this amendment and I,
therefore, support it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Porter).
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the chairman for
including my amendment. The Defense Department conducts studies on the
effects of perchlorate on human beings. Perchlorate, a major ingredient
in rocket fuel and other military ordnance, has been found in the water
of many western States, including my district in Nevada, as well as the
chairman's home State of California.
The EPA is currently in the process of determining a safe amount of
perchlorate in drinking water, but right now no one knows if even a
level of one part per billion is safe. What level of perchlorate is
found will have a major impact in the water districts, costing them
potentially billions of dollars in technology to meet the standards.
I must add there can be no substitute for clean drinking water for
children. And whatever level is found to be safe, Congress must help
our communities to meet this need. The major source of perchlorate
comes from current and former defense industrial sites, including in my
district. The Department of Defense is potentially liable for the cost
of perchlorate cleanup at some or all of these sites. Given that, and
the perchlorates primarily were made for DOD orders, it is only fair
that the Department contribute to the ongoing urgent research on the
possible health efforts of this chemical.
I rise today to thank Chairman Hunter for including my amendment
requiring the Defense Department to conduct studies on the effects of
perchlorate on human beings.
Perchlorate, a major ingredient in rocket fuel and other military
ordnance, has been found in the water of many Western States, including
my district of Nevada, as well as in the Chairman's home state of
California.
The Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of
determining the safe amount of perchlorate in drinking water, but right
now no one knows what, if any, level above 1 part per billion is safe.
What level of perchlorate is found safe will have a major impact on
water districts, costing them potentially billion of dollars in
technology to meet new standards.
I must add that there can be no substitute for clean drinking water
for children, and that whatever level is found to be safe, Congress
must provide the help our communities need to achieve this.
The major source of perchlorate comes from current and former defense
industrial sites, including my district.
The Department of Defense is potentially liable for the cost of
perchlorate cleanup at some or all of these sites. Given that, and that
perchlorates primarily were made for DoD orders, it is only fair that
the Department contribute to the ongoing, urgent research on the
possible health effects of this chemical.
The Senate Armed Services Committee has already passed, with a
bipartisan majority, identical language to my amendment. I thank the
Chairman for including this amendment and look forward to working with
him in the future.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make the same inquiry. How much time
do we have left?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
I wish to engage the distinguished gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter)
in colloquy to clarify his amendment which is included in the en bloc
amendment.
This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to reach an
agreement with another Federal entity naming the National Institutes of
Health and the Centers for Disease Control as preferred candidates to
conduct an independent epidemiological study of the effects of
perchlorate on humans. It is my understanding that this study would not
be done by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy; am I
correct?
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mrs. CAPPS. It is also my understanding that the gentleman's
intention in requiring this independent Federal study of perchlorate is
to add to the scientific database on this chemical. I understand that
your amendment is not intended to delay the setting of a drinking water
standard for perchlorate or to delay any cleanup at any site that may
have perchlorate contamination. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. PORTER. That is correct.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Porter) for this clarification.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield a challenging 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for such a generous
allocation of time. I just want to say this is probably the most
important amendment because I have his and the ranking member's
support. All it says is in the event of BRAC, if they close down a
base, the roads will stay open to the local folks, and that will be
very important to offset the impact of a base closure.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the
chairman for working with me and my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), to
include our amendment in the en bloc amendment.
Our partisan Sense of the Congress amendment calls on the Department
of Defense to have an institution devoted to studying peacekeeping
operations and preparing our troops for future peacekeeping missions.
We have constantly bore witness to the dramatic challenges facing our
troops right now in Afghanistan and in Iraq as they work to secure the
peace, from acting
[[Page H4590]]
as traffic cops to feeding hungry crowds.
Our amendment aims to ensure that these troops are prepared for peace
as much as they are ready for war.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Rogers), who has a presentation he wants to make.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an important story to
tell in a very brief time.
The person you will see here is named Hannan Shahib, a young girl, 15
years old, was injured, burned severely in coalition bombings. Because
of the heroic action of our military soldiers on the ground, she was
able to survive this, keep her arm due to their great work, and is now
at the University Hospital in Michigan receiving treatment.
We have been after the DOD for some time to help us facilitate more
of these injured Iraqi children. And I will tell you, when this gal got
up off the stretcher to walk to that airplane all on her own, all of
these soldiers in that tent, and I happened to be there that day, there
were cheers and tears and every one of those soldiers realized that
they were there as liberators and not conquerors.
But I tell you what, Mr. Chairman, when we went to the Department of
Defense, the bureaucrats down the road, the only tears were
frustration. We are getting calls now from different military medical
providers in Iraq asking for help. We cannot get any help out of the
bureaucrats down the road. For 3 days, Northwest Airlines, Immigration,
Department of State, private sector came together to make this happen.
It took 3 weeks, 3 weeks for the Department of Defense to even make a
decision to let her ride on an airplane to Frankfurt, Germany. We have
lost a little girl we were working on this weekend. She was 7 years
old. If they had only made a decision, just given us a decision, she
might be alive today, in the good care of an American hospital today.
Two hundred people of Hannan's family showed up that day to whisk her
off and wish her well. They were crying and cheering and praising the
United States of America. We need to do this.
We need to do this. We can do this. We need to show the Iraqi people
that our muscles are big, but our hearts and our compassion are bigger.
The soldiers on the ground are doing heroic work every day; and they
are asking us, Members of Congress, to help them out. We need to nudge
the folks down there in the ivory tower, tell them to not worry about
the wax that is on the floor; but tell them to start worrying about the
soldiers in the dust making these kinds of things happen. They are
identifying these children. We can help them, but we need DOD to help.
We need to get them out of Baghdad to a commercial airport so we can
get them here. All the rest is paid for.
The American people have stood up and said, We are going to help
these kids. We have two burn centers around the country standing by
ready to go, free of charge to the Federal Government because they feel
so strongly that this is important and we need to have it happen. We
have talked to as many people as we possibly could, Mr. Chairman, over
there at the Department of Defense, and we have asked for help.
As I stand here today, this has been 2 weeks since she has been here;
and by the way, those doctors were able to save her arm. Had she been
there one more day, she would have lost her arm. Her mother told me
just the other day this last weekend that when she calls home there are
other folks who are there getting ready to lose their limbs. This is
only due to a lack of decision on behalf of the Department of Defense.
The military folks on the ground are doing the right thing. They are
standing up. They are showing compassion. They are reaching out. We
need to do this, Mr. Chairman. We need an answer from DOD. We need them
to stand up and do the right thing and stand up for these soldiers in
the field who are doing miraculous things.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left under the
striking request?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have under my regular
time?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member.
The amendment I am offering today is straightforward and
noncontroversial. It would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
transfer a small parcel of land to the city of Bremerton, Washington,
my hometown in my district.
The property in question sits on the eastern end of the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard and has been determined to be surplused on the Navy's
immediate and future needs. It has been used in the past several years
largely as a laydown area for steel. The shipyard has found ways to
reduce its inventory of steel and transferred the storage of this
material closer to the machine shop where it is used.
{time} 1730
The property is not well positioned for any other shipyard function,
and the installation would prefer not to pay for the upkeep of the
property in an empty condition.
The City of Bremerton has proposed to use the property for a Maritime
Park and Naval Museum, functions that are consistent with the security
needs of the Navy industry and which enhance the mission of the
shipyard. The shipyard is also acquiring other property in the City for
security purposes. The conveyance of this unneeded property will keep
the shipyard footprint from growing substantially and avoid increasing
the maintenance costs of the installation to the Navy.
The amendment includes provisions for the city to compensate the Navy
through renovations to Navy property acceptable to both sides. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment is good for the Navy and good for the
taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support it and to support the en bloc
amendments.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the rule did not make in order an amendment
that I sought with respect to cooperative threat reduction, but it does
make in order an amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I am here to offer my support for
his amendment, which is included in the en bloc amendment.
This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier this year
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Nuclear Security Initiative
Act, which I was proud to cosponsor. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania
said, this bill was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to
that. In fact, parts of it come from provisions I introduced in prior
years.
I commend the chairman of our committee for allowing this to be made
in order, including it in the en bloc. I think it is a positive
addition to the bill, and I encourage support for the en bloc
amendment.
The rules governing debate on this defense bill did not make in order
an amendment I offered with Rep. Schiff that would have restored the
President's request on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs by
striking several provisions in the committee bill. Like the
Administration, I believe these committee-added provisions will
hamstring the program unnecessarily.
I was disappointed not to have the chance to debate the amendment,
and I plan to work to strike those provisions in conference. And if I
may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter into the Record an excerpt from
today's Statement of Administration Policy on the committee bill.
The rule did, however, make in order an amendment offered by my
friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon, and I am here to offer my
support. This amendment is drawn from legislation introduced earlier
this year by Rep. Weldon, the ``Nuclear Security Initiative Act,''
which I was proud to cosponsor. As Mr. Weldon likes to say, the bill
was in the works for a long time, and I can attest to that--in fact, it
includes some provisions I introduced in prior years with my colleague
Rep. Ellen Tauscher.
Like the bill, the Weldon amendment calls for enhanced cooperation
between the U.S.
[[Page H4591]]
and Russia to reduce the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction,
and establishes what should be useful tools for improved collaboration
toward that end.
It calls for some important studies, too, including an examination by
the National Academy of Sciences of the effect on CTR and other non-
proliferation programs of the myriad congressional oversight measures
that have been established over the past several years.
I must confess I have mixed feelings about reducing the President's
request for CTR, even by the modest amount contained in the Weldon
amendment, but as the funds are proposed to be shifted into the
Department of Energy's companion threat reduction program, I can
support it. And the amendment on balance, like the Weldon-Edwards-
McHugh-Spratt bill it is drawn from, should strengthen our threat
reduction and non-proliferation programs.
I urge support of the Weldon amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record the statement of
administration policy with respect to cooperative threat reduction.
From the Statement of Administration Policy issued May 22,
2003 Executive Office of the President Office of Management
and Budget Page 3:
``Nonproliferation and Cooperative Threat Reduction The
Administration appreciates full funding of the CTR budget
request, but is very concerned about requirements imposed by
the Committee that would hinder DOD's and DOE's ability to
implement more rigorously and effectively Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) and Nuclear Nonproliferation activities.
Furthermore, H.R. 1588 would limit the President's
flexibility to apply CTR resources to the most pressing
nonproliferation challenges in support of the Global War on
Terrorism and would not clarify that DOE has the authority to
carry out such activities outside states of the former Soviet
Union.''
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I also thank the chairman of the committee for all his
help with the provisions in this bill on strengthening the industrial
base.
I also wanted to quickly comment on the Tierney amendments, which is
included in here, which will allow us to find out why the contractors
are leaving the United States. The average taxpayer pays $1,000 a year
that goes to building up our own industrial base, and I think the least
we can do is make sure that those jobs are employed here in the United
States.
I want to thank the chairman for all his work and also thank the
ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for yielding to me, as well
as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the staff for their
hard work.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that is part of the en bloc
amendment that I wish to speak on at this time. Mr. Chairman, this
challenge that I give is one that I hope will be not only instructive
but it will open the doors of opportunity, and that is, of course, to
small, minority and women-owned businesses. My amendment directs the
Secretary of the Department of Defense to commission a study on the
feasibility of using small, minority-owned businesses and women-owned
businesses in the United States' efforts to build and rebuild Iraq.
This is an operation that will cost billions of dollars. Obviously,
as we look toward the future of peacekeeping, America asks the question
of when, why and how, and would it not be better to ensure that the
backbone of America's economy, small businesses, medium-sized
businesses, minority businesses, and women-owned businesses are part of
the rebuilding of Iraq?
It is well-known that the culture of many of our nations in the Arab
community are interested or have been used to dealing with smaller and
more localized businesses. The business-to-business contact providing
the opportunities to contract on behalf of the United States and to do
the work in Iraq would be miraculous and outstanding. In looking at the
work that has been distributed by the Department of Defense in 2001,
the most recent statistics, we see that only $300 million is going to
what we call hub zone businesses. I believe this amendment is going to
be instructive and constructive.
Mr. Chairman, this is a study, but I hope that we can work through
conference to be able to work harder on language that would really
outreach to our small businesses, and I appreciate the gentleman's
assistance as we move toward conference.
Mr. SKELTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentlewoman; and she can be assured that we will work very hard to keep
the provisions in the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, as I indicated, this focuses on small businesses,
giving the opportunity to develop relationships and help rebuild Iraq.
I hope we can strengthen it in conference and work with the chairman as
we do so.
Mr. Chairman, I propose an Amendment to H.R. 1588, the ``National
Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2004.''
Under my amendment, ``The Secretary of Defense shall commission a
study of the feasibility of using small businesses, minority-owned
businesses, and women-owned businesses in the United States' efforts to
rebuild Iraq. The study shall include the development of outreach
procedures to provide, to small businesses, minority-owned businesses,
and women-owned businesses, information on participating in rebuilding
Iraq.''
The purpose of this amendment is to direct the Secretary of the
Department of Defense to commission a study of the feasibility of using
small, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses in the
United States' efforts to rebuild Iraq. The study will develop outreach
procedures to provide information on participating in rebuilding Iraq
to minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses.
During the course of cooperative discussions with the leadership of
the House of Representatives' Armed Services Committee, it was agreed
that the language of my amendment would better serve the needs of the
small, minority, and women-owned business community if there were
revisions.
My revised amendment would read, ``The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that outreach procedures are in place to provide information to
small businesses, minority-owned businesses, and women-owned businesses
regarding Department of Defense requirements and contract opportunities
for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Both the Majority and Minority Party leadership agreed to work in
conference to include the revised language in the final passage of the
bill. This is a better formulation of the language of the amendment,
and it protects small, minority, and women-owned businesses from
unnecessary delay. In fact, the Leadership of the Armed Services
Committee agreed to work ``robustly'' in conference, and with me to
ensure that this amendment language is in the final version of H.R.
1588, and also to ensure that small, minority, and women-owned business
participate fully in rebuilding Iraq.
The process of rebuilding Iraq is a monumental task that should
include the participation of more than just the large, international
corporations. Small, minority, and women-owned businesses are the
backbone of our economy. Small businesses employ more members of the
workforce than larger businesses. For example, according to 2000 Census
statistics published by the Small Business Administration, 114,064,976
employees worked at various businesses. Of that number, 81.95 percent
of the employees worked at firms with between 20 and 100 employees.
This is the majority of the American workforce. These hardworking men
and women possess the expertise and experience to contribute to our
efforts to rebuild Iraq. Furthermore, by promoting the participation of
America's small, minority, and women-owned businesses in the rebuilding
of Iraq, we bolster our work force, alleviate the strains of
unemployment, and strengthen our economy.
The Department of Defense has not allocated a substantial percentage
of their contracts to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. In
2001, the Department of Defense awarded $135.8 billion in prime
contracts. Only $7.8 billion went to small disadvantaged businesses,
and only $3.0 billion went to women-owned small businesses. In
subcontracts, the Department of Defense awarded a total of $60.5
billion. Of that sum, only $3.0 billion went to small disadvantaged
businesses, and $2.5 went to women-owned small businesses.
I also recommend that the Department of Defense hold regional
meetings around the country to inform small, minority, and women-
[[Page H4592]]
owned businesses of the Department of Defense's contracting
opportunities. It is imperative that these meetings be held in
localities where the small businesses can easily attend. Holding the
meetings in Washington, DC does not provide small, minority, and women-
owned businesses with sufficient opportunity to attend. Holding
regional meetings will ensure that all contracting companies have the
opportunity to participate.
The Department of Defense must also establish procedures to monitor
the progress and implementation of their contracts. The monitoring
should be conducted on two fronts. First, the Department of Defense
should monitor all of the prime and subcontractors that receive
funding. Second, the prime contractors should also closely monitor the
disbursement of funds to, and progress of, the small, minority, and
women-owned businesses to ensure the funds are allocated to businesses
owned, not simply staffed, by minorities and women.
It is also critical that the Department of Defense establish a system
of accountability. It is not enough for prime contractors to agree to
subcontract a portion of their award. There must be a follow-up
mechanism, and a sanctioning mechanism. For example, if a prime
contractor is awarded a Department of Defense contract based upon an
agreement to subcontract 50 percent of the contract to minority, there
should be penalties if the prime contractor fails to do so.
The Department of Defense can use the model established by USAID.
USAID procures prime and subcontracts for the rebuilding of Iraq, but
also make substantial use of small, minority, and women-owned
businesses. USAID is responsible for the purchase of over $2.5 billion
of goods and services annually in support of U.S. foreign policy
initiatives. As of May 12, 2003, USAID has provided $90.9 million for
the reconstruction of Iraq. USAID allocated $34.6 million was awarded
to Bechtel to build infrastructure, $10 million to ABT Associates for
health, $10 million to World Health organization for health, $9 million
to UNICEF for health and education, $7.9 million to Research Triangle
Institute for local governance, $7.1 million to International Resources
Group for personnel support, $4.8 million to Stevedoring Services of
America for port management and administration, $4 million to the Air
Force Contract Augmentation Program for theater logistical support,
$2.5 million to SkyLink Air and Logistic Support for airport management
and administration, $1 million to Creative Associates for education.
On May 21, 2003 at the Ronald Reagan Building here in Washington, DC
Bechtel National, Inc. hosted a contractor-supplier conference to
inform the contractors of its role in USAID's Iraq Infrastructure
Reconstruction Program. The conference included an overview of
Bechtel's role in rebuilding Iraq, and the status of Bechtel's support
of USAID's humanitarian assistance efforts. Bechtel also discussed
maximizing Iraqi resources, presentations about tendering and
subcontracting processes and requirements including insurance
requirements, performance securities, collecting expressions of
interest, determining bid lists for specific programs and job orders,
tendering and tender evaluations.
USAID's policies require a majority of these funds to be
subcontracted. It is important that small, minority, and women-owned
have full access to the subcontracted funds available, and also have an
equal opportunity to compete for the prime contracts.
For example, in Houston, there are dozens of minority-owned
businesses with expertise in all aspects of the oil industry. The
minority-owned businesses can provide a range of oil-related services
from refining, processing, storage, and transportation.
This amendment's purpose is only to commission a study of feasibility
of using small, minority, and women-owned businesses and to develop
efficient outreach procedures to maximize inclusion of these
businesses. Small, minority, and women-owned businesses are a valuable
resource that should be fully utilized in the Iraq rebuilding efforts.
This amendment to H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense Reauthorization
bill is an important step in that direction. I urge the Chamber to
accept my amendment to H.R. 1588.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the gentlewoman that we
will work to see to it that small businesses participate robustly in
rebuilding Iraq.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentleman for
their help and would conclude by asking my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me urge the
passage of the en bloc amendments and thank the chairman so very much
for his courtesy in working with this side of the aisle and making all
of these happen. I think it is an excellent series of amendments.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to
reciprocate to my partner, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and thank him for
his great work on this bill, and I want to thank all the Members for
their great work on this en bloc package.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the rights of
women around the world, including those of servicewomen who are
stationed abroad. The Sanchez amendment is about restoring rights and
healthcare access to our servicewomen abroad, and not about the
ideological debate on abortion.
This Congress has professed tremendous leadership in advocating on
behalf of those who have selflessly chosen to serve in the military.
However, the health, safety, and rights of our servicewomen do not seem
to be a top priority. In no way should the healthcare options of any
serviceman or woman be compromised. Unfortunately, the system currently
in place makes servicewomen stationed abroad second-class citizens who
are subject to different and inferior healthcare parameters than their
male counterparts. In supporting our Armed Services we cannot allow the
very rights and liberties that they are fighting for to be compromised
by refusing to allow servicewomen to choose to have safe and timely
medical procedures at military hospitals.
It is unacceptable that a servicewomen would be forced to compromise
her privacy and wait for space on a military transport, in order to
obtain a time-sensitive procedure like an abortion. Our female soldiers
should be cared for in a safe and timely manner by a military hospital,
whose very purpose is to provide healthcare for serviceman and women.
Moreover, this amendment clearly states that these abortions would be
paid for by private funds, and that no doctor or staff would be forced
to participate in these procedures.
In defense of women's reproductive freedoms, and our servicewomen
stationed abroad, I support the Sanchez amendment and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the support of my
amendment that would assist in our efforts to ensure that militarily
useful United States flag commercial vessels crewed by American
citizens are available for this Nation's military and national security
needs under the Maritime Security Program.
The MSP program provides the Department of Defense with a large fleet
of U.S.-flag roll-on/roll-off, container and other militarily useful
vessels for the transport of military vehicles, supplies and other
materiel in support of U.S. military operations around the world. I
particularly commend Chairman Hunter for his strong support of the MSP
program, and for his leadership by including provisions in the pending
Defense Authorization bill that would extend, expand and significantly
improve that vital military program.
Chairman Hunter's work will preserve the ability of the United States
through the MSP program to maintain a fleet of active, militarily
useful, privately owned United States-flag vessels to meet national
defense and other security requirements and to maintain a United States
presence in international commercial shipping.
In order to encourage the participation of the most modern vessels in
the MSP program, my amendment would allow existing vessels to be
documented under United States flag provided that the
telecommunications and other electronic equipment of such vessels meets
internationally accepted standards.
When the MSP program was originally enacted in the mid-1990's,
Congress provided that vessels which meet internationally accepted
construction and equipment standards and are reflagged under United
States flag for operation in the MSP program are not required to
retrofit material and equipment solely for the purpose of complying
with U.S. law and regulations, where such law or regulations establish
a standard exceeding the internationally accepted standard which
applied to the vessel before it was reflagged. However, that
legislation did not expressly address related telecommunications
standards within its provisions. Our amendment remedies that oversight.
Accordingly, my amendment would permit a vessel to be added to the
U.S.-flag commercial fleet for operation in the MSP program if its
telecommunications and other radio equipment aboard the vessels comply
with applicable international Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention
requirements. Our amendment removes unjustified impediments to the
documentation of militarily useful vessels under the United States
flag, and is in keeping with the elimination of financial and other
burdens that the Congress specifically sought to remove through the
establishment of the Marine Security Program.
I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank my other colleague
from Louisiana, Mr.
[[Page H4593]]
Tauzin, the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr.
Dingell, the Ranking Member of that Committee, for their cooperation
and support on this amendment. I also would like to express my
appreciation to Chairman Hunter and Chairman Dreier for working so
closely with us to clear this amendment. I urge the support of this
body for this amendment that is critical to the military and national
security of the United States.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
This amendment makes a number of unnecessary and potentially harmful
changes to Federal procurement law in the name of fighting terrorism.
Most troubling is the authority it grants to all agencies--not just the
Department of Defense--to use special simplified procurement procedures
designed for commercial items for any good or service, regardless of
cost. This means that full and open competition will not be used when
purchasing these items. It also means that the government will not have
access to important safeguards designed to protect taxpayer dollars on
sole-source contracts below $15 million.
We all want to fight the war on terrorism as effectively as possible,
but the case simply has not been made that we need this bill. What
agencies are having problems getting material or services to fight the
war on terrorism? What exactly is it that they have been enable to get?
I haven't heard that agencies are having any problems. The
administration has not asked for these ``flexibilities.'' Maybe that is
because existing law already has a great deal of flexibility. Waivers
from almost all acquisition procedures are available to agencies for a
number of reasons. Those include waivers for national security reasons,
if there is an ``unusual and compelling urgency,'' and even if it is
determined that it is ``in the public interest.'' All of these would
seem to apply to fighting the war on terrorism.
Under current law, when the government buys a good or service from a
company, the government is entitled to receive cost and pricing data if
that company is the only one that can provide the product to the
government and if the value of the contract is over $550,000. The laws
that require this information are the Truth in Negotiations Act. The
Cost Accounting Standards are also a critical oversight tool. Congress
wrote those laws to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and they are
critical safeguards needed to protect taxpayer dollars in the Federal
procurement process.
The amendment allows any agency--not just the Defense Department--to
enter into sole-source contracts worth up to $15 million without
requiring the contractor to provide accurate cost and pricing data to
ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth. I think that is
foolish and irresponsible, and I urge members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc
amendment. This amendment contains many important provisions, most
notably language regarding the Tacony Warehouse.
In September of 2001, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission
released a long-term plan to redevelop and revitalize the North
Delaware Riverfront located in Philadelphia. The plan is to transform
the area from a corridor of abandoned industry and shipping to one of
recreation and leisure, business and residential living.
A key component of this plan is the demolition of the Tacony
Warehouse, an abandoned 1988 BRAC site that is under the administrative
responsibility of the United States Army. Congress included $5 million
in the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill to
demolish this building, yet the United States Army has taken no action
to destroy the property.
My amendment expresses the Sense of the Congress that the Secretary
of the Army should take swift action to finally demolish the Tacony
Warehouse. It is imperative that the Tacony Warehouse be destroyed in
order for the City of Philadelphia and the Tacony Community Development
Corporation to move forward with their efforts to revitalize Northeast
Philadelphia.
I wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their
support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important first step in ensuring
that the Army moves forward in demolishing the Tacony Warehouse, as
previously required by Congress. I look forward to working with
Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha in securing the necessary
Federal commitments so that their instructions to the Army in fiscal
year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill are realized.
Revitalizing our nation's riverfronts will leave our cities
economically stronger and more sustainable. I ask my colleagues to
support this important amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter).
The amendments en block were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 4 printed in House Report 108-122.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4 made
in order under the rule.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
At the end of subtitle A of title XI (page 349, after line
10), insert the following new section (and redesignate
subsequent sections accordingly):
SEC. 1111. HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part III of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 53 the
following:
``CHAPTER 54--HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE FUND
``Sec.
``5401. Purpose.
``5402. Definitions.
``5403. Human Capital Performance Fund.
``5404. Human capital performance payments.
``5405. Regulations.
``5406. Agency plan.
``5407. Nature of payment.
``5408. Appropriations.
``Sec. 5401. Purpose
``The purpose of this chapter is to promote, through the
creation of a Human Capital Performance Fund, greater
performance in the Federal Government. Monies from the Fund
will be used to reward agencies' highest performing and most
valuable employees. This Fund will offer Federal managers a
new tool to recognize employee performance that is critical
to the achievement of agency missions.
``Sec. 5402. Definitions
``For the purpose of this chapter--
``(1) `agency' means an Executive agency under section 105,
but does not include the General Accounting Office;
``(2) `employee' includes--
``(A) an individual paid under a statutory pay system
defined in section 5302(1);
``(B) a prevailing rate employee, as defined in section
5342(a)(2); and
``(C) a category of employees included by the Office of
Personnel Management following the review of an agency plan
under section 5403(b)(1);
but does not include--
``(i) an individual paid at an annual rate of basic pay for
a level of the Executive Schedule, under subchapter II of
chapter 53, or at a rate provided for one of those levels
under another provision of law;
``(ii) a member of the Senior Executive Service paid under
subchapter VIII of chapter 53, or an equivalent system;
``(iii) an administrative law judge paid under section
5372;
``(iv) a contract appeals board member paid under section
5372a;
``(v) an administrative appeals judge paid under section
5372b; and
``(vi) an individual in a position which is excepted from
the competitive service because of its confidential, policy-
determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character;
and
``(3) `Office' means the Office of Personnel Management.
``Sec. 5403. Human Capital Performance Fund
``(a) There is hereby established the Human Capital
Performance Fund, to be administered by the Office for the
purpose of this chapter.
``(b)(1)(A) An agency shall submit a plan as described in
section 5406 to be eligible for consideration by the Office
for an allocation under this section. An allocation shall be
made only upon approval by the Office of an agency's plan.
``(B)(i) After the reduction for training required under
section 5408, ninety percent of the remaining amount
appropriated to the Fund may be allocated by the Office to
the agencies. Of the amount to be allocated, an agency's pro
rata distribution may not exceed its pro rata share of
Executive branch payroll.
``(ii) If the Office does not allocate an agency's full pro
rata share, the undistributed amount remaining from that
share will become available for distribution to other
agencies, as provided in subparagraph (C).
``(C)(i) After the reduction for training under section
5408, ten percent of the remaining amount appropriated to the
Fund, as well as the amount of the pro rata share not
distributed because of an agency's failure to submit a
satisfactory plan, shall be allocated among agencies with
exceptionally high-quality plans.
``(ii) An agency with an exceptionally high-quality plan is
eligible to receive an additional distribution in addition to
its full pro rata distribution.
``(2) Each agency is required to provide to the Office such
payroll information as the Office specifies necessary to
determine the Executive branch payroll.
``Sec. 5404. Human capital performance payments
``(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Office may authorize an
[[Page H4594]]
agency to provide human capital performance payments to
individual employees based on exceptional performance
contributing to the achievement of the agency mission.
``(2) The number of employees in an agency receiving
payments from the Fund, in any year, shall not be more than
the number equal to 15 percent of the agency's average total
civilian full- and part-time permanent employment for the
previous fiscal year.
``(b)(1) A human capital performance payment provided to an
individual employee from the Fund, in any year, shall not
exceed 10 percent of the employee's rate of basic pay.
``(2) The aggregate of an employee's rate of basic pay,
adjusted by any locality-based comparability payments, and
human capital performance pay, as defined by regulation, may
not exceed the rate of basic pay for Executive Level IV in
any year.
``(3) Any human capital performance payment provided to an
employee from the Fund is in addition to any annual pay
adjustment (under section 5303 or any similar provision of
law) and any locality-based comparability payment that may
apply.
``(c) No monies from the Human Capital Performance Fund may
be used to pay for a new position, for other performance-
related payments, or for recruitment or retention incentives
paid under sections 5753 and 5754.
``(d)(1) An agency may finance initial human capital
performance payments using monies from the Human Capital
Performance Fund, as available.
``(2) In subsequent years, continuation of previously
awarded human capital performance payments shall be financed
from other agency funds available for salaries and expenses.
``Sec. 5405. Regulations
``The Office shall issue such regulations as it determines
to be necessary for the administration of this chapter,
including the administration of the Fund. The Office's
regulations shall include criteria governing--
``(1) an agency plan under section 5406;
``(2) the allocation of monies from the Fund to agencies;
``(3) the nature, extent, duration, and adjustment of, and
approval processes for, payments to individual employees
under this chapter;
``(4) the relationship to this chapter of agency
performance management systems;
``(5) training of supervisors, managers, and other
individuals involved in the process of making performance
distinctions; and
``(6) the circumstances under which funds may be allocated
by the Office to an agency in amounts below or in excess of
the agency's pro rata share.
``Sec. 5406. Agency plan
``(a) To be eligible for consideration by the Office for an
allocation under this section, an agency shall--
``(1) develop a plan that incorporates the following
elements:
``(A) adherence to merit principles set forth in section
2301;
``(B) a fair, credible, and transparent employee
performance appraisal system;
``(C) a link between the pay-for-performance system, the
employee performance appraisal system, and the agency's
strategic plan;
``(D) a means for ensuring employee involvement in the
design and implementation of the system;
``(E) adequate training and retraining for supervisors,
managers, and employees in the implementation and operation
of the pay-for-performance system;
``(F) a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback
and dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees
throughout the appraisal period, and setting timetables for
review;
``(G) effective safeguards to ensure that the management of
the system is fair and equitable and based on employee
performance; and
``(H) a means for ensuring that adequate agency resources
are allocated for the design, implementation, and
administration of the pay-for-performance system;
``(2) upon approval, receive an allocation of funding from
the Office;
``(3) make payments to individual employees in accordance
with the agency's approved plan; and
``(4) provide such information to the Office regarding
payments made and use of funds received under this section as
the Office may specify.
``(b) The Office, in consultation with the Chief Human
Capital Officers Council, shall review and approve an
agency's plan before the agency is eligible to receive an
allocation of funding from the Office.
``(c) The Chief Human Capital Officers Council shall
include in its annual report to Congress under section
1303(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 an evaluation of
the formulation and implementation of agency performance
management systems.
``Sec. 5407. Nature of payment
``Any payment to an employee under this section shall be
part of the employee's basic pay for the purposes of
subchapter III of chapter 83, and chapters 84 and 87, and for
such other purposes (other than chapter 75) as the Office
shall determine by regulation.
``Sec. 5408. Appropriations
``There is authorized to be appropriated $500,000,000 for
fiscal year 2004, and, for each subsequent fiscal year, such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this
chapter. In the first year of implementation, up to 10
percent of the amount appropriated to the Fund shall be
available to participating agencies to train supervisors,
managers, and other individuals involved in the appraisal
process on using performance management systems to make
meaningful distinctions in employee performance and on the
use of the Fund.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part III
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to chapter 53 the following:
``54. Human Capital Performance Fund....................... 5401''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and I rise to offer an amendment to authorize the
establishment of a Human Capital Performance Fund, a fund that would
enable agencies to reward their highest-performing and most valuable
employees at various and sundry GS levels. This is a common-sense idea
that the current civil service laws prohibit.
In his fiscal year 2004 budget submission to the Congress, the
President proposed the creation of a Human Capital Performance Fund
that would provide for a base pay increase of up to 10 percent to
individual employees based on exceptional employees' contribution to an
agency's mission. H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security
Personnel Improvement Act, which the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter) and I introduced last month, included this language that I am
offering here today. In addition, the Human Capital Performance Fund
was approved by the Committee on Government Reform during its
consideration of this legislation.
The incentive payments paid to employees from this performance fund
would be, number one, in addition to an employee's current salary and
general schedule grade; second, continuing rather than just a one-time
bonus; and, third, part of a base pay for purposes of retirement and
other benefits.
This amendment would authorize $500 million for the fund for fiscal
year 2004, in which 90 percent would be available to the agencies. The
other 10 percent would be used to train Federal managers on how to
effectively manage and evaluate employee performance.
To qualify for funds from this fund agencies must submit a plan
demonstrating its performance management system supports its strategic
goals and performance objectives and is able to make a meaningful
distinction in individual performance.
In addition, the Committee on Government Reform included additional
requirements that agencies must certify that their agency plans contain
certain elements that are essential to a good performance management
system, such as adherence to merit principles, transparency, employee
feedback, and sufficient training.
The statement of administration policy strongly endorses the
authorization of the performance fund. I believe it will go a long way
toward moving the government-wide human capital management agenda
forward. I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is ironic, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment is made in order. It
applies across the board to civil servants, but this is a DOD bill, and
what the Republican leadership would not allow to be in order is a
debate about the dramatic radical changes on civil service and
procurement issues.
First, with regard to the amendment before us, I have concerns about
this Human Capital Performance Fund because I am concerned that the
fund will be used as a ruse to slash annual pay raises for Federal
employees.
Mr. Chairman, three of my colleagues, though, were denied the
opportunity to come to the floor and offer a proposal, which was such a
common-sense approach, for restoring the fundamental rights of DOD
employees
[[Page H4595]]
without in any way hindering the Department's ability to perform its
mission.
The Cooper-Danny Davis-Van Hollen amendment would have protected due
process appeal and collective bargaining rights. The amendment would
have reaffirmed the importance of veterans' preferences and
nondiscrimination based on political affiliation. These are the same
fundamental rights enjoyed by other Federal employees and, indeed, by
employees all around the country. Yet the underlying bill takes those
rights away. They would not even allow the chance for these authors to
propose this.
Now, let me inform my colleagues that that Cooper-Van Hollen-Danny
Davis amendment will be the motion to recommit, so Members will still
have to vote on it. But the Republican leadership will not allow us to
debate the Cooper amendment on the floor because they cannot defend
their own bill. This is no way for the House to deal with one of the
most sweeping civil service changes in history.
What makes this process even more galling is that we are dealing with
the rights of 700,000 loyal and hard-working DOD employees. They are
the same employees who saw terrorists crash an airplane into their
headquarters at the Pentagon, and they are the same employees who made
enormous sacrifices to support the military efforts in Iraq.
We have our basic priorities all wrong. At the same time that the
House today is going to reward billionaires with unnecessary tax
breaks, the Republican majority is passing legislation to take away
health benefits from veterans and strip dedicated Defense Department
employees of their basic rights.
Of course, this is only the latest assault on Federal employees by
the Bush administration. Federal jobs have been given to private
contractors who are unsupervised and unable to do their job as
effectively or efficiently as it would be public employees, and
financial bonuses have been given to political appointees instead of
career employees. If we are truly concerned about a strong national
defense, we ought to open debate and make sure that we have a motivated
workforce.
I was also unable to offer an amendment requiring sole source
contracts over $1 million to be covered by laws intended to prevent
waste, fraud and abuse. Who is in favor of waste, fraud and abuse?
Well, we would have given the chance for Members to make sure that that
sort of thing would not happen.
The approach of the leadership on the Republican side is
unprecedented, and I want to use this time to protest it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) to further talk about what is happening in this DOD bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia if he is for the
budget provision in the Republican budget for 4.1 percent parity for
civil service employees?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, not only are we for it,
there is language in this underlying legislation that calls for pay
parity to the maximum extent practicable.
{time} 1745
Mr. HOYER. I understand the maximum extent practical. Is the
gentleman for the 4.1 percent parity for civil service employees?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Absolutely.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, when this proposal was originally
made, I said if it is a proposal in lieu of ensuring proper pay for
Federal employees, then I would oppose it, and I would oppose it
vigorously. I do not think the administration is yet for parity. They
did not offer parity. This Congress has repeatedly said they are for
parity. In fact, the President's pay advisory committee says that
civilians are further behind comparable private sector jobs than the
military. In light of that, certainly we must adopt the premise that
4.1 percent pay raise will be adopted; but I say to my friend that if
this is solely for the purposes of supplementation, then I think that
it is not objectionable. But my concern is that they fund this, but not
the pay raise.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Let me assure the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that this is in
addition to. This is supplemental to what would ordinarily be paid. The
underlying legislation speaks to that. This is a half billion in
additional compensation to Federal employees, and I want to put that on
the record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
allowing me to speak on this important amendment that will motivate
Federal workers to perform at their true potential.
In January, the National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by
Paul Volcker, issued a report stating the current civil service system
``makes few distinctions between hard-working high-achievers and
indifferent nonachievers.''
A recent OPM study found the current performance evaluation for the
Senior Executive Service ``is merely a rubber stamp and not a measure
of, nor an incentive to, performance.'' And a recent Center for Public
Service survey of Federal employees found the average estimate of the
number of poor performers in their midst was about 25 percent. These
results are typical of the conclusions reached by other studies
conducted to evaluate the status of the Federal civil service. The true
value of the individual Federal worker is lost beneath the layers of
rigidity in a decades-old architecture of pay and classification.
We must not underestimate the value of rewarding our hard-working
Federal employees. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis) which has the strong support of the President
represents a major step in the direction of adequately acknowledging
these contributions. I urge Members to support this amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the
opportunity to speak on this amendment.
Under the current civil service system, agencies are limited in the
extent to which they can reward employees for their performance, in the
way they can recognize excellent performance. In the current system,
employees at lower levels of their employment grade can receive quality
step increases limited to about 3 percent of their annual salary, and
they can only receive one a year regardless of how well they perform in
their job. The Human Capital Performance Fund would allow agencies to
reward their top-performing employees with a pay raise, a pay raise
that they deserve, that they have worked for and earned, but would
never receive under the current guidelines.
It is important to clarify, however, that the funds in the Human
Capital Performance Fund are in addition to across-the-board pay raises
and periodic within-grade step increases that Federal workers already
receive. This is not an attempt to gouge Federal employee pay raises,
and this is not an attempt to circumvent the existing system. It is an
attempt to integrate performance incentives into a civil service system
that was developed many decades ago. I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have some misgivings about this amendment, but the real point that
I want to make is that we should have had an opportunity to debate
radical, sweeping civil service changes for the DOD. It was wrong not
to have that chance to offer an amendment to do that.
In the motion to recommit, an employee bill of rights will be offered
which will protect veterans' preferences, protect against
discrimination based upon political opinion or affiliation, right to
overtime pay, due process rights, and appeal rights. I hope Members
will be willing to vote for that.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
[[Page H4596]]
I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for some of the
clarifications he brought forth. It is very clear that underlying pay
parity is something I feel strongly about. That needs to be in the
record.
In addition, this bonus builds for calculations for retirement,
something that current bonuses do not. Pay parity has been an issue not
just with this administration but with previous administrations, and we
have joined together in a bipartisan way to overturn those, and will be
fighting that battle again this year.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I think the gentleman is correct, it has been a bipartisan
problem. We have been together. I look forward to succeeding this year,
as we have in years past.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, hopefully this bonus pool
will reward hard-working Federal employees who exhibit great merit. I
urge adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 6 printed in House Report 108-122.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Dreier
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Dreier:
At the end of title X (page 333, after line 21), insert the
following new section:
SEC. ____. REPEAL OF MTOPS REQUIREMENT FOR COMPUTER EXPORT
CONTROLS.
(a) Repeal.--Effective 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, subtitle B of title XII and section
3157 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) are repealed.
(b) Consultation Required.--During the 120-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and before
implementing any new regulations relating to an export
administration system for high-performance computers, the
President shall consult with the following congressional
committees:
(1) The Select Committee on Homeland Security, the
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after implementing any
regulations described in subsection (b), the President shall
submit to Congress a report that--
(1) identifies the functions of the Secretary of Commerce,
Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of
State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and any other
relevant national security or intelligence agencies under the
export administration system embraced by those regulations;
and
(2) explains how the export administration system will
effectively advance the national security objectives of the
United States.
(d) New Regulations.--If the President finds that it is in
the national security interest of the United States, the
President may, after consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy,
Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Director of Central Intelligence, and other relevant national
security and intelligence agencies, issue regulations that
replace the current MTOPS-based method for controlling
computer exports, after considering other means of
controlling such exports, including controls that may
incorporate accepted and accurate measurements of computer
performance (including the performance of clustered
computers).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 247, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes
of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the
coauthor of the amendment, and that she may control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, we are making an attempt to move into the 21st century;
and quite frankly, we have found from the war on terrorism and the war
with Iraq that one of the most phenomenal developments has been the
technological advances that have been made in dealing with our national
security concerns.
One of the things that we found during that process is the fact that
we have a very outdated structure known as millions of theoretical
operations per second, MTOPs, which has not enhanced our ability to
move ahead technologically and has undermined our ability to compete
globally. We believe very strongly that it is important for us to have
in place a structure which would in fact allow us to deal with the
potential transfer of sensitive computer technology to our adversaries.
This amendment which I have offered along with the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren) will allow for the administration to have 120
days during which time they would come up with another method of
dealing with this, and they must do it in full consultation with the
relevant committees here in both Houses of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have a system today which makes a great
deal of sense. It says if we sell a supercomputer, and the President
has a right to define what a supercomputer is, he can raise the number
of millions of theoretical operations per second that define a
supercomputer, but once he makes that determination, then if someone
sells to what is known as a Tier III country, and that is a country
that we may have great problems with, and I will ask the staff to bring
down a poster that has those countries. I am talking about countries
like China, India, Djibouti, other countries like that; and if you sell
a supercomputer to those countries, you have to do something very
simple, you just give notice.
You just send a notice to the Department of Commerce; and under our
law that we worked out very studiously, the Department of Commerce
gives within 24 hours that notice to the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State, and they are able to scrub their list and say wait
a minute, have we got a bad guy who is an end user here? Have we got a
company that wants to kill Americans? Do we have somebody who is going
to aid terrorists?
If that is not the case and we come up with a benign end user, okay,
go ahead and sell it. All we have to do is give notice 10 days before
the transfer is made. And if the bureaucracy fails to act in 10 days,
the trade under our present law is authorized.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I have great respect
for him and he is a great friend and he is right on many defense
issues, is wrong on this one because this takes away the notice. We are
a Nation that now understands that fighting terrorism means knowing
things. It means intelligence. We are the country that is going to get
information off driver's licenses and visas and background checks
because we need information; and yet if this passes, there is no notice
requirement.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says some notice
requirement may be built in in the future; but when we strike title B,
it takes away the notice requirement.
The other thing that it takes away, it takes away what is known as
end-use verification. That means when we sell a supercomputer to
Communist China, and they say we are not using this for our nuclear
weapons development, we are going to use this for our weather
laboratories, that means we have a right to go over and check in that
weather laboratory and make sure that they have not transferred it over
to nuclear weapons development. The Dreier amendment strikes this, and
we no longer can check on how this equipment is being used.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and
I led the investigation into the transfer of technology to China, and
one of the
[[Page H4597]]
things that we found in our investigation was the great difficulty of
verifying what the end use in fact was.
We have to look at the possibility that they could use this to
upgrade their nuclear weapons capability. I think this is very serious
and dangerous. I do not think we should do this. I think to end all
export controls in 120 days is irresponsible, and that is what the
amendment will do.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment, and I think it is
important for Members to know that the administration supports the
amendment. We received a letter from Secretary Don Evans indicating
that the administration supports the amendment and also a letter from
Condoleezza Rice indicating that ``the President has long-supported the
repeal of this requirement.'' She and the President support this
amendment.
Clearly, President Bush would not support an amendment that would be
adverse to the national security interests of the United States, and
the truth is we are not repealing computer export controls. What we are
doing with this amendment is replacing the control system with
something that is flexible and that works better.
I have here in my hand a Sony PlayStation 2. It is a children's toy.
I bought one for my son for Christmas on ebay and a game, the Madden
game. This children's toy was controlled under the MTOP export control
standard at one time, and we could not change it fast enough so that
the toys could not be exported. That is a preposterous result. Of
course we have altered the MTOP since then, but the reason the
President wants this change is so the President and the administration
can move and protect this country in a flexible way, and the current
law does not allow that.
I hope that Members listen to Condoleezza Rice and listen to the
technology sector that knows about computers. Certainly this has great
economic value in this time when the tech sector is in the dumps, but
we would never support it if it was not also consistent with national
security, which clearly it is.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment. In 1993, a group of Congressmen wrote then-Secretary
of State Warren Christopher asking permission for an outfit called
Hughes-Loral to launch satellites in China allegedly for
telecommunications purposes.
{time} 1800
The result of that and the mistakes that followed were that the
Chinese now have the technology, paid for by the American taxpayer, to
put multiple warheads on one rocket and kick them into different
trajectories to land on different cities. That was the scandal that
came of that.
The pitch then was, nothing can go wrong. As a matter of fact, the
letter says: You will find that Hughes satellites are guarded around
the clock by U.S. Government and Hughes personnel during their time in
China and that the Chinese have no opportunity to touch or even view
the embedded MTCR control technology. Therefore, no technology transfer
is possible at any time. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) will tell you, they sure as
heck got that technology, paid for by the American taxpayer, that now
threatens the American taxpayer.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) signed that letter. How
many mistakes does the gentleman from California have to make? How much
more do we have to put the American people at risk so that one company
or two can make a couple of bucks, and then we as the taxpayers have to
go back and spend a fortune to undo the harm that has been done?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. That letter has nothing
to do with what we are looking at here today.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. It is the exact same argument.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. This is a subject
that we have discussed many times. There is no question about one thing
and that is that MTOPS is no longer a viable template to use as the
decision-driver to control exports of high-performance computers. We, I
think, all agree on that. We have economic and security concerns to
weigh when we talk export on these matters. They are very serious. They
affect a great many people in a great many ways. But we understand that
what we are dealing with is no longer viable. What we need and what the
administration is seeking, I am told, is new computer control
methodology that will deal with technology as it is today, in the world
as it is today that provides for our national security and provides for
economic opportunity. That is something we need to do.
The risk before us right now is repealing the old system without
having the new system fully in place. The Dreier amendment, I believe,
allows 4 months to put the new system in place, specific consultation
with the appropriate committees, those who are concerned about this on
all sides of it; and it comes with a pledge from the head of our
national security affairs, Condoleezza Rice, that indeed the
administration is about this and a pledge from the Secretary of
Commerce that says repeal of existing regulation on exports of high-
performance computers until appropriate regulations are in place will
not happen.
That ought to give us satisfaction. The question is, can the
administration get it done in 4 months? I believe so. Are we in the
process? I believe so. Should we stand pat under the old system that
does not work just because we are scared to go forward with the
technology in situations today? The answer is no. I believe the Dreier
amendment should be considered and supported.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Dreier amendment. I, too, signed that letter in 1993, and I have
regretted it ever since. Unlike the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier), who has not seemed to have learned his lessons on this, the
bottom line is this is exactly the same issue. I signed that letter in
1993 because I was promised that there would be no transfer of
technology for military use that could be in any way threatening to the
United States. And you know what happened? Yes, because the satellite
industry wanted to sell satellites to Communist China and the end
result was our missile technology was transferred to Communist China
and as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) said, we now have
MIRVs based on our technology, that technology, aimed at the United
States. This is a travesty. The same will happen if we do not put these
types of restrictions on supercomputers.
The bottom line is there is an obsession with open trade to Communist
China driving policy here. We need to put heavy restrictions on those
countries that could be potential enemies, like Communist China, while
opening up free trade with nonbelligerent countries that do not pose a
threat to us.
Vote ``no'' on the Dreier amendment. Keep us safe.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith), a leader in this effort.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I think the most telling thing
about this debate thus far is that those who oppose this amendment have
said virtually nothing about the amendment itself. We absolutely
completely agree that that system on the gentleman from California's
chart should stay in place. We should have checks on end use. We should
have some standard for what to ship to countries that we do not want to
ship
[[Page H4598]]
it to. This amendment does not eliminate that. It merely recognizes the
fact that the existing standard does not work and actually places our
country in precisely the danger the opponents have described.
The MTOPS system is hopelessly out of date and keeping up with it is
virtually impossible. Just to give you one example, by trying to figure
out what a supercomputer is, you have this concept that you can simply
look at a computer and say, it's a supercomputer or it isn't. It is not
that easy. MTOPS is the way it is currently measured, but that does not
take into account that a computer that would be under the supercomputer
level can be elevated to the supercomputer level simply by adding
another processor which is about the size of my hand, or smaller, to
the computer.
The point here is that the MTOPS system does not work. The Dreier
amendment would change that and has nothing to do with the letter that
people signed back in 1993. We should absolutely keep standards in
place for what technology we export, particularly to countries that we
are concerned about. The standard we have now does not work, and it
does not protect us. It not only hurts business, as has been mentioned,
which, by the way, is also important to national security if we are to
maintain our leadership in technology in this country where it does us
the most good on national security; but this also does not even work to
protect national security because the standard is hopelessly out of
date. We are giving the President of the United States, who I think the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some confidence in on
national security issues, the power to change that system to one that
would work better. That is what we are doing.
At some point, the opponents of this amendment might talk about it. I
doubt it. They will talk about other issues. On the substance of the
Dreier amendment, it is a change that is going to protect our national
security, which is something we should all be in support of.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, the playtop system that the
gentlewoman from California held up and said this would be licensed,
that is not the case today. Today the case is 19,000 million
theoretical operations per second. That is about 2,000. Nobody is
asking for a report on that. We have taken care of that.
Secondly, the heart of this is the report. If you sell to one of
these controlled countries like China, you have to let the Secretary of
Defense know you did it. He only has 10 days to review it. If he does
not do anything, you make the sale. But the idea that we do not want to
bother ourselves with knowing what we are doing makes no sense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, there is a bit of acrimony here, and I
think we ought to reduce it. People have different views on this. I
regret that my good friend from Washington says that we are not wanting
to take up the question of the MTOPS and that that is an inadequate
measure. I have here before me the GAO report on ``Export Controls:
More Thorough Analysis Needed to Justify Changes in High Performance
Computer Controls,'' in which it states quite specifically that the
inadequacies of the report, that is to say, the President's report on
this issue is compounded by the continued use of the flawed measured
MTOPS. That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about whether or not this amendment would get done
what the advocates say it will do. It will not. What it does is say
give the President the opportunity to come up with a system. The reason
this should be defeated is that those who wish to have a different kind
of measure, those who wish to be able to sell these computers or its
components in some other form need to come up with the alternative
proposal and have it vetted through the Committee on Armed Services and
other relevant committees, and then we will take it up and vote on it.
This should be defeated because it is not ready to be passed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished chairman of
the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I thank the chairman, as well, for working with me on the
language of this amendment which I became concerned with first as
chairman of a different select committee on U.S. national security and
military commercial concerns with the People's Republic of China. As a
result of extensive expert testimony during hearings before that
committee, I became convinced that the MTOPS standard is not an
acceptable metric for the purposes that we are seeking to achieve with
our export control regime, and I support modernizing and updating the
approach that we are taking to high-end computer export controls. I
have suggested, and there is included in this amendment, a 120-day
period during which these regulations can be implemented by the Bush
administration, and I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) changing the text of the amendment so that the repeal of the
current regime is not immediately effective.
I am concerned that while we are repealing the provisions concerning
MTOPS, we are also repealing the notification requirements in the
statute. I would hope that as we go to conference we might correct what
I believe is an oversight in that respect because I believe that any
new regime of regulations would include such notification requirements
in all events. But I think it is important that we modernize our regime
in this respect, and I support the amendment. I will vote in support of
it.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.
(Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman mentioned at the beginning
of this session, the Committee on Armed Services set up a new
subcommittee which I have the honor of chairing. One of our
responsibilities on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats and Capabilities is to review matters just such as this one
that would have to do with the proliferation of weapons of a variety of
kinds and the materials that could be used to construct them. This very
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is just
such a subject that should be reviewed by this subcommittee. That is
what we are staffed for, and that is what we do; and here we are on the
floor considering this amendment without even having had the
opportunity to consider it by our subcommittee.
We are for international trade. We are for export of computer systems
to the right people. However, this is a wrongheaded, in my opinion, at
least at this point without having had a chance to study it before
today, amendment which goes, in my opinion, in the wrong direction as
has been stated by the developing coalition, including the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thought it was quite wonderful that the chairman of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence supported this amendment. I would like
to note for the record that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), has also announced her support for the
amendment. I think there is a reason for that. We have been trying to
resolve this for many, many years; and because of a variety of snags,
we were unable to do it, but we are paying an economic price. The
Silicon Valley unemployment rate today is 8.5 percent. We have lost
239,000 jobs since January of 2001, and we need to revitalize the
economy. This is one way to do it that is safe. It is supported by the
Bush administration, it is supported by Condoleezza Rice, it is
supported by the Department of Defense, it is supported by the GAO
study; and I think it is time to act.
I am delighted to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). It has overwhelming support
[[Page H4599]]
on both sides of the aisle as well as within the administration. I
think it is quite worthy of the support of Members on both sides. It
does not jeopardize our national security in any way. I hope that
Members will listen to the debate and vote ``aye.''
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. As
we have worked in structuring this rule, I want to congratulate the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for all of the effort he has put
into this great piece of legislation. I do not step forward to
challenge him on an issue lightly. This is a very serious matter. I
will take a back seat to no one when it comes to the national security
of the United States of America.
The gentleman from California and I came together with Ronald Reagan
in 1980, and I would not be supportive of any legislation which
repealed regulations to ensure that the transfer of sensitive
technology would go into the hands of our adversaries. I have great
confidence in Condoleezza Rice. I have great confidence in the
leadership of this President. And I believe that the correspondence
that we have had, having worked closely on fashioning this amendment
with the administration, having worked closely with the chairman of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, having worked closely with
the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and
Democrats on the other side of the aisle to ensure that we have this
opportunity to do it, guarantees that we will address our national
security concerns.
{time} 1815
Pass this amendment. Repeal this outdated moment. Please vote in
favor of the amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment guts a very important aspect of national
security, and that aspect is knowledge. The idea that we want to take
away notice when a supercomputer is sold to one of these third-tier
countries, and once again I would ask the floor staff to put up that
list of so-called third-tier countries, including Communist China and a
number of others which may at some point be our adversary, the idea
that we want to take away our notice so that we do not know if we are
transferring a supercomputer to the Osama bin Laden Construction
Corporation, we want to divest ourselves of that knowledge, that makes
no sense.
We have a system in place which is very practical. It is a 10-day
system. You simply tell, by notice, the Department of Commerce if you
are going to sell a supercomputer. The President decides what a
supercomputer consists of; and if you are going to sell a supercomputer
to China or Pakistan or Vietnam or Algeria, you give them a 10-day
notice. He sends a copy within 24 hours to the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of State. If nobody objects, you make the sale. If 10
days expires, you go ahead and transfer this supercomputer.
The other thing we have is in-use verification. We want to make sure
when a supercomputer goes to China it is being used by their weather
bureau, for example, not by their nuclear facilities. The only way one
can tell is by sending a team and saying is that supercomputer where
they said it would be? That is called in-use verification. The
gentleman from California's (Mr. Dreier) amendment strikes in-use
verification.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) joins me in opposing this
amendment very strongly. I would ask the Members to look at the handout
that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I put out together.
Please vote this amendment down and please retain notice.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by my colleagues Chairman Dreier and Representative Lofgren.
The amendment allows the Administration to reform the MTOP standard
to control computer exports, a standard implemented during the Cold War
to protect high-performance computers from falling into the hands of
rogue nations.
Why should this standard be reformed?
Quite simply, the MTOP standard has failed to keep pace with
technological innovation and has become a useless tool that serves no
other purpose other than to place American companies at a severe
competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors.
Personal computers available today perform at more than 25 times the
speed of the supercomputers built just a decade ago. Yet these same PCs
are treated like weapons under the MTOP standard.
Clearly, reform of our export system is necessary.
This amendment protects our national security while at the same time
allowing American high technology companies to compete on a level
playing field with their foreign competitors.
Importantly, it is not only the technology and computer industries
who are calling for this reform.
Both the Defense Department and the GAO agree that the MTOPS export
control system is ``ineffective'' and ``irrelevant''.
We must reform this standard and I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier-Lofgren
amendment, which would repeal the requirement to use MTOPS as the
metric for restricting exports of high-powered computers and authorize
the President to devise a new approach that is both more effective at
protecting national security and less injurious to U.S. commercial
interests.
When Congress imposed the MTOPS requirements as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act back in 1998, we made a terrible mistake by
mandating a metric that was poorly matched to the threat it was
designed to address. At the same time, we handicapped U.S. high tech
companies trying to break into the world's fastest growing markets--and
gave an artificial advantage to all the companies abroad who would like
to move the leading edge in high-powered computing to other nations.
The MTOPS metric has been ineffective at controlling the diffusion of
technology primarily because computing power has advanced at such a
furious pace over the past decade and a half. In 1991 when the MTOPS
metric was first devised, the fastest supercomputer in the world was
the Cray C90, which was the size of two refrigerators and cost about
$10 million. Do you realize that today a Dell Pentium 4 laptop
computer, which costs about $1,000, has more computing power than the
Cray C90?
What's more, ``clustering'' technology allows a foreign government
whose technological capabilities we are trying to limit to buy mass
market PCs off the shelves of Radio Shack or Wal-Mart and achieve the
same computing power by harnessing them together.
The most important point I want to make today is that this amendment
repealing the MTOPS mandate will not injure national security. To that
end, I want to cite just a few sources:
A May 2001 report by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) concluded that the MTOPS system is ``ineffective, given
the global diffusion of information technology and the rapid increases
in performance'' and ``irrelevant'' because it ``cannot accurately
measure performance of current microprocessors or alternative sources
of supercomputing like clustering.''
A February 2001 study by DOD's Office of Science and Technology
similarly concluded that ``MTOPS has lost its effectiveness * * * due
to rapid technology advances.''
President George W. Bush commented in March 2001 that ``With
computing power doubling every 18 months, these controls have the shelf
life of sliced bread. They don't work.''
Mr. Chairman, passing this amendment will give the President the
power to devise a better system to protect national security. Let's do
the right thing and approve the Dreier-Lofgren amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) assumed the Chair.
____________________