[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 77 (Thursday, May 22, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4601-H4612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was absent from the House floor during
rollcall vote 208 through rollcall vote 219. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes numbered 208, 209, 210, 211,
212, 213, 214, 217, 218, and 219. I would have voted ``nay'' on
rollcall votes 215 and 216.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letter for the
Record.
Committee on Science,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.
Hon. Duncan Hunter,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that the Armed Services
Committee has requested that the Committee on Science waive
its right to a referral on several sections of H.R. 1588, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It
is also my understanding that the Parliamentarian's office
has confirmed that the Science Committee has jurisdiction
over several provisions in H.R. 1588.
To expedite the consideration of this bill by the House,
the Committee is willing to waive its right to a referral,
provided that the Science Committee's right to participate as
conferees on those provisions within its jurisdiction is also
protected. I would also appreciate if this exchange of
letters could be included in the record of debate on H.R.
1588 during floor consideration.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, providing national defense is one of
the federal government's most significant functions, and today it is
more important than ever. Our military superiority, as demonstrated
during the war in Iraq, is unmatched. In terms of numbers, the United
States spends more on defense than the next 25 nations combined.
Yet this $400 billion authorization, the largest defense allocation
in history, does not sufficiently address long term threats to our
national security. In fact, it takes us in the wrong direction by
exempting the Pentagon from its future environmental responsibilities
and not providing adequate resources to clean up the legacy of past
defense-related pollution.
With such an enormous authorization of resources, we must make sure
that the money is being spent wisely. Unfortunately, we have not
eliminated unnecessary, wasteful programs that do little to enhance the
security of the United States. Despite agreement on the need for deep
and lasting changes to military strategy, doctrine, and force
structure, the Pentagon's focus so far has been on acquiring new
capabilities rather than on re-evaluating current questionable
priorities and programs. While the Pentagon identified only $24.3
billion to fund ``transformation goals,'' roughly one third of that
amount is also budgeted for missile defense, a Reagan era program that
continues to suffer from technological difficulties and cost overruns.
This is misdirected funding taking away from other defense commitments
and ignores the fact that we are more at risk from terrorist with
trucks, suitcases and motorboats than missiles.
We are not meeting our commitments to ``hometown security.'' More of
this money should be directed to our struggling communities to address
the real security threats they are facing, as demonstrated by the
current code orange security status.
We are not meeting our commitments to our veterans. Our spending
priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable
retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their
deserved retirement pay and disability payments. The number one issue I
hear about from military retirees in my district is veterans' health
care funding, which has vast unmet needs.
We are not meeting our environmental commitments. We should not lay
the burden on our communities of cleaning up the Department of
Defense's toxic legacy. In particular, we should fund remedies to the
problem of unexploded ordnance. There are some 2,000 former military
properties in every state and nearly every congressional district where
these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime example of the need for the
federal government to be a better partner and clean up after itself.
In addition to the unwise and wasteful expenditures in this bill, it
also authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important
environmental protections essential to the health of Americans and the
health of our land and water. The bill would weaken one of the key
provisions of the Endangered Species Act involving critical habitat
protection. It would also weaken the definition of ``harassment'' in
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Unfortunately these laws apply to all
ocean users, not just the Department of Defense. If we exempt the
largest landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how
can we expect anyone else to follow our laws?
Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the Bush
administration and Republican leadership are taking on an easier
target: endangered species. Using national defense as cover, the
Republicans propose to make changes to environmental laws in ways that
have nothing to do with defense readiness, suggesting that was not
their goal in the first place. The provision in this bill are too broad
to protect the environment, yet too narrow to deal with the wide range
of problems that hinder military readiness, like encroachment and
sprawl.
This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms
and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways.
There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect
America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are
too many items authorized that threaten Americans' health and safety or
waste tax dollars with no tangible benefit. We must do better in
shaping our Nation's defense policy and honoring our existing
commitments to veterans, the environment, and our community.
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the FY 04 Defense
Authorization bill.
Since September 11, 2001, our nation has faced the threat of
international terrorism.
[[Page H4602]]
Every Member of Congress has taken seriously one of our most important
responsibilities; protecting the lives and property of all Americans. I
have supposed many of President's Bush's initiatives to address the
threat posed by Al Qaida and international terrorism when I believed
they would enhance our country's security. I have opposed proposals
when I believed they would not.
The test of any defense related legislation is: Does it make our
country safer? This bill fails that test. In fact, in some ways, this
bill will decrease our security.
First, this bill encourages nuclear proliferation. This bill will
eliminate the prohibition on the research, development and deployment
of low-yield nuclear weapons, even as the United States works to stop
proliferation of nuclear weapons elsewhere. The list of countries with
nuclear weapons keeps growing: the United States, Russia, Great
Britain, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Now North Korea
has them. Who's next? The United States committed to work toward
disarmament when the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into
effect in 1972. We should be taking bold steps toward ending the threat
of nuclear holocaust once and for all, not creating new ones.
The United States must show leadership by refraining from the use of
nuclear weapons. Developing new ones sends exactly the opposite
message. By continuing the development of new nuclear weapons at the
same time we are trying to convince other nations to abstain from such
weapons, we undermine our credibility to fight proliferation. Now is
not the time to send an ambiguous non-proliferation message to those
nations who would try to join the nuclear club.
These ``tactical'' nuclear weapons are not needed for our defense.
Conventional ``bunker buster'' bombs have been used and additional
research is ongoing to improve their effectivess. A ``robust earth
penetrator'' would not be a targeted ``smart bomb,'' since fallout
would harm human beings in the area of the blast. One that successfully
penetrates deep enough to contain the fallout would need to have
sufficient explosive power to no longer be considered a ``mini'' or
tactical nuclear weapon. The only permanent solution to the nuclear
threat is to eliminate these weapons entirely through a global legal
commitment, backed by strong oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
Second, the overall spending level in this bill is excessive. This
will be the largest defense budget in the history of the United States.
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment has calculated that
it is 10 percent higher in real terms than the average military budget
during the Cold War. At $400.5 billion, this bill is $7.6 billion
higher than the current authorized level. It represents 51 percent of
Fiscal Year 2004 discretionary spending. The first Defense
Authorization bill passed after I was elected to Congress in 1998 was
the FY 2000 bill. That legislation authorized $291.0 billion.
Clearly we are the preeminent military power in the world. Our
military spending is 8 times as large as the next largest military--
Russia. No other nation, or collection of nations, is anywhere close to
being able to challenge American military power. Continuing to increase
our military spending beyond the rate of inflation and in a time of
budget deficits and a stagnant economy is not a wise use of taxpayer
dollars. We can be safe without spending more.
Before significantly increasing defense spending, we need to
eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse within the department. The
department's inspector general found that the department could not
account for more than $1 trillion in spending. Yes, $1 trillion. That's
two and half yearly defense budgets. A General Accounting Office report
found that the Army could not account for 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and
36 missile command launch-units. The GAO found that the department has
2,200 overlapping accounting systems which cost a total of $18 billion
per year. $18 billion, and apparently they don't even work. The GAO
estimates there is at least $20 billion in savings that could be found
in the defense budget.
Third, this bill continues funding for weapons systems that are
expensive and unnecessary. The bill would authorize $1.05 billion to
purchase 9 new MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and continue program
research and development. This aircraft has had continuing design
problems that have already cost us $15 billion, four crashes and the
lives of 23 Marines. We don't need these planes. We also do not need
the F-22 Raptor. Like the Osprey, it has continuing technical problems
and cost overruns. Each aircraft costs $260 million. We could save $3.5
billion if we did not purchase the proposed 22 this year.
The bill also makes it harder to close unneeded military bases. We
have and will continue to restructure our forces to meet our new
security needs. That process requires us to reduce our expenses by
closing excess bases. Keeping unnecessary bases open wastes valuable
defense dollars that could be used to enhance our security.
Perhaps the biggest boondoggle in the defense budget is the national
missile defense system. The bill calls for $9.1 billion to continue
research, development and initial deployment in Alaska. Each year we
put more and more resources into this unproven technology that does not
address the most likely threats from weapons of mass destruction. Is a
nuclear weapon likely to arrive on an intercontinental ballistic
missile? Homeland security experts don't believe so. They are worried
about our ports and our borders. The GAO found that ``an effective port
security environment may be many years away.'' The U.S. maritime system
consists of more than 300 sea and river ports with more than 3,700
cargo and passenger terminals. In excess of 6 million transport
containers enter our ports each year. With $9.1 billion we could secure
our ports, and have money left over to address other urgent homeland
security needs like funding for first responders, research on chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons detection, improving our border
security, and providing more resources for non-proliferation efforts
overseas. These should be our priorities.
Fourth, the bill includes many unwise, inappropriate and unnecessary
provisions. The bill would exempt the Department of Defense from
certain aspects of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered
Species Act. These laws already contain exemptions in cases where
national security is at stake. Both the General Accounting Office and
EPA Administrator Whitman have testified that environmental laws have
not affected military readiness. This provision will undermine our
environmental laws and threaten endangered species.
The bill gives the Secretary of Defense unprecedented ability to
bypass civil service personnel rules and establish new personnel
systems. Civil service rules were established to protect workers and
protect the public interest by ensuring that fair rules and
professionalism replace political favoritism and cronyism. The Bush
Administration submitted this sweeping and unprecedented request at the
last minute. We don't even know what kind of system the Secretary of
Defense intends to create. Any major change like this one requires
extensive hearings and in-depth analysis before Congress makes a
decision. We should not be railroaded into dismantling an effective,
honest civil service system. Furthermore, we should not give a blank
check to the Administration in designing this system.
Finally, I am concerned about the continued funding of counter-
narcotics military operations in Colombia. The involvement of our
military in Colombia's civil war is counterproductive and dangerous.
This bill allows counter-narcotics funding and equipment to be used by
the Colombian government to fight its civil war. This policy should
come to an end.
Mr. Chairman, we can keep our nation secure. Unfortunately, this
defense authorization bill does not do so. This defense budget wastes
money. If I believed that the increased expenditures were appropriately
focused on paying our brave servicemen and women what they deserve and
increasing their readiness, I would support it. But this defense budget
is targeted at the wrong threats. This defense budget sets the wrong
priorities.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is one of the most
important measures that the House will consider this year. It is
intended to set out our vision for the defense of our country in the
years ahead--both in terms of policy direction and spending priorities.
Unfortunately, the vision this bill puts forth is not one I can
endorse, and so I cannot vote for it.
We are over a year into our war on terrorism and fresh from military
action in Iraq. There is no doubt that we must continue to focus on
defending our homeland against terrorism, we must support our military
personnel, and we must give our military the training, equipment, and
weapons it needs to beat terrorism around the world.
That's why I'm in favor of provisions in the bill that support those
men and women who made our victory possible in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The bill provides an average 4.1 percent pay raise for service members,
boosts military special pay and extends bonuses, and fund programs to
improve living and working facilities on military installations. Those
are all good provisions that I support.
I'm also in favor of ensuring our defense capabilities are up to the
task of defending against 21st century threats. Secretary Rumsfeld
continues to try to refocus and reprioritize our defense programs along
21st century lines, but I'm not sure his vision has the support of some
of our colleagues here in the House, who seem content to address new
threats with Cold War-era technologies. Indeed, with the exception of
the Crusader artillery system, the Administration and Congress have
continued every major weapons system inherited from previous
administrations.
So my first objection to this bill is that although it brings overall
defense spending to
[[Page H4603]]
levels 13 percent higher than average Cold War levels, it doesn't
present a coherent vision of how to realign our defense priorities. We
need to make clear decisions about our defense spending, and this bill
doesn't begin to consider the choices that must be made.
I have other strong objections to the bill. It includes provisions
similar to those in H.R. 1935, a bill we considered in the Resources
Committee, to exempt the Department of Defense from compliance with the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). There is a broad-based support for existing environmental
laws--as there should be--and these laws already allow case-by-case
flexibility to protect national security. The Pentagon has never sought
to take advantage of this flexibility, so it strains belief that these
laws are undermining our national security. Indeed, the General
Accounting Office has found that training readiness remains high at
military installations notwithstanding our environmental laws.
Lacking any compelling data to conclusively demonstrate that military
readiness and training have suffered as a result of compliance with the
ESA and MMPA, I am not persuaded that the changes to these acts
proposed by the military are justified. If anything, the recently
completed Iraqi Freedom campaign verifies once again that our armed
forces remain the best trained, best equipped force on the planet. The
Administration has opportunistically selected the present circumstances
as a thin veneer behind which to move legislation to weaken key aspects
of the ESA and MMPA that it could not achieve otherwise. Such over-
reaching should not be rewarded, and the House should not have included
these provisions in the bill we are considering today.
I am also concerned about the bill's provisions to overhaul DOD's
personnel system. Last year, Congress authorized the largest government
reorganization over thirty years with the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, affecting 170,000 Federal employees. Following
extensive debate, the new DHS Secretary was given authority to
establish a flexible personnel system that at least attempted to
protect workers' rights. The provisions in this bill would create even
wider ranging exemptions for the Department of Defense, stripping
almost 700,000 civilian employees of fundamental rights relating to due
process, appeals, and collective bargaining.
The Administration only knows that it wants to gut the current
system, but it hasn't provided an alternative. This bill provides a
blank check for the Administration to undo many of our civil service
laws in an unprecedented unilateral approach to civil service reform.
What's worse, the Rules Committee wouldn't allow the House to consider
a sensible amendment that would restore a system of checks and balances
for our Federal workers. I cannot support the way this bill treats so
many dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
Finally, I am concerned about the bill's provisions on nuclear
weapons. This year's bill provides funding to study the feasibility of
developing nuclear earth-penetrating weapons and low-yield nuclear
weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons have an explosive yield of five
kilotons or less--``only'' a third of the explosive yield of the bomb
dropped on Hiroshina.
Mr. Chairman, our obligations under the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) require the United States to
work towards nuclear disarmament, rather than further increase the size
and diversity of our arsenal. Indeed, we're working even now to prevent
North Korea, Iran, Syria, and other countries from gaining access to
nuclear weapons. By continuing the development of new U.S. nuclear
weapons at the same time that we are trying to convince other nations
to forego obtaining such weapons, we undermine our credibility in the
fight to stop nuclear proliferation.
I believe we must be extremely cautious before we consider expanding
applications of nuclear use. We all agree on the need to maintain the
deterrent capability of our nuclear forces, but I don't believe we need
more or new weapons to maintain our deterrent. This bill takes our
nuclear posture a step backwards, putting the U.S. in a position of
leading the world in the direction of developing more nuclear weapons.
Mr. Chairman, if the House had been permitted to consider more needed
amendments to the bill, it might have been improved enough so that I
could support it. But the Rules Committee rebuffed sensible amendments
at every turn, denying us a voice on civil services protections and the
environment, among other issues. So in view of my strong objections
outlined above, I cannot support this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to vote for the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 now before the
House. The brave men and women risking their lives in Iraq deserve the
support of the United States Congress and we have a responsibility to
provide the military with the means to protect all of us. However, I am
deeply troubled by portions of the Act that have the potential to
undermine America's standing in the world, decrease our security,
undermine the protections guaranteed under current law for civil
servants working in the Department of Defense, and endanger our
environment. Earlier today an important amendment failed to be included
in the final version of the Act that we are now being asked to vote on.
The Tauscher Amendment would have transferred money from the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator to a conventional weapon system meant to
defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The development and possible
use of such a bunker-busting nuclear weapon is a dangerous step for
this Congress to authorize. Such weapons would disperse deadly
radioactive fallout into the atmosphere, could lead to the resumption
of nuclear testing and would undercut US efforts to halt the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We were also denied the opportunity even to cast a vote on the other
amendments. An amendment I proposed with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Davis to
ensure that protections for the 700,000 civil service employees of the
Department of Defense remain in force was excluded from consideration
by the Rules Committee yesterday. In the Committee on Government
Reform, of which I am a member, representatives from the Department of
Defense made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result
of a team effort; a team effort between the military and the civil
servants within the Department of Defense that provided them crucial
support. It was a true partnership. Yet, just a few weeks after our
military success in Iraq, the Pentagon launched what can only be
described as a sneak, surprise attack on the rights of those civil
servants within the Department of Defense. If these civil service
protections, in existence since the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt,
are thrown out it will open up the Department of Defense to party
politics and will change our security. We want a personnel system that
rewards people based on merit, not based on political favoritism. We
want, for example, our procurement officers to be looking out for the
public interest, to be looking out for our national interests, not the
interests of the most politically connected contractors. I support the
idea of pay for performance; but it should be merit-based performance,
not a political loyalty test. I think this bill, which is important to
our national security, should not contain this provision which damages
the integrity of the Civil Service.
We were also denied the right to vote on an amendment to protect our
environment. I am appalled by the provisions in this bill that exempt
the Defense Department from important environmental protections. It is
a sad irony that the Department, which is responsible for protecting
our nation from enemy assaults would ask for an exemption from laws to
prevent assaults on our environment here at home.
The work of the Department of Defense is crucial to protecting both
the physical security of our citizens and ensuring that we as Americans
can live in a society that protects our interests in the long run. I
will vote for the Act, but my support is tempered by my serious concern
that certain elements of this bill could prove detrimental to other
important national interests.
Mr. STARK Mr. Chairman, I oppose HR 1588, the Defense Authorization
Bill.
This bill will enact a defense budget 23 percent higher than the
average military budget during the Cold War. It then sets the stage for
a 17 percent increase in defense budgets over the next decade.
Republicans seek to finance these increases by taking money away from
basic domestic priorities and saddling our children with a deficit as
far as the eye can see.
Of course, the President and Republicans won't provide the funds
needed to improve our
[[Page H4604]]
schools and guarantee our children a high quality education. They won't
provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors and
people with disabilities. They won't even give so-called ``first
responders'' the resources to protect Americans against terrorist
attacks that may well be spurred by this Administration's fanatical
foreign policy.
There isn't a dollar in the President's overall budget for school
modernization, but this defense budget has us spending $9.1 billion on
a pie-in-the-sky missile defense system. 28,000 kids will be cut from
Head Start, but $15 million will go to researching something called
nuclear ``bunker buster'' bombs.
Make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration has us on the edge
of a new nuclear arms race by pushing for research into so-called
``low-yield'' nuclear weapons. The idea behind their development is
their possible use in conventional warfare! So much for the theory of
nuclear deterrence. Such a policy would only welcome more nations--on
top of North Korea--into a renewed worldwide nuclear weapons race. I
don't even want to imagine a future where the world's armies use
nuclear weapons to fight wars.
At the same time this bill raises the nuclear ante throughout the
world, we'll be spending $28 million less than the federal government
says is necessary for non-proliferation efforts. These are vital to
keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of Al Qaeda and
other terrorist organizations.
Republicans are also overriding basic environmental protections in
this defense bill before us today. Their bill will allow military bases
to override the Endangered Species Act--putting rare species at risk of
decimation. It also allows the Navy to use sonar devices that have led
to the deaths of whales and other threatened marine mammals.
It doesn't stop at endangering our environment. It also tramples the
rights of workers at the Department of Defense and other who work for
our military. If enacted, this bill will scrap basic civil service
protections at the Defense Department that have long promoted a
professional federal workforce. It even fails to provide women on
military bases overseas with access to potentially needed reproductive
health services--even if they pay for those services with their own
money.
Mr. Chairman, this Department of Defense Authorization bill is wrong
in many ways. It dedicates too much of our limited federal budget to
defense at the expense of other vital domestic needs. It spends those
dollars in ways that could add to our defense costs by inciting a new
nuclear arms race. It weakens protections for those who work in the
Department of Defense or otherwise serve our military. And, it
endangers environmental protections here at home. I urge my colleagues
to join me in opposition to this dangerous bill.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman, the
Ranking Member and both Republican and Democratic members of the Armed
Service Subcommittee on Total Force and the full Committee for
unanimously supporting an amendment to increase the number of military
academy appointments from American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands
to the U.S. Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the
United States Air Force Academy.
For my constituents, this means that American Samoa will be able to
send two students to each service academy. Given that American Samoa
has a population of over 57,000 people, a per capita income of less
than $4,500 and almost 5,000 men and women serving in the U.S. Armed
Services, I am pleased that we may be able to offer more students the
opportunity to attend one of our nation's prestigious military
academies.
Like other States and Territories, American Samoa has a long and
proud tradition of supporting and defending the United States of
America. In 1900, the traditional leaders of American Samoa ceded the
island of Tutuila to the United States.
Tutila's harbor is the deepest in the South Pacific and the port
village of Pago Pago was used as a coaling station for U.S. naval ships
in the early part of the century and a support base for U.S. soldiers
during World War II. To this day, American Samoa serves as a refueling
point for U.S. naval ships and military aircraft.
American Samoa also has a per capita enlistment rate in the U.S.
military which is as high as any State or U.S. Territory. Our sons and
daughters have served in record numbers in every U.S. military
engagement from World War II to present operations in our war against
terrorists. We have stood by the United States in good times and bad
and I believe it is only appropriate that this relationship should be
acknowledged by increasing our number of military academy appointments.
Again, I want to thank Chairman John McHugh and Ranking Member Vic
Snyder of the Subcommittee on Total Force for supporting my request to
increase the number of military academy appointments for American
Samoa. I also want to thank my good friends, the Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Duncan Hunter and Ranking
Member Ike Skelton, for their support.
On a personal note and as a Vietnam Veteran, I also want to thank the
sons and daughters of this great nation who are currently serving in
the U.S. Armed Forces. As we consider the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2004, I am hopeful that we will remember
the sacrifices they are making to protect our liberties and in so
remembering I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support
of the defense authorization bill and commend Chairman Hunter, ranking
member Skelton and the committee staff on their strong efforts in
crafting this legislation.
As our soldiers, sailors and airmen continue the global war on
terrorism and as thousands of them return home from the liberation of
the Iraqi people and elimination of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein,
it is a fitting tribute to them and to their families that we pass this
legislation.
Our men and women in the military and their families are this bill's
primary focus. This bill authorizes another 4.1 percent average pay
raise and other incentives that are critical to maintaining retention,
morale, recruitment, and quality of life. The thousands of men and
women who get up and put on a uniform to serve their country abroad or
on the seas should do so with the best equipment and the best training
possible. Their service will protect our shores, provide stability in
unstable regions, provide security to our friends and allies, and deter
or destroy those who wish to harm us.
A lesser-known aspect of our Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom is the success of the logistical support structure of those
operations. The logistical coordination that supported our efforts in
Afghanistan and Iraq can be described as nothing less than an
organizational marvel. It takes teamwork, training, skill and courage,
Mr. Chairman, and critical to that achievement is the work of the 157th
Air Refueling Wing of the Air Mobility Command based at Pease Air
National Guard Base located in my district. In Operation Iraqi Freedom,
tankers flew more than 17,050 refueling missions supporting aircraft
from all services--the 157th Air Refueling Wing completed over 400
sorties, offloading over 26 million pounds of fuel to aircraft from all
the services. In fact, the 157th was recently selected as the recipient
of the Air Force's Most Outstanding Unit Award for the second year in a
row due to their performance. Therefore, I am happy that this bill
includes an airborne tanker initiative of $229 million that would give
the Air Force the flexibility of retaining KC-135E aircraft, meeting
unfunded requirements for depot maintenance of tanker aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had the honor of meeting Air Force Capt.
Jeremy Shane Carter and 1st Lieutenant Drew Bjerken, two courageous
airmen who recently have returned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. They
are part of the electronic warfare component of our military success
that does not receive the full credit it deserves. Capt. Carter and
Lieutenant Bjerken operated one of the real jewels in our electronic
warfare arsenal, the Compass Call aircraft. This platform monitors and
jams communications and targeting systems used by adversaries. Compass
Call air crews flew over 200 combat sorties providing 24/7 coverage in
all major combat engagements including the operations to recover POW
Pvt. Jessica Lynch and the capture of the oil facilities at the Al Faw
peninsula in Iraq. Saving Private Lynch is it own fantastic story. But
it should be remembered that Compass Call aircraft were essential to
the successful capture of Al Faw by special operations foiling the
sabotage of oil facilities by Iraqi soldiers and averting a major
environmental and economic disaster for the country and region. I am
pleased that this bill includes an additional $9 million that will go
toward the completion of upgrades to Compass Call aircraft to the block
35 configuration.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation continues our efforts at transforming
our military for the threats of the future. The bill contains $3.5
billion for the procurement of 21 F-22 fighter aircraft, ensuring that
the U.S. maintains air dominance in any conflict in the years ahead.
The bill also continues our efforts to have the Pentagon procure
smarter and more efficiently through continued research and development
of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Variants of the F-35 will eventually
replace four aircraft, the F-16, the A-10, and the AV-8B and F-18 C/D,
bringing important cost savings to our taxpayers not only in production
but also in the maintenance and operation over the life of each
aircraft.
Air dominance today and in the future is directly attributable to the
electronic warfare capability of our aircraft, helicopters and
satellite systems. BAE Systems' Electronic Systems division in my home
state of New Hampshire is the world leader in electronic warfare
systems,
[[Page H4605]]
providing protection, surveillance, stealth and lethality for our
pilots and aircrews in all the services. I am pleased with the programs
included in this bill that fund research and development for
countermeasures to protect our pilots and other important electronic
systems.
As every regional military commander will attest, our Navy is
stretched thin, especially our submarine force. Although this bill does
not fund the refueling of the USS Jacksonville, I would like to
highlight the need to refuel all of the remaining Los Angeles Class
submarines in our fleet. Taxpayers have already paid half the job. The
reactors for these submarines have been procured at a cost of over $200
million each, it makes sense for us to finish the job and keep these
boats in service for the remainder of their design life.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good balance of our resources to
continue our military's transformation to meet the challenges of
tomorrow. It responds to the realities of the war on terrorism and sets
us on course to meet the new challenges that unquestionably lie ahead.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate our men and women in uniform
and in civilian positions who helped liberate Iraq from the grip of
Saddam Hussein. Our military--the finest in the world--has in the
course of just two years liberated Afghanistan, played a vital role in
defending the homeland against terrorism, and worked with our allies to
hunt down terrorists. I am grateful to all those who protect our
national security, both in and out of uniform. They have my deep
respect. They are outstanding Americans and valued federal employees.
Indeed, a large number of federal employees, many of whom work for the
Department of Defense, call the 10th Congressional District of Virginia
their home, and I am proud to be their Representative in Congress.
As we debate H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2004, I want to express my support for many important
programs included in this bill which are investments to make sure that
our military remains the best in the world, as it should. Our service
men and women and those civilians who support them deserve only the
best. Our colleague and my classmate, Duncan Hunter, chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, deserves our congratulations for the
hard work of his committee in bringing this bill to the floor.
There are some provisions in this bill, however, which deeply concern
me. Those address the wholesale personnel reforms and management
authority changes at the Defense Department which I believe could
shortchange civilian employees and come on the heels of the many recent
historic accomplishments made possible by these very employees.
The Department of Defense has acted with lightning speed in
presenting to Congress a number of changes to its personnel system.
There was minimal consultation with members of Congress, little notice
of its plans provided, and relatively few hearings held about this
sweeping proposal. Why such a rush to change?
H.R. 1588 would radically alter the way in which many Department of
Defense employees are paid, establishing a pay-for-performance plan
with standards which are in some cases subjective. The Secretary of
Defense would be able to overrule the director of the Office of
Personnel and Management in making personnel decisions, if the
President agreed with the Secretary.
The Department of Defense would be granted more power than ever
before in how it structures policies which will impact its 746,000
civilian employees. While I understand the need for flexibility in the
modern-day federal workplace, I am very concerned that some of the
changes in H.R. 1588 champion flexibility at the expense of oversight
and congressional involvement in ensuring employee protections on a
fair and level civil service playing field. When oversight is limited
and decisions are channeled to one source, red flags should go up about
accountability and the decision-making process at DOD.
I also am concerned about what appears to be some ambiguity on the
question of veterans' preference in hiring at the Department of
Defense. Veterans are given preference in hiring for civil service
positions in recognition of their military service to our nation. This
long-standing policy allows the Department of Defense as well as other
government departments and agencies to recruit and retain veterans who
can continue to provide valuable service to their nation in their
civilian lives. It is unclear under this legislation whether the
veterans preference in hiring will remain totally intact in all areas
of hiring in the Department of Defense. This lack of clarity is
troubling not only as a matter of practice, but as a matter of
principle: there should be a clear understanding that the veterans
preference cannot be waived in any hiring circumstances.
Because of the controversial personnel change included, in this
legislation, I am very disappointed that the House Rules Committee
foreclosed the opportunity to amend that section of the bill. No
amendments were made in order concerning the civil service portion of
H.R. 1588. Some colleagues, including Representative Cooper were
prepared to offer a valuable amendment and had submitted it to the
Rules Committee. That amendment would have created an Employees Bill of
Rights offering fundamental civil service protections for the civilian
employees at the Department of Defense. That amendment should have been
made in order, and this House should have had the chance to debate that
amendment. Had we been given that opportunity, I would have voted for
the Cooper amendment.
Our colleague Representative Ike Skelton, the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee, argued yesterday in a Washington Post op-ed
that ``major reassignments of constitutional authority such as this
demand the same sort of thoughtful foresight as a war plan.'' He added
that ``the only thing that is obvious and consistent throughout the 50
provisions included in this bill is the aggregation of power sought for
the Department of Defense, removing the legal restrictions and
congressional oversight that should safeguard against any abuses,
however unintentional. This approach is a rush to judgment that will
affect vast numbers of people and, in many cases, will enshrine bad
policy in law.''
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to Congressman
Skelton's arguments today in his own Post op-ed. He laid out his case
for what he sees as necessary ``flexibility and agility'' in managing
the civilian workforce at DOD in the 21st century. I would not disagree
that we are in a changed world and that the federal government must
respond to those changes.
But the secretary should heed his own op-ed conclusion. He stated:
``The fact is that the transformation of our military capabilities
depends on the transformation of the way the Defense Department
operates. This does not mean an end to congressional oversight. What it
means is that we need to work together to ensure the department has the
flexibility to keep up with the new threats emerging as this century
unfolds.''
Indeed. We need to work together. That means giving Congress the
opportunity for thoughtful and deliberate study of this plan, time to
investigate its implications, and the chance to ask the tough questions
to make sure we fully understand how this plan will impact the lives of
the people at the Pentagon who work to serve their country. That
doesn't mean that Congress just salutes and says, ``Yes, sir,'' and
rubber stamps the secretary's controversial plan.
We must ask what message this plan sends to the rest of government.
Will the Department of Defense's rush into a personnel transformation
plan encourage other government departments and agencies to do the
same, affecting even more federal employees? Because of my concern
about responding to the terrorism threat in our country, I voted for
the legislation establishing the new Department of Homeland Security
and allowing the department to set up new model rules which could be
used to judge future decisions on personnel policy. We are on new
ground and don't as yet know how well this model works. The DOD
personnel proposal before the House could not only affect the
Department of Defense, but may impact the entire government in ways
which we cannot yet know.
I also must share my concern about a pattern of unilateral action we
continue to see within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. There
have been troubling news reports about how some high ranking military
personnel have been treated at the Department of Defense. I am
concerned how senior civilian employees would fare under the new
personnel proposals for DOD.
Our Armed Forces deserve the very best, and I am pleased that this
bill authorizes giving those in uniform and those civilians supporting
them the funding they need to continue to do their jobs in the
outstanding way in which they have in the past and will do in the
future.
Unfortunately those parts of the bill relating to personnel issues
have not been adequately investigated by Congress and will impact
civilian employees at the Department of Defense in ways that we can
only guess at this point. These Federal employees and the military
deserve more than a rushed plan that fundamentally alters the way the
Department of Defense interacts with its civilian employees.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as we were reminded last week with the triple
bombing in Saudi Arabia, international terrorism still threatens our
world. Currently we have troops around the world fighting in the global
war against terrorism, and it is important that we make sure they have
the resources to prevail.
The United States has the best trained, best equipped fighting force
in the world, and the legislation today seeks to ensure America's
military supremacy in the future. It provides for a sizable procurement
agenda allowing the United States to stay at the cutting edge of
technology. It also provides a 4.1 percent pay
[[Page H4606]]
increase for our deserving military personnel who sacrifice to ensure
the security of America, most recently in dangerous battlegrounds in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
Further, this bill reduces housing expenses for service members,
contains new benefits for reservists, and authorizes $35 million for
the Impact Aid program that serves school districts with high numbers
of military children. H.R. 1588 also moves forward new weapons programs
critical to meet 21st century challenges, as well as funds important
for non-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction security
activities in Russia and other nations.
In past years, defense authorization bills have generally been
approved with wide bipartisan support. And while most provisions of the
legislation in front of us today are necessary and widely supported,
the majority party and the administration have decided to include a few
highly controversial riders that need to be addressed. Under the rules
of debate set up by the majority party, however, we will not have an
opportunity to debate and attempt to amend provisions that strip civil
services protections for 700,000 Federal employees, unnecessarily
discard environmental regulations and hinder nuclear nonproliferation
efforts. These provisions do not serve to enhance the security of
our Nation, and at the very least, deserve to be thoroughly considered
by Congress with input from the public.
In the name of transformation, the administration has proposed
eliminating civil service protections of the 700,000 civilians working
in the Department of Defense. This unprecedented proposal stabs at the
heart of our Federal civil service which has been crafted over decades
based on concerns and needs of employees and the federal government to
protect federal employees from political pressure and favoritism. Most
offensive, however, is the arrogance of the administration in seeking
to remove the civil service protections from dedicated employees
without consulting with Congress or employee representatives on a
replacement plan. In fact, the General Accounting Office (GAO) notes
that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not have a good track record
on working with employee representatives, raising additional concerns
that the needs of employees will not be considered as a new personnel
plan is formulated.
I was pleased that the Government Reform Committee stepped in to
curtail the administration's proposal; however, the language passed by
that committee and included in the legislation before us still fails to
adequately protect our federal employees in areas such as due process,
appeal, and collective bargaining rights. In addition, it grants the
Secretary of Defense, and all future Secretaries of Defense, wide
latitude in making sweeping, and potentially politically motivated,
personnel changes without respect to the needs of the employees. The
GAO, does not find adequate justification for these personnel proposals
considering the enormous impact they will have on the Federal
workforce.
The Bush administration has been attacking civil service rights since
day one, regardless of whether any new proposal will be good for
employees or good for the federal government. While it is important
that we update Federal Government personnel systems to ensure our
Federal workforce is modeled to meet the challenges of today and the
future, this must be done in a systematic and inclusive manner based on
sound principles, innovation, and experience. An amendment drafted by
Mr. Cooper would have removed these provisions dismantling the civil
service system, and allow Congress to thoroughly weigh the need for
flexibility in personnel management with the needs of the Federal
workforce. However, the majority has refused to allow debate or
consideration on this amendment.
Another area of concern is the exemption from environmental
regulations being sought by the administration and included in this
bill. While it is understandable that the Defense Department must have
the ability to properly train our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
Marines in realistic combat conditions, the necessity of exempting 25
million acres of land at the more than 425 installation nationwide from
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund,
Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act has not been
proven. Again, the GAO has found that training readiness remains high
at most military installations.
DOD currently has the ability to seek national security and military
training exemptions in federal environmental law to address
encroachment concerns. However, as we debated in the House Resources
Committee two weeks ago, DOD has never sought an exemption from the
Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act. Exempting the
DOD from these proven environmental laws is simply not necessary to
ensure the best training of our troops and will harm the tremendous
progress made in protecting important species for future generations.
An amendment drafted by the ranking member of the House Resources, Mr.
Rahall, would have removed this unnecessary exemption. Again, however,
the majority has refused to allow consideration of this important
amendment.
While current times call for increased attention to national
security, it is also important that Congress make responsible funding
decisions and dedicate limited resources to defense projects needed for
our security in the 21st century. I have consistently criticized the
hurried efforts of the administration to develop a ballistic missile
defense system that is questioned by most experts and will post
enormous costs to the taxpayers. Formidable technical challenges plague
the proposed missile defense program in which every component is behind
schedule, over budget, and unable to perform its mission. Yet, the
administration's answer is to exempt the program from accountability
requirements and increase funding. The legislation in front of us
contains $9.1 billion for the ballistic missile defense program, which
is a 17 percent increase over last year's level, and five times the
amount spent on proven nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This is a
perfect example of how Congress must better prioritize the national
security threats, and work to reduce funding for ineffective and
obsolete programs.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need to continue to fund a strong
national defense to meet the emerging challenges of tomorrow but at the
same time highlight the deficiencies in the majority's proposal. We are
doing well, but we can do better. For this reason, I urge my colleagues
to oppose the majority's rule for debate that denies us the opportunity
to consider amendments to remove the sweeping personnel and
environmental revisions of this bill.
Currently our nation is under a ``Code Orange'' homeland security
alert, meaning that the risk of a terrorist attack on our nation is
high. The tireless work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines,
along with other security and intelligence officials, have protected
the American people from further devastating terrorist attacks, and we
need to make sure they have the resources they need to do their job. If
we can remove the detrimental provisions from this legislation, we will
certainly be able to pass a truly effective and bipartisan bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588, the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. The
authorizations of appropriations in this important piece of legislation
are consistent with the levels established in H. Con. Res. 95, the
Congressional Budget Resolution. On April 11, this body passed a
conference report that made available the budgetary resources for our
most urgent constitutional responsibility--the common defense. We
provided $400.6 billion in budget authority for national defense.
The principal reason for these considerable budget resources is, of
course, Congress's unwavering commitment to win the war against
terrorism. But in addition to combating terrorism, we provided a
blueprint in the resolution to give service members a pay raise
averaging 4.1 percent, increased housing allowances, and increased
incentive pay. Consistent with the resolution, the bill we are
considering today also contains levels of weapons procurement not seen
since the Reagan administration, and the largest amount ever for
research and development.
This bill improves our national security by striking a balance
between modernizing existing forces and investing in transformational
capabilities. U.S. forces have seen nearly every type of conflict in
recent months, from air campaigns and armored warfare, to special
operations and urban street combat. They have fought terrorists and
irregular forces while conducting psychological warfare and other
convert operations. H.R. 1588 draws on the ``lessons learned'' from
those conflicts.
The budget resolution also provided an allocation of $70 million so
that proceeds from Post Exchanges and other facilities on closed bases
can be re-applied without an appropriation. H.R. 1588 would codify that
in law.
I will note that H.R. 1588 contains a provision affecting the
Pentagon's Military Housing Privatization Initiative. There were some
technical problems because the Congressional Budget Office has recently
reconsidered its scoring rules for activities involving loans, loan
guarantees, and other ways the government encourages private sector
participation in military housing projects. But working together, the
Armed Services and Budget Committees have achieved an agreement that
allows this program to be appropriately reflected in the budget. I am
pleased that we were able to resolve this issue in a spirit of
cooperation.
Several provisions of this bill directly affect thousands of my
constituents who work at the Rock Island Arsenal in the Quad Cities in
Eastern Iowa. Funding for the Army's Future Combat Systems program,
increased funding for replenishing of munitions stocks, and overall
spending levels will enhance the ability of these workers to continue
their very important job. The employees of the Rock Island Arsenal do a
superb job of equipping the world's best Army, and this bill reflects
Congress's continued commitment to those workers.
[[Page H4607]]
With that I express my support for H.R. 1588.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the year, Department of Defense
(DOD) approached Congress with a request to exempt itself from several
fundamental environmental laws in order to strengthen military
readiness. At the time this request shocked most of us, because the
readiness of our military is the best in the world but that the state
of some of our natural resources are not. Things went from bad to worse
when the House Armed Services Committee reported out a bill that went
way above and beyond what DOD had originally asked for.
H.R. 1588, the fiscal year 2004 defense authorization bill, contains
provisions that fundamentally change the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), two major pieces of
legislation that directly affect my home district in California. There
are many species listed under ESA in my home district. These include
the California condor, which has been through an intense
reestablishment program, the San Joaquin Kit Fox that lives on Fort
Hunter Liggett, steelhead trout that breed in our rivers and streams,
and the snowy plover which nests on our beaches.
The continued existence of many of these species relies on the
designation of ``critical habitat,'' which is basically the homes and
breeding grounds that are necessary for their survival. For example,
the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander has only six breeding ponds on
which the whole species depends. Without the designation of these
breeding ponds as critical habitat, the salamander would be left
without a vehicle for bringing them back from the brink of extinction.
This bill aims to make critical habitat designation only when it is
``necessary'' and not when its ``prudent and determinable'' as the law
currently states. I ask you when would it be ``necessary'' to designate
critical habitat? I'm not sure because ``necessary'' is not defined in
the bill. So basically, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Commerce would be able to make a decision with no set criteria. The
Bush Administration has clearly stated its belief that critical habitat
provides no protection, and as such this provision could result in many
species without homes and breeding areas such that the Santa Cruz long-
toed salamander would have no ponds, the snowy plover would have no
open beaches, and the marbled murrelet would have no trees.
H.R. 1588 not only guts ESA, but it also puts whales and dolphins in
jeopardy by changing the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The intent of the MMPA is to prohibit the ``harassment'' of marine
mammals. The language in H.R. 1588 weakens the definition of
``harassment'' not just for DOD related activities but also for all
people who use our oceans and coasts. The waters of Monterey Bay in my
home district are home to sea otters, sea lions and harbor seals and
serve as a migratory route for majestic humpback and blue whales. These
animals are important economic resources because people visit my
district to see them. Likewise, people travel to see the orcas in the
waters of Puget Sound, Washington, the whales in the Gulf of Maine, and
the manatees along the coast of Florida.
Current MMPA language aims to protect these animals from being
harassed, from being injured, and from being killed. But H.R. 1588
drastically weakens this protection and would allow an increasing
number of harmful interactions such as: oil and gas exploration and
high intensity sonar testing. Such increased harassment and harm to
marine mammals would go largely unchecked by wildlife agencies and left
unmonitored and unmitigated.
Struggling sea otters are currently dying at record levels in the
State of California. They are listed both under ESA and MMPA. Our sea
otters need these laws to protect what's left of their population;
without them they will go extinct in California.
Consideration of fundamental changes to these laws should be taken up
during re-authorization of ESA and MMPA when there is ample time for
hearings and discussion, and not under the guise of national security.
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, we are not currently at war with another
nation and the Cold War has been over for more than a decade. But we
alone already spend more on our military than the 21 countries with the
next largest defense budgets combined. Our military spending is greater
than the total defense budgets, added together, of Russia, China,
Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India,
South Korea, Brazil, Taiwan, Israel, Spain, Australia, Canada,
Netherlands, Turkey, Mexico, Kuwait, and the Ukraine.
Nonetheless, before us today is a bill, H.R. 1588, FY04 Defense
Authorization, that would authorize an increase of $7.6 billion for a
total defense budget of $400.5 billion, the highest in this country's
history.
This legislation authorizes $3.5 billion for the F-22 Raptor, an air
superiority fighter designed to fight the Soviet Union. This program
has seen continual cost overruns and encountered technical problems,
and now represents the most costly jet fighter ever built. However, the
other fighters that the F-22 is designed to replace continue to perform
admirably and the only countries that possess aircraft that even come
close to parity with our existing fighters are our allies in NATO, as
well as Russia. Given this program's troubled history, it is likely to
balloon in cost even more, and is hardly a bargain for our military and
taxpayers.
Likewise, the ``Star Wars'' missile defense program also receives a
huge boost in this measure, increasing by 17 percent over last year to
a total of $9.1 billion. Despite massive spending since the 1980s on
this program, a working system has yet to be produced. Furthermore, we
live in an age in which those wishing to do us harm would be more
likely to smuggle a nuclear device into our country through a port
where overworked customs inspectors rarely examine the bulk of arriving
cargo. Firing a ballistic missile at the United States is suicide, and
any potential enemies know it.
The defense authorization measure would also unnecessarily circumvent
important environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
Department of Defense (DoD) has control over 25 million acres of land
that provide habitats for over 300 endangered and threatened species,
and portions of this land have been designated for special protection
in recognition of the endangered wildlife present. Under the ESA, the
DoD works with environmental agencies to provide protection for these
species that live within the boundaries of military installations.
The bill before us allows DoD to avoid its obligations under the ESA
by filing alternative resources management plans. Concerns have already
been raised that such plans may be inadequate to protect endangered
species, and as a result are currently the subject of court challenges.
The bill's sponsors claim that this new provision is necessary to
ensure that training is not affected. However, a General Accounting
Office (GAO) report last year found no evidence to support the
contention that critical habitat designations conflict with military
training or other activities. And even if such conflicts were to arise,
the Pentagon is already able to obtain national security exemptions
from the ESA critical habitat conservation measures. No Secretary of
Defense has ever requested such an exemption in the 30 years the law
has been in effect. The ESA provision has no place being included in
this defense legislation.
Lastly, this bill allows DoD to scrap the civil service procedures
currently in place to safeguard the rights of 700,000 of its civilian
employees. The legislation would allow managers, including
Administration political appointees, to change the existing pay scale,
the appeals process for employees that disagree with decisions related
to their employment, and the right to join a union in some cases.
While the Administration claims that it wants these provisions in
order to institute more flexible, performance-based pay and personnel
policies, last month the GAO's Comptroller General warned that ``moving
too quickly or prematurely at DoD or elsewhere can significantly raise
the risk of doing it wrong . . .'' The GAO testified that such changes
would first require having a ``credible . . . validated performance
management system in place with adequate safeguards, including
reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms to
ensure fairness and prevent politicization and abuse.''
GAO said the DoD does not have these safeguards, transparency, or
accountability in place. We should not rush to rubber stamp an
Administration plan that could lead to favoritism, appointment of
political cronies, or discrimination in hiring, tenure, promotion, or
other conditions of employment due to an employee's political opinions
or affiliation.
The defense of our nation is a critical issue to which every Member
is committed, and I certainly support increasing military pay,
providing quality health care for those who serve and their families,
and funding necessary modernization priorities.
But this bill contains unnecessary weakening of environmental laws
and elimination of worker civil service protections while providing an
increase to a military budget besides which already far outpaces all
other allies and potential enemies. It would make move to devote
increased resources to homeland security to prevent future terrorist
attacks than spend more money on weapons systems that are designed to
fight Cold War adversaries that no longer exist.
Therefore, I must regretfully cast my vote against this legislation.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R.
1588, the National Defense Authorization bill.
In one swift act, this bill would make sweeping changes to the civil
service system that has served its employees and our nation well
[[Page H4608]]
for 100 years. The recent quick and decisive action by our armed
services in Iraq demonstrated that the current civil service system has
not harmed our military's effectiveness. I strongly believe that our
DOD civilian employees deserve all of the same protections that workers
in other agencies enjoy.
Even if some of these ideas had merit, which they clearly do not, DOD
is not ready to implement such a major personnel change without first
making critical management reforms. In a hearing on April 8,
Comptroller General David Walker said that although DOD may get an
``A'' for fighting and winning armed conflicts, it receives a ``D'' for
its management practices. Previously, the Comptroller General described
the financial management problems at DOD as ``pervasive, complex, long-
standing, and deeply rooted in virtually all business operations
throughout the department.'' This does not sound like an agency that is
ready for wholesale changes to its personnel system. The GAO has also
noted repeatedly that agency-wide, the entire government does not have
the systems in place to implement meaningful performance-based pay that
this bill would enact as well.
Although civil service reform may warrant consideration, all of the
nonpartisan, credible information indicates that this bill goes way too
far and that the DOD is not ready to effectively make such changes.
This rule did not allow our side to offer an amendment that would
help address the shortcoming in the civil service section of the bill.
So I urge the defeat of this unfair and poorly crafted rule.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
1588. This bill allows the Department of Defense to severely alter the
current civil service system, to trample over environmental laws, and
to develop more nuclear weapons while providing more money to the DOD,
despite the fact that it still cannot pass an audit. It strips away the
fundamental rights from almost 700,000 civilian employees at the
Department of Defense (DOD). These rights include collective
bargaining, due process and appeal rights, and the congressionally
passed annual pay raise. This bill also exempts the Department of
Defense from public health and environmental laws, dramatically
weakening protections for marine mammals and endangered species and
undermining the role of states that administer pollution control laws.
Finally, this bill promotes unnecessary irresponsible funding for the
development of more nuclear weapons such as the infamous ``bunker
buster'', and authorizes over $9 billion for ballistic missile defense
programs--a program that will not work.
I also want to mention my support of the Sanchez amendment, which
simply gives American women overseas the same legal abortion rights
they would receive if they were home. The current ban on abortions at
overseas U.S. military facilities denies women who have volunteered to
serve this country a right they would ordinarily have if they were not
overseas. This sends the wrong message to women who believe in the
freedoms for which this country stands and want to serve this country
to preserve those freedoms.
H.R. 1588 will authorize over $400 billion to the Department of
Defense, $20.6 billion more than the President's budget request for
FY2004. U.S. taxpayers will pay $15.7 billion for nuclear weapons in
FY2004. For that same amount of money, we could have provided health
care to 2,803,167 more people, including 132,473 in my home state of
Illinois.
I support efforts to provide our military with the necessary funding
needed to defend our country and to increase the salaries of our men
and women in the Armed Forces but I am not willing to compromise the
environment, workers' rights, and domestic priorities, such as
education and health care, to achieve this goal. I urge my colleagues
to vote against this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by saying
that I opposed the war in Iraq. I support the brave men and women who
sacrificed their lives and safety to fight in Operation Iraqi Freedom,
but I feel that war should always be the last option.
While I opposed the war in Iraq, at the same time I recognize that it
is important to ensure our national security. It is important for us to
strike a balance: protect our national security but not rush to engage
in war.
Our ongoing fight against terrorism makes it more difficult to strike
this balance. The world has watched in horror as suicide bombings
orchestrated by terrorist groups have ravaged countries overseas. There
have been nine suicide bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia in the last few
weeks. Twenty-five innocent victims lost their lives including eight
U.S. citizens. There have been thirteen suicide bombing attacks in
Morocco that killed 28 people. The al-Queda terrorist network is
suspected in many of the bombings. The FBI has announced that the
bombings abroad may be a prelude to attacks on American soil. As a
result the Department of Homeland Security recently elevated the
terrorist threat level to ``High.''
The fight against terrorism and the labor to protect our national
security is multifaceted. Part of protecting our national security is
protecting those who secure our nation. The individuals include
America's many veterans and also the troops returning to the United
States from Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is critical that H.R. 1588,
have sufficient fund allocations for programs for our veterans and
troops from Iraqi freedom, as well as other valuable programs.
I have proposed an amendment to H.R. 1588 to direct the Secretary of
the Department of Defense to study the feasibility of using small,
minority, and women-owned businesses in the efforts to rebuild Iraq.
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 business, 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 foundation 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 adoption of my amendment coupled with the support of the
leadership of the Armed Services Committee will give me the power to
insist that the Department of Defense use small, minority, and women-
owned businesses in the efforts to rebuild Iraq. This valuable program
must be followed-up, and followed through. It is because of amendments
to H.R. 1588 that I support the bill.
The sections of H.R. 1588 that I am concerned with deal with funding
the production of weapons. Under H.R. 1588, the Army is appropriated
$1,594,622,000 for missiles, the Navy and Marine Corps are appropriated
$2,529,821,000 for missiles and torpedoes, and the Air Force is
appropriated $4,348,039,000 for missiles.
I am absolutely opposed to missile defense and nuclear weapons
expenditures. Missiles are inherently dangerous and are an outdated
weapon in our armed services' arsenal. Take for example the missile
known as the cluster bomb. Cluster bombs are designed to hit their
target and disperse sub-munitions, also called ``grenades'' in surface-
delivered weapons and ``bomblets'' in air-delivered weapons, over a
large area, thereby increasing the radius of destructive effect over a
target. Typically cluster bombs are used by U.S. Forces on troop
concentrations, airfields, and air defense units.
Many human rights organizations have called to an end to the use of
cluster bombs. For example, Human Rights Watch has called for a global
moratorium on use of cluster bombs because they have been shown to
cause unacceptable civilian casualties both during and after conflict.
Cluster bombs have wide dispersal pattern and cannot be targeted
precisely, making them especially dangerous when used near civilian
areas. Cluster bombs are usually used in very large numbers and have a
high initial failure rate which results in numerous explosive ``duds''
that pose the same post-conflict problem as antipersonnel landmines.
Equally important, the duds pose a threat to American troops canvassing
the area of attack.
Expending hundreds of millions of dollars on missile programs that
are dangerous to civilian populations and to American troops is a poor
use of Department of Defense Funds. In light of the housing,
unemployment, education, and health care crisis America is presently
faced with I cannot condone expending such exorbitant sums of money on
missiles.
Furthermore, H.R. 1588 is completely lacking in peace-keeping
provisions. The Department of Defense is as responsible for promoting
peace around the world as they are waging war around the world. This
Chamber should demand the Department of Defense allocate more funds
toward the peace-keeping mission.
The need for peace and the fears and concerns about terrorism show
that it is of critical importance that we fully support and fund the
operations and programs of the Department of Defense. The Department of
Defense Reauthorization bill that we are considering today is a
comprehensive authorization that covers many Department of Defense
programs that benefit military personnel.
The most important element of our Armed Forces is the personnel. H.R.
1588 contains
[[Page H4609]]
numerous valuable provisions that benefit the brave men and women who
serve in our armed forces. H.R. 1588 retains health professionals to
fulfill active-duty service commitments, increases the flexibility for
voluntary retirement for military officers, and simplifies the annual
participation requirements for the Ready Reserves.
H.R. 1588 also makes valuable changes to the Education and Training
Programs of the Department of Defense. The bill creates a masters of
operational studies degree for the Marine Corps University, expands
education assistance authority for cadets and midshipmen, increase in
allocation of scholarships under the Army Reserve ROTC scholarship
program, and inclusion of accrued interest may be repaid under Selected
Reserve critical specialities education loan repayment program.
H.R. 1588 also improves the benefit program by adding more classes of
individuals to participate in the Federal long-term care insurance
program. Increases assistance to local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of the Armed Forces and DoD civilian employees.
Other provisions of H.R. 1588, improve the DoD Health care provisions
by making improvement to the chiropractic, medical, and dental
programs.
I support the provisions of H.R. 1588 that are beneficial to the
brave men and women of our Armed Forces. However, I oppose the
provisions of H.R. 1588 that fund missiles, and I am disappointed that
the bill does not contain more peace keeping measures. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, I support H.R. 1588 with some reservations.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, Democrats and Republicans in recent years
have recognized the rapidly-changing security challenges that confront
our Nation and come together to address them. That is why much of this
bill is non-controversial. In particular, we are united since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in supporting the increased
investments needed to strengthen our common defense and to effectively
prosecute the war against terrorism.
Let me begin by stating that there is no higher test for this bill,
in my estimation, than how it treats the brave men and women who risk
their lives every day to defend our freedom. By that standard, I am
pleased by the provisions that continue our shared commitment to boost
the income for all of our military personnel with a 4.1 percent average
increase in base pay. It also extends several special pay provisions
and bonuses for active duty personnel through December 31, 2004,
including the enlistment and re-enlistment bonus. Furthermore, it calls
for reducing the average amount of housing expenses paid by service
members from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent in FY 2004 and eliminates the
out-of-pocket expense completely by FY 2005.
But on balance, I am opposing this bill on final passage because I
fundamentally disagree with key aspects of its policy presumptions and
prescriptions. It will make America less safe.
First and most importantly, the growing reliance upon nuclear weapons
that this bill encourages makes our Nation and the world less safe, not
more so. Accordingly, I strongly disagree with the funding in this bill
to continue work on high-yield, burrowing nuclear ``bunker-busters''
that target underground military facilities or arsenals. I am equally
opposed to the language in this bill that lifts the ban on research
leading to low yield ``mini-nuclear weapons'' of 5 kilotons or less.
Last month, I sent a letter to President Bush that was co-signed by
34 of my colleagues to convey our grave concern that he is weakening
long-standing U.S. policy governing the use of nuclear as opposed to
conventional weapons. That action coupled with the examples I've cited
and other provisions in this bill further undermine the U.S. non-
proliferation efforts of Republican and Democratic Presidents alike and
heighten growing international fear that Bush Administration's policies
are fueling a new nuclear arms race.
Second, I am opposed to the blanket exemptions from our Nation's
environmental protection laws for the Pentagon in this bill. There is
no convincing evidence that environmental laws like the Clean Air Act
and the Endangered Species Act hinder our military's capacity to defend
our Nation.
But you don't have to take my word for it. The out-going EPA
Administrator, Christine Whitman, has testified to the Congress that
she does not ``believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the
country that is being held up or not taking place because of
environmental protection.'' Furthermore, the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO) has reported to the Congress that the Pentagon has failed
to produce any evidence that environmental laws have significantly
affected our military readiness.
I do not think the Pentagon or any other federal agency should be
above the law. Moreover, current law already allows case-by-case
environmental exemptions for the Pentagon, when they are determined to
be in the national interest.
Finally, this bill also contains provisions that will be very harmful
to hundreds of thousands of dedicated civilian men and women who make
our Defense Department work.
Last year saw the largest government reorganization in more than
three decades with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, affecting 170,000 federal employees. Following extensive
congressional debate, Secretary Ridge was granted authority to
establish a more flexible agency that attempted to protect basic worker
rights.
But this bill will give Defense Secretary Rumsfeld broad authority to
rollback worker protections for hundreds of thousands of Pentagon
employees. There will be nothing to prevent agency managers from
abusing their power for political advancement or engaging in
discriminatory practices. Allowing managers the ability to waive such
protections under the guise of national security and the need for
greater flexibility is wrong. It will not make us safer.
At the same time that the Pentagon seeks to do away with its current
personnel system in this bill, Secretary Rumsfeld has not offered a
serious alternative to replace it. Instead, he has simply requested a
blank check to undo, in whole or in part, many of the civil service
laws and protections that have been in place for nearly a century to
safeguard against the return of an unfair patronage system.
I want to be very clear. I support a strong national defense. I
support modernizing our military. I support giving our troops the
resources and training they need to keep our nation secure. But I
cannot support a bill that contains provisions that will take our
military backwards, rather than forwards. I cannot support a bill that
will re-ignite a global nuclear arms race, even as we go to war to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons abroad! I cannot support a bill that
takes away the rights of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Pentagon
employees. Finally, I cannot support a bill that disingenuously claims
that stripping away important environmental protections will somehow
bolster our national security.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R.
1588. If this were a straightforward Defense Authorization bill, it
would have my support, but the provisions contained in this legislation
go far beyond the scope of the Pentagon and the great men and women who
grace our uniformed services.
This bill has become a Trojan Horse. The Defense bill is being used
as a legislative vehicle by which the President, the Secretary of
Defense and a complaint majority in this chamber can rewrite the rules
that conserve our land and wildlife resources.
This bill is not about providing for the health and welfare of our
armed services, or taking care of military needs at home and abroad, or
about advancing our military capabilities. The underlying bill
contained a major rewrite of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act that goes far beyond what the military
needs or requested. The Endangered Species Act specifically allows the
Secretary of Defense to waive requirements for purposes of advancing
our national security. In other words, the Secretary has waiver
authority under present law.
But for reasons that are beyond me, the Secretary of Defense wants
broader exemptions than are found in current law. For example, the bill
weakens ``critical habitat'' designation requirements to such an extent
that they are only done on a discretionary basis. These changes to our
national environmental laws are being railroaded without consideration
of a full debate and without an opportunity to consider a more sensible
alternative. The majority, in its rush to pass bad legislation, has
denied the opportunity for Members to consider an alternative
environmental provision authored by my fellow colleague from Michigan,
Mr. Dingell, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
Rahall. The majority has denied us a right to discuss this important
issue and the right to offer amendments.
Mr. Chairman, given the tilted playing field on which H.R. 1588 is
being considered, I regret that I must vote against final passage.
Before closing, I want to pay a salute to the men and women of our
armed forces and thank them for a job well done and for the sacrifices
they are making to protect our Nation. As I recall the swiftness with
which they marched into Baghdad, I am puzzled at the implication of
some that our present environmental laws and regulations impaired their
military readiness. I am convinced that our military is well prepared,
and am equally convinced that they can maintain a high standard of
readiness under existing environmental laws.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order,
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
[[Page H4610]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths through fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 247, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Cooper
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. COOPER. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Cooper moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1588 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
In section 9902 of title 5, United States Code (as proposed
to be added by section 1111 of the bill), after subsection
(b) (page 353, after line 12) insert the following new
subsection:
``(c) Employee Bill of Rights.--
``(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that--
``(A) the Department of Defense should have flexibilities
in personnel decisions, including pay and promotion, in order
to provide the strongest possible national defense; and
``(B) the Department of Defense should protect fundamental
civil service protections of civilian employees at the
Department.
``(2) Civil service protections.--
``(A) The right of an employee to receive a veterans
preference in hiring and a reduction in force, as in effect
on the date of the enactment of this subsection, shall not be
abridged.
``(B) An employee shall have the right to be free from
favoritism, nepotism, or discrimination in connection with
hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment
due to the employee's political opinion or affiliation.
``(C) The Secretary shall not refuse to bargain in good
faith with a labor organization, except as provided in
section 9902(f) (relating to bargaining at the national
rather than local level), and shall submit negotiation
impasses to--
``(i) an impartial panel; or
``(ii) an alternative dispute resolution procedure agreed
upon by the parties;
``(D) An employee shall have the right to full and fair
compensation for overtime, other time worked that is not part
of a regular workweek schedule, and pay for hazardous work
assignments.
``(E) An employee shall have the right to form, join, or
assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such
activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal.
Such right includes the right to engage in collective
bargaining with respect to conditions of employment through
representatives chosen by employees.
``(F) An employee against whom removal or suspension for
more than 14 days is proposed shall have a right to--
``(i) reasonable advance notice stating specific reasons
for the proposed action, unless there is reasonable cause to
believe that such employee has committed a crime or immediate
action is necessary in the interests of national security;
``(ii) reasonable time to answer orally or in writing; and
``(iii) representation by an attorney or other
representative.
``(G) An employee shall have a right to appeal actions
involving alleged discrimination to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
(H) An employee shall have a right to back pay and attorney
fees if the employee is the prevailing party in an appeal of
a removal or suspension.
Page 359, line 5, insert ``and'' after ``Secretary;''.
Page 359, line 8, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
Page 359, strike lines 9 through 12.
Mr. COOPER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his
motion to recommit.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, this is the amendment that was banned in
Washington. This is the amendment that Republican leadership does not
want us to vote on. Why? They are afraid Members will like it. They are
afraid it will pass. They are afraid that the real majority in this
great House of Representatives, common sense, the Democrats and
Republicans working together, will like what is in this amendment.
That is why the Committee on Rules did not allow it to be considered
in either rule, and that is why the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services did not allow an amendment like this to be put before the
Committee on Armed Services.
What is in the Cooper-Davis-Van Hollen amendment that makes it so
controversial? Members will be surprised when they read it. There are
copies at the desk.
It is a relatively simple three-page DOD civilian bill of rights. No
new rights are extended. All we are trying to do is to make sure, to
make absolutely sure, that existing civilian employees' rights are
preserved.
Let me read section A. The right of an employee to receive a veterans
preference in hiring and reduction in force shall not be abridged.
Who in this House is against that?
An employee shall have the right to be free from favoritism,
nepotism, or discrimination.
Who in this House is against that?
The Secretary shall not refuse to bargain in good faith with a labor
organization.
Who in this House is against that?
The Secretary shall submit negotiating impasses to an impartial
panel.
Who in this House is against that?
An employee shall have the right to full and fair compensation for
overtime and pay for hazardous duty work.
Who in this House is against that?
An employee shall have the right to form, join, or assist any labor
organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without
fear of penalty or reprisal.
Who is against that in this House?
Such right includes the right to engage in collective bargaining with
respect to conditions of employment through representatives chosen by
employees.
Who in this House is against that?
There are simple, basic, due process and appeal rights that these
employees have today that you are about to take away unless Members
vote for the motion to recommit. These rights include freedom from
racial discrimination, so these people have a chance to take their case
to the EEOC.
Many on the other side of the aisle will say these rights are already
in the bill. If that is true, if that is true, they should welcome this
motion to recommit and vote for it. If they are believing their own
speeches, they should vote for this motion to recommit, because it will
not kill this bill. It will not even delay this bill a microsecond. All
it will do is safeguard the rights of DOD employees.
This is the only chance Members will have in this long debate to help
these employees. The next time Members visit a military base, the next
time a DOD employee or family member appears at a gathering, they are
going to ask Members what they did or did not do to help them. They are
going to ask us why the Senate helped them and you did not. Because the
other body is treating these people in a much fairer manner.
{time} 1900
You do not want to tell these 750,000 patriotic families that you do
not have time or the interest to consider preserving their existing
rights. So now is your chance, your only chance to help these people,
65 of whom died on September 11 when the terrorists attacked
[[Page H4611]]
the Pentagon, people who are part of the best employee workforce in the
history of the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, over a hundred years ago Republicans and
Democrats came together to prevent and preclude and to eliminate a
politicized patronage system that was sucking down the quality of
public service. What the amendment says is that we will not return to
that kind of a system. I agree with the gentleman. If your bill does
not do that, this motion to recommit does not harm it. If there is a
chance that it does, it precludes it and protects it against a
politicized civil service system. Vote for this motion to recommit.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered
and rejected in the Committee on Government Reform.
The gentleman is right, it was 100 years ago; and today we are in an
information age when terrorists move information at the speed of an e-
mail, money at the speed of a wire transfer, and people at the speed of
a commercial jet liner. But the Department of Defense is still bogged
down in bureaucratic processes in an industrial age that goes back 100
years.
Now, we preserve the rights the gentleman talked about, and he
alluded to the fact, I am holding up the bill and ask you to read
these. This section 9902 has 10 pages of fundamental employee
protections. We include Chapters 33 and 35 of title V, which cover
veterans' preferences with nonwaivable chapters.
The NSPS strictly forbids political patronage and mandates that the
Department comply with all existing civil service protections, sex,
age, race discrimination. That is in section 2301 and section 2302 of
title V.
Nepotism protections, section 2302, are not waived. They remain in
this legislation.
The amendment would require employees to be able to collectively
bargain. The legislation at 9902 specifically says that employees may
organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor
organizations of their own choosing. And section 9902, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh) offered an amendment in committee that sets
up an independent employee review panel appointed by the President, not
the Secretary of Defense. The McHugh amendment took care of that
problem.
These flexibilities are less in most cases than what we just gave the
Department of Homeland Security less than a year ago and which dozens
of other government departments have. We need to understand that. And
they are based on the experience of nine pilot programs and 40,000
employees who have voted, in many cases against the union bosses who
oppose them, to continue these kinds of reforms.
Let us take the civil service into the 21st century, and let us pay
our employees what they are worth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter)
has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right when he
went over the litany of rights and protections that are in this bill.
And we had a 25-hour mark up in which members on the Committee on Armed
Services had lots of time, Democrat and Republican, to look at this
bill. And let me just say, this bill passed 58 to 2 out of the
Committee on Armed Services. And I think if folks really thought that
this totally stripped due process away from 700,000 Americans, they
would not have voted for that. And it does not strip away due process.
You know something, we are asking the Secretary of Defense to rebuild
a system, and I think it is a system that is going to end up employing
more people in the civil service because those 300,000 people in
uniform who are doing the job now, because of bureaucracy, it is too
tough to get through to appoint a civil servant, so it is easier to
tell a sergeant, Sergeant, you go to it. The sergeant salutes, he goes
and does it, and a civil service job is taken away.
This is going to be a great new reform package.
Now, let us get to the big picture. Just a couple of weeks ago
American military folks, people coming from the air and the great Air
Force, people projecting power from the sea in our Navy, people making
combined arms operations with the Marines and the Army, people
parachuting in with the 173rd Airborne coming into northern Iraq, the
Third Armored Division moving up like a spear point up through the
throat of Iraq going straight to Saddam Hussein's hideout, the great
First Marine Division, the First Cav., all those Special Operators,
those Special Forces, all the great men and women who supported this
operation, went out and took what this Congress has given them over the
last many years in terms of equipment and training and they carried out
America's foreign policy, and they fought for freedom and they did a
great job.
This bill does our job. It replaces that equipment. It raises that
pay of 4.1 percent average across the board. It helps us to fight the
battle of today if we have to engage by bolstering heavy armor and
bringing in new precision-guided munitions; and it also looks over the
horizon to the battle we might have to fight tomorrow.
Those great men and women in uniform did their job. This bill is our
job. Please vote down the motion to recommit, and let us pass this
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 224, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 220]
AYES--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
[[Page H4612]]
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--224
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Bonilla
Combest
Doolittle
Emerson
Gephardt
Greenwood
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Two minutes
remain to vote.
{time} 1923
Mr. HALL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 361,
noes 68, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 221]
AYES--361
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--68
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Case
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Paul
Payne
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--5
Bonilla
Combest
Doolittle
Emerson
Gephardt
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain to
vote.
{time} 1931
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________