[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 132 (Wednesday, September 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8784-H8793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2658, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2004
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the
House of today, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2658)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
[[Page H8785]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I want you to know we do not
intend to use 30 minutes on either side, but we are very proud to bring
before you today that bill that deals with appropriations for the
fiscal year 2004.
The bill, in its total, involves some $368 billion in discretionary
budget authority; and within those titles there is approximately $98
billion for military personnel, $116 billion for O&M, $74 billion for
procurement, $65 billion for R&D, and nearly $16 billion for defense
health. Within those numbers we have developed a bill that absolutely
balances the needs of our military while we go forward ensuring that
America will remain the strongest country in the world for the years to
come.
At this point I would like to insert a summary of the conference
agreement into the Record.
[[Page H8786]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.224
[[Page H8787]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.225
[[Page H8788]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.226
[[Page H8789]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.227
[[Page H8790]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH24SE03.228
[[Page H8791]]
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, I just want to thank the chairman
and the ranking member for the agreement they have reached on the
closing of the Navy base in Puerto Rico, Roosevelt Roads.
My position all the time has been that if that was going to be the
final decision, the people of Puerto Rico, the community, were entitled
to all of the benefits and support that usually comes with the closure
of a base. They have agreed, and I thank them very much.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I must say to my colleague from Puerto Rico that there is language
within the bill that would require that the Secretary of the Navy close
Roosevelt Roads. And, frankly, I had designed very simple language that
would make sure that happened expeditiously and beyond that that there
be no complications regarding work, environment, et cetera.
I know the gentleman from Puerto Rico and I have worked very closely
together; but I want him to know I am very, very concerned about the
language that is in this bill that is coming out of the conference. The
language essentially takes us back to the BRACC process. And I am
afraid, I do not want to be apologizing for this process, but I must
say there is a need to ring some bells here because the people of
Puerto Rico could experience the worst of all worlds with this base
closing earlier than any other base in the BRACC process, but at the
same time being tied to the BRACC process.
Indeed, if that is the case, a likely experience I had in my own
district was where BRACC just does not work, and we could find that
base sitting fallow for years. We may find ourselves 5 and 10 years
from now with an empty base with a lock on the gate.
What was done in the conference, really on the part of people who are
interested in changing our simple language, has not been healthy for
this process. So I say to the gentleman that while we have worked
together, I am very concerned right now with the result of the
conference report.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, the only thing I can assure the
chairman of is that the government of Puerto Rico, the community, is
already working on a plan to redevelop the base, and that we are going
to be working very closely with the Federal Government just to be sure
that what the chairman is afraid might happen will not happen; and, on
the contrary, that we will follow the best experience in other places
when a base has been shut down and sooner rather than later becomes a
center for economic development and job creation. We are working on
that already, following the chairman's advice.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I must
say that I had this experience in my own district with similar
assurances. The BRACC process, legal challenges, and otherwise, this is
20 years later and that base is just beginning to get on its feet. So I
am very, very concerned; and I appreciate working with the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time, and I would
make the usual brief congratulatory comments about the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis). He has done an outstanding job as the chairman,
along with the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha). They produced a really good defense bill and we are producing
this defense bill at a time when the world's attention is not national
defense.
{time} 1115
One of the things that I want to talk about today has to do with
those who are providing for our national defense, those soldiers and
sailors and airmen and Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have been
deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Liberia, to wherever else the
Nation decided to send them. Unfortunately, there have been casualties.
Some have been killed in action, and some have been seriously wounded
in action. Many Members know my wife and I visit the wounded at Walter
Reed Hospital and at Bethesda Naval Hospital as often as we can, and
she more than I.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the wife of the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was instrumental in pointing out to
me that one young man did not get a Purple Heart, so the Commandant is
going to present him with a Purple Heart on Thursday, I believe. She is
out there all the time, and all of us are indebted to the work that she
does at the hospitals.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those
comments, and he is exactly right. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha) knows that firsthand because he spends considerable time
visiting the wounded in the hospitals as well.
One of the things that I learned is when a wounded soldier or troop
leaves the hospital, despite the fact that person was there because of
injuries or illness based on the battle, they get a bill for $8.10 a
day for the food they consumed in the hospital. That is outrageous. I
could not believe that was the case, and I immediately went back to
research it, and found yes, that is the law. I could not find anybody
that knew where that law came from or why it was or anybody that
believed we should have that law.
So we introduced a bill to repeal that charge for those who are
wounded or become ill because of their deployment to the battlefield or
peacekeeping mission. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking member and all of the members of the subcommittee. They have
agreed to include that bill in this conference report. So when this
bill is signed by the President next week, hopefully, that terrible law
that charges a wounded soldier who might have lost a leg or two legs or
an eye will be repealed. He will not have to pay that $8.10 a day for
the food consumed in the hospital while recuperating from those wounds.
Because it is an appropriations bill, it is only a 1-year fix, so we
must continue to push for the permanent bill which has over 200
cosponsors as I speak today.
Again, I think that the subcommittee has done a great job. Maybe it
is not a lot of money, but it is symbolic, an American soldier wounded
in action should not have to pay for the food that they eat or consume
while in the hospital recuperating.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for all of
his efforts, and in this instance on behalf of the young men and women
who are wounded, lying in hospitals, who are in many ways being
unfairly treated, I say congratulations to the gentleman from Florida;
and congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and
all of our fine staff for their fine work.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker and Ranking Member, I rise in
opposition to this conference report and to the underlying bill. The
conference report appropriates $368.2 billion for the Defense
Department for fiscal year 2004, which is $13.1 billion more than in
last year's bill and the largest overall appropriation in decades. Of
these funds, the report appropriates $74 billion to weapons
procurement, which is $31 billion more than the fiscal year 2003 level.
Furthermore, it appropriates $65.2 billion for research and
development, $7 billion more than in fiscal year 2003; $115.9 billion
for operations and maintenance, $1.2 billion more than in fiscal year
2003; and $98.5 billion for personnel, which is $4.9 billion more than
in fiscal year 2003.
The funds requested in this bill appear wasteful in light of the
various other emergent needs that we have in our Nation today.
Blackouts that occurred on August 14, 2003
[[Page H8792]]
revealed vulnerabilities in our Nation's critical infrastructure that
require immediate attention. Money spent on munitions and research and
development will not serve its purpose if there is no power to do so.
The August 14, 2003, blackouts that affected the Midwest and
Northeastern United States and eastern Canada caused the loss of 62,000
megawatts of electricity over 34,000 miles of high-voltage transmission
lines. Given the heavy integration of this system, the breakdown caused
a total loss of service in a matter of approximately 9 minutes. Our
government has been on notice for some time of the vulnerabilities that
the electrical infrastructure has that makes it subject to intermittent
blackouts and brownouts.
Unfortunately, we have not yet ascertained the exact cause of the
blackouts. However, we do know that NERC operates under reliability
rules that are neither mandatory nor enforceable; hence, no one is
accountable for the reliability of our electrical system. NERC was
actually established in response to prior blackouts in the region. It
can only advise utilities to follow voluntary rules designed to ensure
the safe operation of the individual systems. During the blackout
hearings, NERC testified that in 2002, there were more than 500
planning and operating violations of its voluntary rules, half of which
were of a character that could have individually caused the blackouts.
Now, we are in a quandary because homeland security needs necessitate
the procurement of necessary funds to improve the system. We cannot
afford to do a piecemeal improvement.
The President requested $87 billion from Congress to fund his plan to
rebuild Iraq. It is important that we collaborate fully with respect to
the House's consideration of this request. Given our express commitment
to supporting our troops despite our views as to the Administration's
course of action to date, we must process this request in a manner most
beneficial to our Nation. With this in mind, I have expressed my
thoughts as to specific action that should be taken as a precondition
to our grant of $87 billion. For example, I propose that the requested
funds be voted on separately by Congress as to the support of our
troops and the Iraq reconstruction plan. In addition, specific measures
should be taken to form a multinational coalition to support the United
States and deployed troops with the help of the United Nations.
Furthermore, the intelligence and WMD scandals should be properly
addressed with comprehensive briefings and joint hearings. It is
apparent that there are a host of very specific local and international
issues that require relief through appropriations before general and
unspecified appropriations for defense and counterterrorism measures be
made.
Again with respect to H.R. 2658 and the conferences report, the bill
contemplates large increases for Defense Department counterterrorism
activities and other related programs to fight unconventional threats,
including $4.5 billion procurement and development of chemical and
biological defenses. I see this spending as premature and wasteful
given our opportunities to enlist financial assistance from a
multinational coalition to share the burden of fighting this global
menace of terrorism. Furthermore, funds need to first go to supporting
our troops and their families before being earmarked for unclear
measures. With this in mind, I wish to ensure the passage of the
extension to fiscal year 2004 of the $128 million increased imminent
danger pay and family separation allowance for our troops in Iraq as
well as Afghanistan otherwise known as the emergency wartime
supplemental appropriations bill. Through Congress, these funds were
provided temporarily in April; however, the appropriation will expire
on September 30, 2003. We have clear priorities with respect to
homeland security, international policy, and the fight against
terrorism. I hope we do not choose to spend prematurely or
ineffectively at the risk of innocent and brave soldiers and civilians.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2658, the Department of Defense Appropriations Conference Report. I am
proud to vote for this legislation that provides improved health care,
more quality housing, and a pay raise for the brave men and women of
the U.S. Armed Forces. I am especially pleased that this legislation
gives our troops the tools they need to meet the challenges of fighting
the continuing global war against terrorism and maintaining American
military superiority and leadership around the world.
I am proud to report to veterans in my district that this bill also
includes legislation that I recently cosponsored to stop unfairly
charging soldiers for the food they eat during their hospitalization.
Two weeks ago, I visited the Marines and sailors recovering at the
National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, MD. Some of those young men
lost limbs or sustained other permanently disabling injuries. Many more
require sustained intensive care and will have long and arduous path
toward rehabilitation. I hope that all of them are promptly decorated
with one of the most distinguished medals that the U.S. Armed Forces
can bestow upon military personnel--the Purple Heart--for their
sacrifices and valor.
Every soldier, Marine, sailor, and airman deserves the best medical
care this country can provide, but they don't deserve to be billed for
food and water. It is unconscionable that these heroes owe $8.10 for
each day they spent in the hospital.
Madam Speaker, I was proud to cosponsor Chairman Young's legislation
to correct this injustice. It is the least we can do for our Nation's
keepers of peace and defenders of freedom. I am pleased to vote for the
fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations conference report and to
support our valiant military personnel.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman
Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha and Members of the Senate Defense
Appropriations Committee for working with me on the important yet
difficult issue concerning the closure of Naval Station Roosevelt
Roads. Under the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the base
will close in 6 months, however, closure will take place under the
procedures provided under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC).
The changes to the language that was approved in July by the House will
enable the closure to proceed with necessary guarantees for
redevelopment of this important facility. Furthermore, the conference
agreement will provide economic assistance and environmental
remediation as specified by BRAC.
Both Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha made clear that with
the Inner Range of the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility (AFWTF)
closed, the base would be closed under the next BRAC round, scheduled
for 2005. With the language being enacted this year, this process can
move forward in an expedited manner and redevelopment of the base can
proceed. I believe this will provide for more immediate and necessary
economic development for the region around Ceiba, Puerto Rico. Waiting
for BRAC 2005 would have drawn this process out and caused unnecessary
hardship for my constituents.
Therefore, I am very pleased with this outcome and the partnership I
have forged with Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Murtha. I look
forward to working with them both in the future.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, as we debate this appropriations
bill today, we should recall the words of our President, George W.
Bush, shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
He stated: ``America is a nation full of good fortune, with so much
to be grateful for. But we are not spared from suffering. In every
generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have
attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender.''
Madam Chairman, the bill we have before us today is our answer to
those who would attack America. This is a strong legislative product--
one that reflects well on the Committee on Appropriations. I want to
commend you, Chairman Lewis, Chairman Young and Ranking Members Obey
and Murtha for your leadership.
Madam Chairman, as we consider this important legislation, we must
remain mindful that our young troops are in the field--brave men and
women fighting a new kind of war, as we speak.
It is a war fought with new technology in lands and civilizations
that are very old--Iraq and Afghanistan.
The first part of the war had Forward Air Controllers riding
horseback and calling in strikes from laptop computers.
It was also a war that was fought from our ships stationed 700 miles
from targets.
It was a war that utilized B-52's and B-2s and B1Bs for precision
targeting, and a war that called for our troops to go from cave to cave
or building to building to seek out the enemy.
More than ever, today it is a war whose enemy is difficult to
identify.
At the same time as our men and women are in action in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other parts of the world, the leadership of the
Department of Defense continues its wide-ranging transformation of the
methods, missions and capabilities of our fighting forces.
In this context, America's armed forces have been charged with
developing the capabilities to fight jointly and with coalition
partners to secure victory across the full spectrum of warfare while
continuing the transition to a more flexible, more agile, lighter and
more lethal force.
Of course, our goal is to provide a new level of efficiency and
protection to our warfighter so that they may fight--and win--the new
kind of wars that will face the United States of America in coming
years.
Madam Chairman, we are a peaceful people. But recent months have
shown the world that we will fight anywhere to defend our national
security.
[[Page H8793]]
The men and women of our Armed Forces have made us proud. For them,
and their families, I urge adoption of the bill and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 15, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
YEAS--407
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
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)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
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
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--15
Conyers
Farr
Filner
Jackson (IL)
Kucinich
Lee
McDermott
Oberstar
Owens
Paul
Sanders
Schakowsky
Stark
Waters
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--12
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Cummings
Gephardt
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (GA)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Osborne
Pastor
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1140
Mr. OWENS and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, WELLER, and DeFAZIO changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 513
due to technical difficulties. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Mr. HINIJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 513.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. speaker, on rollcall No. 513,
agreeing to the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations Conference Report, I was
unavoidably detained, and unable to make the vote. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________