[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.

                          ____________________