[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 172 (Sunday, November 23, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON CONFERENCE REPORT ON FY 2004 DEFENSE 
                           AUTHORIZATION BILL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 21, 2003

  Mr. HOLT.  Mr. Speaker, the final version of this legislation 
continues our shared bipartisan commitment to boost the income for all 
of our military personnel with a 4.15-percent average increase in base 
pay. This is an important testament to the brave men and women who risk 
their lives to defend America's freedom.
  In addition, this conference report extends several special pay 
provisions and bonuses for active duty personnel through December 31, 
2004. It reduces 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. It increases the family 
separation allowance for service members with dependents, worldwide, 
from $100 per month to $250 per month for the period beginning October 
1, 2003 and ending December 31, 2004. Finally, it increases the rate of 
special pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger, 
worldwide from $150 per month to $225 per month for the period 
beginning October 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004.
  While I am not satisfied with the provisions in this conference 
report regarding concurrent receipt for military retirees, it does 
provide some, overdue redress for this out-of-date policy.
  But on balance, I am opposing this final conference report because I 
fundamentally disagree with key aspects of its policy presumptions and 
prescriptions. On balance, it will make America less safe in an 
increasingly unstable world.
  First and most importantly, the growing reliance upon nuclear weapons 
that this legislation 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 April, 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. I regret that we have never received a 
substantive reply from the President. That congressional action coupled 
with the examples I've cited and other provisions in this conference 
report 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. Former EPA Administrator, 
Christine Whitman, 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 conference report 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 3 
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 that attempted to protect basic worker rights.
  But this legislation 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.
  Thanks to this legislation, Secretary Rumsfeld will be able to do 
away with the current personnel system in the Pentagon. I am unwilling 
to give the Bush Administration 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 this conference report which contains provisions that 
will take our military backwards, rather than forwards. I cannot 
support legislation that will re-ignite a global nuclear arms race, 
even as our troops in Iraq and elsewhere risk their lives every day to 
stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I cannot support legislation that 
takes away the rights of hundreds of thousands of hard-working Pentagon 
employees Finally, I cannot support legislation that disingenuously 
claims that stripping away important environmental protections here at 
home will somehow bolster our national security.

                          ____________________