[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17918-17946]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 246 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2586.

                              {time}  1748


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2586) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for other 
purposes, with Mrs. Biggert in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
September 20, 2001, proceedings pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, September 19 had been completed.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 246, no further amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is in order, except 
amendments printed in House Report 207-218. Amendments printed in the 
report may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only 
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 107-218.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Stump

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Stump:
       At the end of subtitle A of title I (page 18, after line 
     25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, 
                   NAVY.

       (a) Increase in SCN Amount.--The amount provided in section 
     102(a)(3) for shipbuilding and conversion for the Navy is 
     hereby increased by $57,100,000, to be available for the 
     U.S.S. Eisenhower (CVN-69) Refueling Complex Overhaul 
     program.
       (b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is 
     hereby reduced by $57,100,000, to be derived from amounts for 
     consulting services.
       Strike section 121 (page 20, line 2, through page 21, line 
     2).
       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 27, after line 
     24), insert the following new sections:

     SEC. __. COST LIMITATION APPLICABLE TO F-22 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM 
                   ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 217(c)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1660) is 
     amended by inserting ``plus $250,000,000'' after ``and 
     (2))''.

     SEC. __. C-5 AIRCRAFT MODERNIZATION.

       (a) Increase in Air Force RDTE Amount.--The amount provided 
     in section 201(3) for Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation for the Air Force is hereby increased by 
     $30,000,000, to be available for Re-engining and Avionics 
     Modernization for the C-5 aircraft.
       (b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is 
     hereby reduced by $30,000,000, to be derived from amounts for 
     consulting services.
       Strike section 331 (page 58, beginning on line 19) and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 331. WORKFORCE REVIEW LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Limitation Pending GAO Report.--No more than 50 percent 
     of the workforce reviews planned during fiscal year 2002 may 
     be initiated before the date that is the earlier of (1) May 
     1, 2002, or (2) the date on which the Comptroller General 
     submits to Congress the report required by section 832 of the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-
     221), regarding policies and procedures governing the 
     transfer of commercial activities from Government personnel 
     to Federal contractors.
       (b) Required Cost Savings Level for Change.--(1) A 
     commercial or industrial type function of the Department of 
     Defense may not be changed to performance by the private 
     sector as a result of a workforce review unless, as a result 
     of the cost comparison examination required as part of the 
     review that employed the most efficient organization process 
     described in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or 
     any successor administrative regulation or policy, at least a 
     10-percent cost savings would be achieved by performance of 
     the function by the private sector over the term of the 
     contract.
       (2) The cost savings requirement specified in paragraph (1) 
     does not apply to any contracts for special studies and 
     analyses, construction services, architectural services, 
     engineering services, medical services, scientific and 
     technical services related to (but not in support of) 
     research and development, and depot-level maintenance and 
     repair services.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense may waive the cost savings 
     requirement if--
       (A) the written waiver is prepared by the Secretary of 
     Defense, or the relevant Assistant Secretary or agency head; 
     and
       (B) the written waiver is accompanied by a detailed 
     determination that national security interests are so 
     compelling as to preclude compliance with the requirement for 
     a cost comparison examination.
       (C) The Secretary of Defense shall publish a copy of the 
     waiver in the Federal Register.
       (c) Workforce Review Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``workforce review'' with respect to a function of the 
     Department of Defense performed by Department of Defense 
     civilian employees, means a review conducted under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 (or any successor 
     administrative regulation or policy).
       Strike subtitle G of title III (page 71, beginning on line 
     12), relating to the Department of Defense Service 
     Contracting Reform Act of 2001.
       At the end of subtitle F of title III (page 71, after line 
     11), insert the following new section:

[[Page 17919]]



     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING SECURITY TO BE PROVIDED 
                   AT THE 2002 WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 
     should provide essential and appropriate public safety and 
     security support for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt 
     Lake City, Utah.
       Page 179, line 18, insert ``(a) Access to Directory 
     Information.--'' before ``Section''.
       Page 180, after line 3, insert the following:
       (b) Enhanced Recruiter Access.--Section 503(c)(5) of such 
     title is amended by striking ``do not apply to--'' and all 
     that follows through ``(B)'' and inserting ``do not apply 
     to''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect on July 1, 2002, immediately after 
     the amendment to section 503(c) of title 10, United States 
     Code, made, effective that date, by section 563(a) of the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 114 
     Stat. 1654A-131).
       Strike section 715 (page 231, beginning on line 8, and all 
     that follows through page 234, line 18) and insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 715. CLARIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS REGARDING THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE 
                   HEALTH CARE FUND.

       (a) Clarification Regarding Coverage.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1111 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) In this chapter:
       ``(1) The term `Department of Defense retiree health care 
     programs' means the provisions of this title or any other 
     provision of law creating an entitlement to or eligibility 
     for health care under a Department of Defense or uniformed 
     service program for a member or former member of a 
     participating uniformed service who is entitled to retired or 
     retainer pay, and an eligible dependent under such program.
       ``(2) The term `eligible dependent' means a dependent (as 
     such term is defined in section 1072(2) of this title) 
     described in section 1076(a)(2) (other than a dependent of a 
     member on active duty), 1076(b), 1086(c)(2), or 1086(c)(3).
       ``(3) The term `medicare-eligible', with respect to any 
     person, means entitled to benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).
       ``(4) The term `participating uniformed service' means the 
     Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and any other 
     uniformed service that is covered by an agreement entered 
     into under subsection (c).''.
       (b) Participation of Other Uniformed Services.--(1) Section 
     1111 of such title is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(c) The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement 
     with any other administering Secretary (as defined in section 
     1072(3)) for participation in the Fund by a uniformed service 
     under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such agreement 
     shall require that Secretary to make contributions to the 
     Fund on behalf of the members of the uniformed service under 
     the jurisdiction of that Secretary comparable to the 
     contributions to the Fund made by the Secretary of Defense 
     under section 1116, and such administering Secretary may make 
     such contributions.''.
       (2) Section 1112 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Amounts paid into the Fund pursuant to section 
     1111(c).''.
       (3) Section 1115 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``participating'' 
     before ``uniformed services'';
       (B) in subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(ii) of subsection 
     (b)(1), by inserting ``under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of Defense'' after ``uniformed services'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``(or to the other 
     executive department having jurisdiction over the 
     participating uniformed service)'' after ``Department of 
     Defense''; and
       (D) in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(1), by 
     inserting ``participating'' before ``uniformed services''.
       (4) Section 1116(a) of such title is amended in paragraphs 
     (1)(B) and (2)(B) by inserting ``under the jurisdiction of 
     the Secretary of Defense'' after ``uniformed services''.
       (c) Clarification of Payments From the Fund.--(1) 
     Subsection (a) of section 1113 of such title is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a) There shall be paid from the Fund amounts payable for 
     the costs of all Department of Defense retiree health care 
     programs for the benefit of members or former members of a 
     participating uniformed service who are entitled to retired 
     or retainer pay and are medicare eligible, and eligible 
     dependents described in section 1111(b)(3) who are medicare 
     eligible.''.
       (2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsections:
       ``(c)(1) In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Defense may transfer periodically from the Fund to applicable 
     appropriations of the Department of Defense, or to applicable 
     appropriations of other departments or agencies, such amounts 
     as the Secretary determines necessary to cover the costs 
     chargeable to those appropriations for Department of Defense 
     retiree health care programs for beneficiaries under those 
     programs who are medicare-eligible. Such transfers may 
     include amounts necessary for the administration of such 
     programs. Amounts so transferred shall be merged with and be 
     available for the same purposes and for the same time period 
     as the appropriation to which transferred. Upon a 
     determination that all or part of the funds transferred from 
     the Fund are not necessary for the purposes for which 
     transferred, such amounts may be transferred back to the 
     Fund. This transfer authority is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority that may be available to the Secretary.
       ``(2) A transfer from the Fund under paragraph (1) may not 
     be made to an appropriation after the end of the second 
     fiscal year after the fiscal year that the appropriation is 
     available for obligation. A transfer back to the Fund under 
     paragraph (1) may not be made after the end of the second 
     fiscal year after the fiscal year that the appropriation to 
     which the funds were originally transferred is available for 
     obligation.
       ``(d) The Secretary of Defense shall by regulation 
     establish the method or methods for calculating amounts to be 
     transferred under subsection (c). Such method or methods may 
     be based (in whole or in part) on a proportionate share of 
     the volume (measured as the Secretary determines appropriate) 
     of health care services provided or paid for under Department 
     of Defense retiree health care programs for beneficiaries 
     under those programs who are medicare-eligible in relation to 
     the total volume of health care services provided or paid for 
     under Department of Defense health care programs.
       ``(e) The regulations issued by the Secretary under 
     subsection (d) shall be provided to the Comptroller General 
     not less than 60 days before such regulations become 
     effective. The Comptroller General shall, not later than 30 
     days after receiving such regulations, report to the 
     Secretary of Defense and Congress on the adequacy and 
     appropriateness of the regulations.
       ``(f) If the Secretary of Defense enters into an agreement 
     with another administering Secretary pursuant to section 
     1111(c), the Secretary of Defense may take actions comparable 
     to those described in subsections (c), (d), and (e) to effect 
     comparable activities in relation to the beneficiaries and 
     programs of the other participating uniformed service.''.
       (d) Source of Funds for Monthly Accrual Payments Into the 
     Fund.--Section 1116 of such title is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(B) (as amended by subsection 
     (b)(7)), by striking the sentence beginning ``Amounts paid 
     into''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall 
     be paid from funds available for the health care programs of 
     the participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction 
     of the respective administering Secretaries.''.
       (e) Limitation on Total Amount Contributed During a Fiscal 
     Year.--Section 1116 of such title is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) In no case may the total amount of monthly 
     contributions to the Fund during a fiscal year under 
     subsection (a) exceed the amount paid from the Fund during 
     such fiscal year under section 1113.''.
       (f) Technical Amendments.--(1) The heading for section 1111 
     of such title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; 
       authority to enter into agreements''.

       (2) The item relating to section 1111 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 56 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to 
              enter into agreements.''.

       (3) Section 1115(c)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 
     inserting an open parenthesis before ``other than for 
     training)''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of chapter 
     56 of title 10, United States Code, by section 713(a)(1) of 
     the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-179).
       (h) First Year Contributions.--With respect to 
     contributions under section 1116(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, for the first year that the Department of 
     Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund is 
     established under chapter 56 of such title, if the Board of 
     Actuaries is unable to execute its responsibilities with 
     respect to such section, the Secretary of Defense may make 
     contributions under such section using methods and 
     assumptions developed by the Secretary.
       At the end of title X (page 307, after line 20), insert the 
     following new sections:

     SEC. __. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF 
                   THE UNITED STATES AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.

       (a) Deadline for Report.--Subsection (d)(1) of section 1092 
     of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-398; 
     114 Stat. 1654A-302) is amended by striking ``March 1, 2002'' 
     and inserting ``one year after the date of the first official 
     meeting of the Commission''.
       (b) Termination of Commission.--Subsection (g) of such 
     section is amended by striking ``30 days'' and inserting ``60 
     days''.

[[Page 17920]]



     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 
                   REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION OF PENTAGON 
                   RESERVATION.

       Section 2674(e) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) The Secretary of Defense may accept monetary 
     contributions made for the purpose of assisting to finance 
     the repair and reconstruction of the Pentagon Reservation 
     following the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 
     2001. The Secretary shall deposit such contributions in the 
     Fund.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated, by inserting at the 
     end the following new sentence: ``However, contributions 
     accepted under paragraph (2) shall be available for 
     expenditure only for the purpose specified in such 
     paragraph.''.
       At the end of title XIV (page 348, after line 8), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1408. RELATIONSHIP TO AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 
                   OF DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.

       Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title 
     shall modify, alter, or supersede the authorities and 
     responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence.
       Strike section 2863 (page 424, line 9, through page 426, 
     line 6), and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 2863. MANAGEMENT OF THE PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO.

       (a) Authority to Lease Certain Housing Units for Use as 
     Army Housing.--Title I of division I of the Omnibus Parks and 
     Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 16 
     U.S.C. 460bb note) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 107. CONDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEASE CERTAIN HOUSING 
                   UNITS WITHIN THE PRESIDIO.

       ``(a) Availability of Housing Units for Long-Term Army 
     Lease.--Subject to subsection (c), the Trust shall make 
     available for lease, to those persons designated by the 
     Secretary of the Army and for such length of time as 
     requested by the Secretary of the Army, 22 housing units 
     located within the Presidio that are under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Trust and specified in the agreement 
     between the Trust and the Secretary of the Army in existence 
     as of the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(b) Lease Amount.--The monthly amount charged by the 
     Trust for the lease of a housing unit under this section 
     shall be equivalent to the monthly rate of the basic 
     allowance for housing that the occupant of the housing unit 
     is entitled to receive under section 403 of title 37, United 
     States Code.
       ``(c) Condition on Continued Availability of Housing 
     Units.--Effective after the end of the four-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Trust shall have no obligation to make housing units 
     available under subsection (a) unless, during that four-year 
     period, the Secretary of the Treasury purchases new 
     obligations of at least $80,000,000 issued by the Trust under 
     section 104(d)(2). In the event that this condition is not 
     satisfied, the existing agreement referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall be renewed on the same terms and conditions for an 
     additional two years.''.
       (b) Increased Borrowing Authority and Technical 
     Corrections.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 104(d) of 
     title I of division I of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
     Management Act of 1996, as amended by section 334 of appendix 
     C of Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-199) and amended and 
     redesignated by section 101(13) of Public Law 106-176 (114 
     Stat. 25), are amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``including a review of 
     the creditworthiness of the loan and establishment of a 
     repayment schedule,'' the second place it appears; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$150,000,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (3) of''.
       At the end of subtitle A of title XXXI (page 461, after 
     line 6), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. INCREASED AMOUNT FOR NONPROLIFERATION AND 
                   VERIFICATION.

       (a) National Nuclear Security Administration.--The amounts 
     provided in section 3101 for activities of the National 
     Nuclear Security Administration, and in paragraph (2) of that 
     section for defense nuclear nonproliferation, are each hereby 
     increased by $10,000,000, for operation and maintenance for 
     nonproliferation and verification research and development 
     (and the amounts provided in subparagraph (A) of such 
     paragraph (2) and in clause (i) of such subparagraph are each 
     hereby increased by such amount).
       (b) Offset.--The amount provided in section 301(5) is 
     hereby reduced by $10,000,000, to be derived from amounts for 
     consulting services.
       Strike section 3304 (page 483, lines 9 through 16) and 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3304. EXPEDITED IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE 
                   OF COBALT FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.

       (a) Disposal Authorized During Fiscal Year 2002.--
     Subsection (a)(1) of section 3305 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 50 
     U.S.C. 98d note) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2003'' 
     and inserting ``the two-fiscal year period ending September 
     30, 2003''.
       (b) Limitations on Disposal Authority.--Subsection (b)(1) 
     of such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``The total quantity of cobalt disposed of 
     under such subsection during fiscal year 2002 may not exceed 
     700,000 pounds.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment that I offer at this point in the bill has been 
developed in consultation with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the committee's ranking member, and results mostly from the 
unusual process the Committee on Armed Services had to deal with this 
year.
  As Members are aware, we did not receive the administration's amended 
budget proposal for the Department of Defense until after the July 4 
break. Details regarding the submission and backup justification 
materials continued to come into the committee throughout the month of 
July and even into August. However, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and I determined that in order to get the defense bill to the 
floor this month, the committee needed to get through the markup before 
the August district period.
  The committee compressed what would normally be a 3-month 
deliberation into less than a month, but strived to accomplish the 
committee's usual comprehensive work product. Unfortunately, the 
reality of moving so quickly while greater levels of detail kept 
arriving from the administration, inevitably necessitated that a 
variety of changes be made to the bill based on that information.
  Some of the provisions are more technical than others but, again, all 
have been worked out in consultation with the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Skelton), and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, one might call this a ``cats and dogs'' amendment. In 
this bill, as in every bill, there are minor housekeeping matters and 
new ideas and agreements that do not require their own specific 
amendment; and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of 
the committee, and I have rounded up the strays and now present them en 
bloc. I have worked with the chairman to resolve these items. I support 
all of them, and I ask the Members to join us in the passage of this 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to engage the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the vice 
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in a 
colloquy on space launch.
  Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter), the vice chairman of the House Select Committee on 
Intelligence for a colloquy regarding section 121 of the bill.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Select 
Committee on Intelligence, and I appreciate the willingness of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, to 
reach common ground on the issue of responsibility for contracts on 
defense space launches. We are particularly grateful that he has agreed 
with our amendment to remove section 121 from the bill.
  As the gentleman knows, the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence included a provision in the fiscal year 2001 intelligence 
authorization bill that would encourage the National Reconnaissance 
Office to have greater input with respect to contracting related to the 
launch of national reconnaissance payloads. There have been

[[Page 17921]]

positive developments from the introduction of this language in last 
year's intelligence bill, even though that language was removed by the 
other body prior to final passage. Since the beginning of 2001, the 
U.S. Air Force has been more forthcoming with the NRO on contracting 
matters, and this trend needs to be encouraged.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is my understanding 
that the House Select Committee on Intelligence does not plan to adopt 
any additional space launch contracting provisions in the fiscal year 
2002 intelligence authorization bill; is that correct?
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, the chairman's understanding of our 
position is correct.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, in a colloquy.
  Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to discuss 
an issue that takes on even more significance in light of the attacks 
on September 11, and that is computer cyber-security. I had proposed an 
amendment to provide $2 million to the Secretary of Defense in order to 
assist the Department of Defense in ensuring that computers and 
computer-related products that the Department purchases from the 
commercial sector meet the highest level of national security and 
information security requirements. Unfortunately, my amendment was not 
ruled in order. This is a very important topic to me, and I hope to 
have the chairman's support as I continue to discuss and promote the 
need for information assurance within the Department of Defense.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, the gentleman raises a very important 
issue. In this day and age, information assurance and security of the 
Department's computers is vital. Our national defense relies on it. I 
assure the gentleman that I will continue to work with the gentleman on 
this matter.
  Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would like to speak in support of the manager's amendment, but I 
would like to talk briefly about part of that amendment that came from 
the heart of West Virginia.
  The day after the tragedy on September 11, the eighth grade class of 
Moorefield Middle School, Mr. Sisler's class, got together and talked 
about what they could do to help. One of the girls in the class said, I 
would like to give some money to rebuild the Pentagon. So we engaged in 
a conversation; and what we came up with was a specific bill, part of 
this amendment, that would allow children and adults throughout the 
country to specifically donate to the Department of Defense to create a 
fund to rebuild and restructure our Pentagon. That is part of this 
manager's amendment.
  It is with great pride that I offer this from the Moorefield Middle 
School children, from the hearts of West Virginia to the hearts of 
America; and I thank the gentleman for letting me be a part of this.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in strong support of the manager's amendment of the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump). This amendment contains $57.1 
million to complete the funding required for the refueling of the 
U.S.S. Eisenhower and will help to ensure our carrier force is ready 
for war.
  Madam Chairman, there is no question that we have underfunded our 
true defense needs for over 10 years. Now is the time to correct this. 
Now is the time to fully fund our carriers.
  Who could have imagined just 2 weeks ago that we would require two 
carriers in the New York Harbor flying combat air patrols? Who could 
have imagined that just 2 weeks ago we would require four carriers in 
just one theater of operation?
  Madam Chairman, H.R. 2586 is a start toward funding our military at 
adequate levels, but it is only a start. This manager's amendment will 
rush critical funding not only to our carriers, but C-5 aircraft 
modernization. These are two critical areas that need our immediate 
attention, and the gentleman from Arizona's amendment does just that.
  In closing, I encourage all Members of the House to vote in support 
of this critical amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House report 107-218.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Stump

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Stump:
       At the end of subtitle E of title V (page 161, after line 
     12), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NEW MEDAL TO RECOGNIZE CIVILIAN 
                   EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE KILLED 
                   OR WOUNDED AS A RESULT OF HOSTILE ACTION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The role and importance of civilian nationals of the 
     United States as Federal employees and contractors in support 
     of operations of the Armed Forces worldwide has continued to 
     expand.
       (2) The expanded role performed by those civilians, both in 
     the United States and overseas, has greatly increased the 
     risk to those civilians of injury and death from hostile 
     actions taken against United States Armed Forces, as 
     demonstrated by the terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 
     September 11, 2001, in which scores of Department of Defense 
     civilian and contractor personnel were killed or wounded.
       (3) No decoration exists for the recognition of civilian 
     nationals of the United States who, while serving under 
     competent authority in any capacity with the Armed Forces, 
     are killed or wounded in the line of duty under circumstances 
     which, if they were members of the Armed Forces, would 
     qualify them for the award of the Purple Heart.
       (4) Both the Congress and the Secretary of Defense have 
     previously agreed to the need for such a decoration.
       (5) On September 20, 2001, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
     approved the creation of a new award, a medal for the defense 
     of freedom, to be awarded to civilians employed by the 
     Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result 
     of hostile action and at the same time directed that a 
     comprehensive review be conducted to develop a more uniform 
     approach to the award of decorations to military and civilian 
     personnel of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Commendation of Creation of New Award.--Congress 
     commends the decision announced by the Deputy Secretary of 
     Defense on September 20, 2001, to approve the creation of a 
     new award, a medal for the defense of freedom, to be awarded 
     to civilians employed by the Department of Defense who are 
     killed or wounded as a result of hostile action.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of Defense--
       (1) should move expeditiously to produce and award the new 
     medal referred to in subsection (b); and
       (2) should develop a more comprehensive, uniform policy for 
     the award of decorations to military and civilian personnel 
     of the Department of Defense.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment expresses a sense of Congress regarding the recognition 
of civilian employees within the Department of Defense who are killed 
or wounded as a result of hostile action.

[[Page 17922]]



                              {time}  1800

  For those in the uniformed services who have died or were injured in 
the recent terrorist attacks, the services have a variety of 
decorations that may be awarded in recognition of their service, 
including the Purple Heart. However, appropriate medals or decorations 
have not been available to recognize the sacrifices of civilian 
employees of the Department of Defense who befall fates similar to 
those of their military counterparts.
  In the 105th Congress, we realized the need to give proper 
recognition to U.S. civilians who were killed or wounded while serving 
in an official capacity with our Armed Forces. Public Law 105-261 
required the Secretary of Defense to study the need for such awards. 
Subsequently, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen signed a letter 
to the Speaker of the House dated January 28, 2000, which stated that 
in situations that are, ``analogous to the circumstances wherein 
military members receive the Purple Heart, we will move forward to 
create an appropriate recognition for civilian nationals of the United 
States within the near future.''
  Unfortunately, nothing came to fruition during this 18 months, and 
DOD did not have an appropriate civilian award in place. I understand 
that now the Department is finally moving forward to establish an award 
appropriately recognizing civilians.
  Many veterans' organizations and military associations that believe 
the Purple Heart should remain an exclusive military decoration support 
the Department's action. My amendment commends the Department of 
Defense for approving the creation of a new medal, a medal in the 
defense of freedom to be awarded to civilians employed by the 
Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile 
action.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, let me state that I do rise in support of the 
amendment offered by my friend and our chairman, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump). This amendment expresses the sense of Congress 
that the Secretary of Defense should move expeditiously to produce an 
award of a freedom medal to be awarded to civilians employed with the 
Department of Defense who are killed or wounded as a result of hostile 
action.
  It also urges the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive, 
uniform policy for the award of decorations to military and civilian 
personnel.
  The tragic and deadly attack of the Pentagon by terrorists has raised 
public awareness that our Nation's civilian personnel also take an oath 
to defend and protect our Nation. Their selfless contributions and 
their sacrifices are just as vital to our efforts to protect the 
constitutional freedoms that we enjoy.
  On September 11, nearly 200 of our finest military personnel and 
civil servants gave the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, in a terrorist 
war against our Nation. Members of the Armed Forces who were killed or 
wounded in the Pentagon attack will receive the Purple Heart. Sadly, 
the sacrifices of their civilian coworkers will not be acknowledged, 
since no decoration existed to recognize civilians who were also killed 
or wounded in the line of duty.
  These and many other civilians often work with their military 
colleagues side by side, and oftentimes are deployed to hostile areas 
in support of military operations. They are essential to support 
military operations worldwide, and it is right and just that we 
recognize their contributions and sacrifices on behalf of our Nation.
  On September 20, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved of a new 
defense of freedom medal for civilians of the Department of Defense who 
were killed or wounded as a result of hostile action. The defense of 
freedom medal, like the Purple Heart, will recognize the sacrifices of 
our civilian personnel.
  I urge the support of my colleagues.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of my friend and 
chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, and his efforts in this Purple 
Heart area. I think he has given us a very great argument on it, and 
one that I totally support.
  I would like to say on the manager's amendments that he just recently 
passed, the State of Utah will be hosting the 2002 Winter Games 
starting in coming February. A lot of people go to that, and in the 
other body there was a very misguided amendment that said that the U.S. 
military could have nothing to do with the Winter Games, and that is 
the law we have now.
  Fortunately, that amendment that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Stump) recently carried here would straighten that thing out. I do not 
think people realize how many people watch the downhill, for an 
example. Do Members know how many people watched the last Winter Games 
downhill? Take this figure, 3 billion people.
  So this is not something that just the State of Utah is going to be 
doing, it is basically something the United States is going to be 
doing. The world watches this. The men's downhill, that is the number 
one thing they watch. They watch the skating, they watch every part of 
it, which they find interesting.
  Our Nation has a responsibility to our citizens and the citizens of 
the world to ensure that these games are very safe and they are very 
successful. The Department of Defense must be freed from unnecessary 
bureaucratic red tape and misguided past legislation to provide all 
necessary security for this event that only the United States military 
can provide.
  In light of something that happened 2 weeks ago, it would seem to me 
the very prudent and reasonable approach to this is the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and which has been 
accepted by this body. I compliment the chairman for putting that in 
and support him completely, and the Secretary, to ensure safe and 
successful Winter Games, which should be a wonderful thing that we will 
all take great pride in next winter.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 
time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas may control 
the time.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Stump Amendment to H.R. 2586.
  This amendment recognizes the role that civilians play in support of 
our Armed Services during peace and war. I am happy to join my 
colleagues in commending the Defense Department for its decision to 
create a new medal for civilians employed by the Department of Defense 
who are wounded or killed as a result of their presence in or near the 
theatre of action.
  There are numerous duties carried out by government civilians during 
wartime. Civilians conduct the necessary tests on essential military 
equipment and serve as liaisons between government contracts and active 
duty field commanders.
  At a time when we have seen the personal sacrifice that American 
civilians are willing to make in defense of freedom, an amendment 
honoring Defense Department civilian employees is a meaningful way to 
show our friends and foes the resolve of the American people.
  Madam Chairman, we must ensure that those civilians who risk their 
lives for us are never forgotten.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 107-218.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 17923]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Traficant:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 271, after line 
     17), insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERS TO ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND 
                   NATURALIZATION SERVICE AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--Upon submission of a request 
     consistent with subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may 
     assign members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps 
     to assist--
       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 
     preventing the entry of terrorists and drug traffickers into 
     the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States to prevent the entry of weapons of mass 
     destruction, components of weapons of mass destruction, 
     prohibited narcotics or drugs, or other terrorist or drug 
     trafficking items.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of members 
     under subsection (a) may occur only if--
       ``(1) the assignment is at the request of the Attorney 
     General, in the case of an assignment to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service; and
       ``(2) the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary 
     of the Treasury (as the case may be) is accompanied by a 
     certification by the President that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request is necessary to respond to a threat 
     to national security posed by the entry into the United 
     States of terrorists or drug traffickers.
       ``(c) Training Program Required.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be), together 
     with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a training 
     program to ensure that members receive general instruction 
     regarding issues affecting law enforcement in the border 
     areas in which the members may perform duties under an 
     assignment under subsection (a). A member may not be deployed 
     at a border location pursuant to an assignment under 
     subsection (a) until the member has successfully completed 
     the training program.
       ``(d) Conditions of Use.--(1) Whenever a member who is 
     assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service or the United States Customs Service 
     is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the 
     assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the 
     agency concerned shall accompany the member.
       ``(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--
       ``(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to 
     conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement 
     activity or to make an arrest; and
       ``(B) supersede section 1385 of title 18 (popularly known 
     as the `Posse Comitatus Act').
       ``(e) Establishment of Ongoing Joint Task Forces.--(1) The 
     Attorney General or the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     establish ongoing joint task forces when accompanied by a 
     certification by the President that the assignment of members 
     pursuant to the request to establish a joint task force is 
     necessary to respond to a threat to national security posed 
     by the entry into the United States of terrorists or drug 
     traffickers.
       ``(2) When established, any joint task force shall fully 
     comply with the standards as set forth in this section.
       ``(f) Notification Requirements.--The Attorney General or 
     the Secretary of the Treasury (as the case may be) shall 
     notify the Governor of the State in which members are to be 
     deployed pursuant to an assignment under subsection (a), and 
     local governments in the deployment area, of the deployment 
     of the members to assist the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service or the United States Customs Service (as the case may 
     be) and the types of tasks to be performed by the members.
       ``(g) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of members assigned under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(h) Termination of Authority.--No assignment may be made 
     or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 
     2004.''.
       (b) Commencement of Training Program.--The training program 
     required by subsection (b) of section 374a of title 10, 
     United States Code, shall be established as soon as 
     practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:
``374a. Assignment of members to assist border patrol and control.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, 2 weeks ago a foreign force came across our borders 
and attempted to take away our domestic tranquility. In 1941, Japan 
attacked Pearl Harbor, a nation with evil intent, and their victims 
claimed were less than half of that, of three terrorist strikes, with 
no Nation coming forward to claim, if you will, that debacle.
  We are not talking about the border between D.C. and Virginia, we are 
not talking about the border between Pennsylvania and Ohio, and we are 
not talking about only the Southwest borders of the United States. The 
two planes that struck the World Trade Center, those individuals came 
through Canada.
  The Traficant amendment does not mandate anything at this point. It 
does not deal with illegal immigration. I think the Border Patrol is 
well capable of doing that. The Traficant amendment allows the 
President, Mr. Ridge, my friend and former neighbor, now in charge of 
our homeland security, the Pentagon, in conjunction with the Secretary 
of the Treasury, and the U.S. Attorney General, to provide that 
support, land or air.
  I say to this Congress again, if 300,000 illegal immigrants trying to 
find a better life can gain access to America, do not believe for one 
moment that a larger contingent of people with evil intentions could 
not gain entry into America and continue to kill American citizens.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who rises to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to, first of all, commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). Year after year he comes to the 
floor, out of sheer frustration with this recommendation.
  I am here this afternoon, Madam Chair, because I spent a whole career 
on the border between the United States and Mexico, so I know and 
understand the frustrations that we face as a country about controlling 
and doing a better job, and understanding and identifying and stopping 
those that are coming into this country. This arises perhaps out of 
frustration, making sure that we do a better job.
  But this amendment is not a good idea. It was not a good idea 4 years 
ago, it was not a good idea last year, and it certainly is less of a 
good idea today, because just recently, President Bush activated 50,000 
reservists. That tells us, it sends a very clear message that we do not 
have enough troops to go around.
  Those reservists that have been activated have been activated because 
we are about to go and make those accountable for the very acts that my 
colleague mentioned, the bombing and the terrible and tragic acts 
against the World Trade Center and against our own Pentagon.
  This is not an argument about illegal immigration, this is not an 
argument that we are engaged here in about who has a better plan. It is 
a practical understanding of the limitations that our military is 
capable of carrying out.
  We clearly do not have enough active military to carry out the 
mission that the President has stated will be necessary against 
terrorism, so he has activated 50,000 reservists.
  I would ask my colleague to, instead, work to get a plan to fund on, 
an overtime basis, police and sheriff's department personnel to augment 
and better staff our already understaffed Border Patrol and Customs 
personnel.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the distinguished 
gentleman who, prior to coming to Congress, was in law enforcement as a 
sheriff.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Traficant 
amendment.

[[Page 17924]]

  Madam Chairman, I understand that my friend from Ohio, he is a very 
good friend, and I think his amendment has some merits, but I think 
this is the wrong time to be moving troops and to be positioning them 
at the border when we have a more serious problem of dealing with 
terrorists.
  It takes people at the border who understand the skills, or who have 
the skills to do the right job. The military, and I served in the 
military, we are trained to do a different job: to destroy the enemy, 
to do covert operations. We are dealing with a friendly country on both 
sides, Canada and the United States.
  Now, this new war that we are now involved in includes a host of 
fronts which include law enforcement on our borders, which includes 
Customs, Border Patrols, the INS, and just like what we are trying to 
do now, to be sure that when we get people who work at airports, that 
we pay them a decent salary, that they have the skills necessary so 
that they know exactly what they are dealing with, what they are 
looking for. Stationing troops at the border will not do the job.
  I was in law enforcement for about 8 years.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my colleague and the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, let me say, in recent testimony, Madam 
Chairman, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, as well as the 
Secretary of the Army, testified that they are in need of at least 
40,000 additional soldiers for our present missions. I have recommended 
publicly at least an additional 20,000.
  I would point out that these are soldiers, as opposed to those who 
are policemen. Their job is to protect America's interests as soldiers.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, might I inquire how much time is 
remaining on either side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 3 minutes. 
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has \3/4\ of a minute, and the 
gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Over 6,300 Americans are now dead since our last debate. President 
Bush has shown wisdom in calling up 50,000 reservists. If we need more, 
tell me what is more important than the national security of the United 
States nor the charge that we have here in Congress.
  I am a former sheriff. Sheriffs and police chiefs do not fight wars. 
Border patrols and customs do not fight wars. They are a great help.
  All this business about traffic and deploying troops is an absolute 
lie. We, in fact, through legislation create the training for a 
specific mechanism of military combat to terrorism. We do not know who 
our enemy is, but I know this: on September 11 there was one other 
unusual headline. China signed a cooperative agreement economically 
with the Taliban government, and today there was another headline, that 
China is testing super missiles.
  If not now, when? If not this, what? We cannot guard all these 
borders. We give the chance to make sure that there is adequate 
training; that we support our President; that there is a strong 
aviation presence; and that if there are to be troops deployed, they 
are deployed as former-President Bush did with his task force that 
worked successfully. Yes, there were some setbacks, but never has 
America been more threatened.
  Let me ask this question of Congress. How do we defend our home if 
our back door and our front door is unlocked? It is unlocked. That is 
not offending customs. That is not offending border patrol. There is 
one border patrol for every two miles, and that is not talking about 
the northern border. I am not talking about the Southwest border. Quite 
frankly, I think the most inviting aspect to most terrorists now looks 
to the North.
  We have a responsibility to secure our Nation. This is a national 
security location checkpoint, our border. I know the politics. It took 
me 12 years to pass changing the burden of proof in the civil tax case, 
12 years. It was the right thing to do and seizures of homes dropped 
from 10,050 to 51.
  We have lost double the amount from three terrorist strikes than we 
did from an attack from Japan. My God, what do we stand for? If we 
cannot secure our borders, how many more Americans will die? I hate to 
say this, but I assure you they will, because if 300,000 illegal 
immigrants come across a border, an army could come across one, perhaps 
maybe with a nuclear device, in some subway.
  I ask the Members and urge them to vote aye on this amendment and 
fight to keep it in our conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 
expired.
  Mr. REYES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I know this puts my colleagues in a difficult situation, whether to 
show the courage to vote against this amendment, which is the right 
thing to do, or whether to go along and seem patriotic by saying let us 
put our troops on the border.
  My colleague mentioned we do not know who our enemy is but we do know 
that the people who live along the border, both on the Southern border 
and the Northern border, are not the enemy; and we should not deploy 
the military to the Southern border or the Northern border.
  Let us use some of that money that we just authorized, that $40 
billion, to augment through overtime the presence of professional law 
enforcement personnel to help the border patrol and to help customs. 
That is the rational thing to do. That is the right thing to do. 
Putting the military on the border has never been a good idea.
  Marshal law is not a good idea just because we fear terrorism. 
President Bush, the Secretaries this afternoon have said, let us go 
back to normal life. A normal life is not marshal law. I urge all my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Traficant.
  The amendment would reaffirm existing authorities of the President to 
use members of the Armed Forces in support of law enforcement 
operations to deny terrorists and drug traffickers entry into the 
United States. The Department of Defense currently provides personnel, 
equipment, and intelligence to assist local, state, and federal law 
enforcement organizations to include the Customs Service and the U.S. 
Border Patrol.
  I believe the Department of Defense must continue to be prepared to 
respond to the range of threats against the nation and participate 
where appropriate with law enforcement. While this amendment does not 
mandate any specific actions by the President, it would establish a 
process by which the Secretary of Defense may make available additional 
personnel at the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of 
the Treasury.
  Madam Chairman, the amendment is reasonable and I support its 
adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 2586.
  The Trafficant Amendment would assign, at the request of the Attorney 
General and the Treasury Department, military personnel to assist in 
patrolling the borders of the United States. The Trafficant amendment 
also provides for the establishment of a task force by either the 
Treasury Department or the Justice Department to aid in counter-
terrorism and drug interdiction efforts.
  The Trafficant Amendment is a bad amendment for a number of reasons. 
First, Mr. Chairman, our military forces are spread too thin 
internationally. This amendment would cause additional stress on our 
service men and women and their families at a time when our forces are 
engaged in the world's largest terrorist eradication campaign. Even our 
National Guard and reserve units around the country are engaged in this 
effort. To use military personnel in civilian roles is simply not an 
efficient use of this nation's manpower, especially when our border 
patrol agents can accomplish the same goals with the assistance of new 
rules and regulations. Let me point out a few key reasons why we need a 
policy change in our current structure.
  The U.S.-Canadian border, which extends for approximately 4,000 miles 
(excluding Alaska) is one of the longest land borders in the world. 
Approximately 300 Border Patrol

[[Page 17925]]

Agents assigned to one of eight Sectors share responsibility for 
controlling this vast border.
  The current national strategy of the Border Patrol directs the vast 
majority of Border Patrol resources to the Southwest border which is 
about half the length of the U.S.-Canada border. We need more resources 
to be directed to the northern border. Currently, threadbare resources 
have left the United States vulnerable to terrorist sneaking into the 
country from Canada.
  Monitoring the Northern Border is an enormous task and we do not have 
enough border patrol agents to be dispatched when illegal crossings are 
detected and there is a lack of agents on duty from midnight to 
sunrise.
  With such a low number of agents assigned to each station that only 
cover a portion of the border--and no coverage of the border at certain 
hours--it is surprising that people are apprehended at all.
  The best enforcement strategy should be a regional one that will 
ultimately focus key screening efforts at the two countries external 
borders through the use of joint intelligence.
  Madam Chairman, I do acknowledge the fact that State and federal 
military personnel have been used in civilian law enforcement 
activities. For example, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Customs 
Service have used federal military personnel to plan drug interdiction 
operations. But, the utilization of federal military personnel is 
rarely used to implement and carryout full blown civilian law 
enforcement activities.
  The Trafficant Amendment goes too far and could very well violate the 
posse comitatus prohibition found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code which, 
in most cases, prohibits the use of full time active U.S. personnel for 
civilian law enforcement purposes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Trafficant Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 107-218.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sanchez

  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Sanchez:
       At the end of title VII (page 234, after line 18), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 7__. LIMITING RESTRICTION OF USE OF DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE MEDICAL FACILITIES TO PERFORM ABORTIONS 
                   TO FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

       Section 1093(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``in the United States'' after ``Defense''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246 the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Today, I join my colleague the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Harman) to offer this amendment. Our amendment is about safety and 
choice, and it is simple and fair.
  This amendment allows military personnel and their dependents 
overseas to use their own funds to obtain legal, safe abortion services 
in military hospitals. The amendment has been redrafted to leave no 
room for misinterpretation. It only affects U.S. military bases 
overseas.
  In light of the recent events, I cannot think of a better time to 
address this issue. The President has already started to activate 
reserve units, and our brave men and women are being deployed overseas.
  The military will not transport a woman out of a forward deployment 
unit to obtain medical services in a U.S. hospital. That is why our 
amendment has never been more important.
  Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many 
freedoms and risk their lives to defend our country. They should not 
have to sacrifice their privacy, their health, and their basic 
constitutional rights because of a policy with no valid military 
purpose.
  This is a health care concern. Local facilities in foreign nations 
are not equipped to handle procedures. This is a matter of fairness.
  Our amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded abortions at military 
hospitals nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on 
principle to perform an abortion.
  Vote for the Sanchez-Harman amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Our military serves to protect the lives of the innocent. This is 
clear to us now more than ever. Military treatment centers are 
dedicated to healing and nurturing life. They should not be forced to 
facilitate the taking of the most innocent of human life, the child in 
the womb.
  Supporters of abortion in military hospitals argue that women in 
countries where abortion is not permitted will have nowhere else to 
turn. However, the U.S. military follows the prevailing laws and rules 
of the host country regarding abortions. Military doctors must obey the 
laws of the country where they are providing services, so abortions 
still could not be performed in these locations even if we passed this 
amendment that we are considering today.
  This is also the wrong time for Congress to allow overseas military 
treatment facilities to become abortion clinics. Our administration is 
working hard to recruit Muslim countries to be a part of our coalition 
against terrorism. They are working to build a partnership to allow our 
military to operate in these countries. It would be counterproductive 
to risk eroding relationships with these countries that oppose 
abortion.
  For the past 5 years, since 1996, the House has rejected attempts to 
overturn the ban on overseas abortions. The Sanchez amendment is simply 
one more attempt to reopen a contentious issue that this House has 
rejected from time to time. I urge my colleagues to maintain current 
law by voting ``no'' on the Sanchez amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), my colleague and the cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Sanchez), for her leadership and co-leadership on 
this very important issue.
  Madam Chairman, as we mount our multilayered global efforts to fight 
terrorism, we need America's best talent. All of it. That includes the 
majority of Americans: women. And those women serving in our military 
overseas need access to health care.
  As we have heard, this amendment is about health care, which may be 
denied these women, especially serving in austere countries, as travel 
back to the United States may become impossible.
  We are not asking that the Federal Government pay for abortions for 
women overseas. Women who want this procedure will have to pay for it 
themselves. We are not asking that health professionals who do not wish 
to perform abortions be required to do so. Only willing doctors would 
provide this service.
  As women deploy abroad, it is time to send the right message: as they 
protect our constitutional rights to life and liberty, we need to 
protect theirs.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise today to speak 
against this amendment to expand abortion services in overseas military 
hospitals.
  Madam Chairman, let us be clear what we are talking about here. We 
need to put aside all the rhetoric. What this amendment does is allow 
the use of hard-earned taxpayer money to fund the procurement of 
abortions in our military hospitals overseas. The other side will throw 
out all kinds of false arguments and accusations concerning

[[Page 17926]]

this, but the amendment is fundamentally about how we use our taxpayer 
dollars.
  This is not a controversial issue. The overwhelming majority of 
taxpayers oppose the use of publicly held Federal tax dollars for 
abortion. This is an amendment that has been rejected five times by 
this same House. Do the right thing and vote against passage of this 
amendment again.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk), my colleague on the committee.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
time, and rise in support of this amendment.
  Currently, Congress bans all abortions for military service members 
and their dependents in U.S. military hospitals overseas, including 
those which are privately funded. Women stationed overseas depend on 
base hospitals for medical care, often situated in areas where local 
facilities are inadequate. Prohibiting women from using their own funds 
to obtain these services endangers their health and well-being.
  Madam Chairman, I speak as someone who served in Operation Northern 
Watch at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey just last year. The thought of 
sending one of our service women from Incirlik to a Turkish hospital in 
Adana for the kind of services they would receive there is not 
something I want to support.
  I think our women in uniform deserve the very best health care, 
especially when they use their own funds.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I was in the Army Medical 
Corps when the original policy banning abortions in U.S. military 
facilities was instituted by Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s. And 
I could best describe the climate in those hospitals at the time as a 
collective sigh of relief.
  While there were many people who were pro life, who objected to 
having abortions performed in the military facilities, there were quite 
a few people who were pro choice that I encountered who, nonetheless, 
took the position that they did not want to in any way, directly or 
indirectly, be affiliated with the performance of an abortion.
  Anyone who has ever seen an abortion can understand why I am saying 
that. Typically, at the conclusion of the procedure, the abortionist 
attempts to reassemble the body of the aborted baby to make certain 
that they obtained all of the products of the conception, quote-
unquote. It is quite a grisly procedure, and I think a lot of people 
who perhaps maybe lean on the pro choice side would nonetheless prefer 
it be done elsewhere.
  I believe the current policy should be supported. This amendment 
should be voted down.

                              {time}  1830

  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has 2 
minutes. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Chairman, the best reason to reject 
this amendment is because the military medical personnel want you to. 
It has only been fairly recently we actually had a law enforcing the 
policy that has been in effect for a long time that we are not going to 
do abortions in military medical facilities. Our military medical 
personnel do not want abortions done in their facilities no matter who 
pays for it. It is very important now to support our military. Please 
reject this amendment. This is not helpful to our military.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) has 2 minutes. 
The gentleman from Kansas has the right to close.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Madam Chairman, as I said earlier, this is an amendment 
on which I have spent considerable time. Let us understand what we are 
talking about.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) just said personnel in 
military hospitals do not want to perform this service. They do not 
have to under this legislation.
  He said let us support our military while deployed abroad. That is my 
point too.
  Our military includes American women who have a constitutional right 
to reproductive health care. So let us give them access. Let us support 
them while they are deployed aboard. If there were easy answers, easy 
ways for them to return to the United States to have these procedures, 
that might be fine, but that is not the case.
  If they are in Pakistan or other far-off places where access to 
quality health care may be difficult, they will not be able to return 
to the United States and their constitutional rights will be abridged.
  The point I made earlier, consistent with the thrust of this 
amendment, is that we need to respect women and men in our military. We 
need to pass the Sanchez amendment.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Madam Chairman, I will leave the closing of this 
amendment to the gentlewoman from New York. I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Sanchez-Harman amendment.
  Our country is at war. Our troops overseas are risking their lives to 
protect our lives and our rights as U.S. citizens. One of those rights 
is a woman's right to choose. But women serving effectively lose this 
constitutional right at U.S. military bases where they literally cannot 
even buy an abortion.
  A male member of the armed services needing medical attention 
receives the best. A female member needing a specific medical procedure 
must return to the United States, often at great expense, or go to a 
foreign hospital which may be unsanitary and dangerous. All she wants 
is the right to choose and the right to pay for the bill.
  We need to come together as a Nation to support our armed services. 
Passing this amendment is the least that we can do.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Chairman, have not we had enough 
violence lately? With all due respect to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), the amendment she offers will result in 
babies being brutally killed by abortion and will force pro-life 
Americans to facilitate the slaughter of innocent children. Sanchez 
will turn military hospitals into abortions mills. I want no part of 
the carnage.
  Madam Chairwoman, abortion is violence against children. Some 
abortion methods dismember and rip apart the fragile little bodies of 
children. Other abortion methods chemically poison children. There is 
nothing benign or ``curing'' or nurturing about abortion. It is 
violence.
  We worry today about the agony of chemical attack. Yet abortionists 
routinely attack unborn children with lethal chemicals. Abortionists 
turn the babies spines to jelly. Abortionists turn children's bodies 
into burned corpses, a direct result of the caustic effect of salt 
poisoning and other methods of chemical abortions. It's gruesome yet 
the apologists sanitize the awful deed with soothing, misleading 
rhetoric.
  Abortion methods are particularly ugly, Madam Chairman, because under 
the guise of choice, they turn human baby girls and baby boys into dead 
baby boys and baby girls. We have had enough loss of innocent life. 
Reject the Sanchez amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Chairman, I strongly support the amendment 
offered by the Gentlewoman from California to lift the ban which 
forbids service women and female military dependants from using their 
own funds for abortions at overseas military hospitals. At a time when 
we are sending more military personnel overseas, we must not limit the 
medical care those individuals will have to be able to access.

[[Page 17927]]

  These brave women serving our Nation risk their lives for our freedom 
and they deserve the same constitutionally protected health care we 
enjoy in the United States. Their lives should not be further 
endangered because they can not receive quality health care while they 
are serving in the line of duty. This policy is unfair. It denies women 
in the military the right to make their own decisions regarding their 
reproductive health. Is this the way we really want to treat women who 
are overseas or heading overseas to defend our Nation?
  We as lawmakers can not continue to place the reproductive health of 
American women in uniform at risk. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment and repealing this ban which discriminates 
against our Nation's service women and their dependents, preventing 
them from obtaining needed medical services simply because they are 
stationed overseas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman I rise in support of the 
Sanchez/Harman Amendment to H.R. 2586, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. This amendment would reverse 
the ban on privately funded abortion services at U.S. military bases 
overseas.
  The brave men and women serving our Nation risk their lives for our 
freedom, and they give up liberties that many of us take for granted. 
But our soldiers and their families deserve the same constitutionally 
protected health care as we enjoy living in the United States. This 
amendment is not only in the best interest of our military families, 
but will help our national recruiting and retention efforts as well.
  The facts are simple: No Federal funds would be used for these 
abortion services. Health care professionals who are opposed to 
performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral principle would 
not be required to do so. This simply repeals the statutory prohibition 
on abortions in overseas military hospitals, allowing women stationed 
overseas to use their own funds for abortions. It returns the policy to 
the way it was for decades--during administrations of both parties.
  Our soldiers cannot do their jobs when they have to go off base--
often in hostile nations--for medical care. And they cannot do their 
jobs if they are taking time off to go halfway around the world to come 
back to the United States for a procedure they should have been able to 
get on base. This is a legal procedure available to all other American 
women.
  Further, this is not the time to debate abortion, or to argue over 
whether it's right or wrong. Roe v. Wade guarantees the right to 
choose, and that should be the rule for military bases as well. 
Abortion is legal, and the law should apply to all U.S. citizens, not 
just those who don't wear our country's uniform.
  In the past this amendment has been supported by the Department of 
Defense. And let me repeat, this amendment requires no taxpayer money, 
no public funds for any expenses related to an abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to correct this misguided policy and vote for 
the Sanchez-Harman amendment.
  Ms. MCKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez 
amendment. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right of 
women to seek abortions if they choose, this right does not carry with 
women when they travel overseas with our military. This amendment would 
simply permit service women and female dependents who serve or reside 
overseas to obtain privately funded abortions in military facilities. 
Should we instead force them to seek such medical procedures in back 
alleys or third world hospitals, or are we ceding ourselves the 
authority of the Supreme Court in prohibiting a woman's right to 
choose? We all respect women's health, we all support the sanctity of 
the Supreme Court, and we should all support this important amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Sanchez/Harman amendment because I believe in healthcare parity. 
Our servicemen and servicewomen operate under the premise that the 
level of health care they receive anywhere they are stationed will be 
consistent with the same quality of care they would receive in the 
United States.
  This amendment is not about the legal merits of Roe v. Wade. We are 
not evaluating the moral merits of a woman's right to choose. We are 
debating the policy of parity and the assurance that uniform health 
care services will be delivered to service people wherever they are 
stationed. Medical services will be provided consistent with historical 
practice, medical convention and statutory requirements consistent with 
the laws of the state where they reside. The facts are clear. Federal 
funds will not be used to terminate pregnancies. Furthermore, 
physicians opposed to performing said operations are not forced to do 
so.
  Finally, the provision of health services should not be predicated on 
one's ability to pay for it. We must ensure that all female service 
personnel can avail themselves of legal medical services that are 
comparable to those in the United States, even if they are on a 
military base. Otherwise we will be creating a caste system, whereby 
only persons with the financial means to return to the states to 
receive the medical treatment they want and need would be able to do 
so. I ask my colleagues to support the Sanchez/Harman amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being 
offered by Representatives Sanchez and Harman. This amendment is a 
common sense approach to the question of abortion procedures for 
servicewomen at bases overseas.
  The law is clear here in the United States: women have the right to 
choose to have an abortion and to obtain it without undue interference 
from the government. Roe v. Wade established that right nearly 30 years 
ago, and no case since then has struck it down. That right belongs to 
all women residing in the U.S. It should not be taken away when our 
women decide to serve this country and are stationed overseas.
  Without this amendment, our servicewomen will not have access to safe 
abortion procedures in U.S. military medical facilities overseas. They 
are at risk of being subjected to unsafe methods in non-military 
medical facilities. Meanwhile, overseas servicemen and servicewomen 
seeking any other type of health care are able to access good, safe 
health care at military medical facilities.
  This amendment does not ask the government or taxpayers to fund the 
abortions. And the amendment would not force anyone in a U.S. military 
medical facilities overseas to perform the procedure. Rather, this 
amendment merely gives our servicewomen the right to have an abortion 
in a safe facility, provided that they pay the cost of the procedure 
and the doctor agrees to perform it.
  This is the very right those same women would have here in the United 
States, if they had not willingly sacrificed so much to serve our 
country. The amendment simply would restore previous policy that was in 
effect for decades, through both Democratic and Republican 
administrations. It is the least we can do for our servicewomen.
  Mrs. LOWEY, Madam Chairman I rise in strong support of the Sanchez 
amendment, which would allow military women and dependents stationed 
overseas to obtain abortion services with their own money. And I want 
to thank my colleague Loretta Sanchez for her fine work on this 
important issue.
  Over 100,000 women live on American military bases abroad. These 
women risk their lives and security to protect our great and powerful 
Nation. These women work to protect the freedoms of our country. And 
yet, these women--for the past 7 years--have been denied the very 
Constitutional rights they fight to protect.
  My colleagues, this restriction is un-American, undemocratic, and 
would be unconstitutional on U.S. soil. How can this body deny 
constitutional liberties to the very women who toil to preserve them? 
Mr. Speaker, as we work to promote and ensure democracy worldwide we 
have an obligation to ensure that our own citizens are free while 
serving abroad. Our military bases should serve as a model of democracy 
at work, rather than an example of freedom suppressed.
  This amendment is not about taxpayer dollars funding abortions 
because no federal funds would be used for these services. This 
amendment is not about health care professionals performing procedures 
they are opposed to because they are protected by a broad exemption. 
This amendment is about ensuring that all American women have the 
ability to exercise their Constitutional right to privacy and access to 
safe and legal abortion services.
  As our Nation prepares for a severe and lengthy battle to preserve 
our freedoms and democracy, now is not the time to put barriers in the 
path of our troops overseas. We know that not one of these restrictions 
on abortion does anything to make abortion less necessary--it simply 
makes abortion more difficult and dangerous.
  It is time to lift this ban, and ensure the fair treatment of our 
military personnel. I urge passage of the Sanchez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) will be postponed.

[[Page 17928]]

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 107-218.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stump

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Stump:
       At the end of division A (page 348; after line 8), insert 
     the following new title:

                TITLE XV--ACTIVITIES TO COMBAT TERRORISM

           Subtitle A--Increased Funding to Combat Terrorism

     SEC. 1501. INCREASED FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--The amount provided in section 301(5) for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide Activities, is hereby 
     increased by $400,000,000, to be available as follows:
       (1) Intelligence programs.--For increased situational 
     awareness and upgrades to intelligence programs to enhance 
     United States security posture, $100,000,000.
       (2) Anti-terrorism initiatives.--For enhanced anti-
     terrorism and force protection initiatives to reduce 
     vulnerabilities at United States military installations and 
     facilities in the United States and worldwide, $150,000,000.
       (3) Counter-terrorism initiatives.--For offensive counter-
     terrorism initiatives, $100,000,000.
       (4) Consequence management activities.--For consequence 
     management activities, $50,000,000.
       (b) Transfer Authority.--The amounts specified in 
     subsection (a) are available for transfer to other current 
     accounts of the Department of Defense, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Defense.
       (c) Offsetting Reductions.--
       (1) The amount provided in section 201(4) for Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide is hereby 
     reduced by $265,000,000, to be derived from amounts for the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, of which--
       (A) $145,000,000 shall be derived from the Mid-Course 
     Defense Segment program element (PE603882C); and
       (B) $120,000,000 shall be derived from the Boost Phase 
     Defense Segment program element (PE603883C) for space-based 
     activities.
       (2) The amount provided in section 301(5) for Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-wide Activities, is hereby reduced by 
     $135,000,000, to be derived from amounts for consulting 
     services.

     SEC. 1502. TREATMENT OF TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS.

       Funds transferred under authority of section 1501(a) shall 
     be merged with, and shall be available for the same time 
     period as, the appropriations to which transferred. The 
     transfer authority under that section is in addition to the 
     transfer authority provided by section 1001.

       Subtitle B--Policy Matters Relating to Combating Terrorism

     SEC. 1511. ASSESSMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ABILITY TO 
                   RESPOND TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       (a) Assessment.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct an 
     assessment of the ability of the Department of Defense to 
     provide support for the consequence management activities of 
     other Federal, State, and local agencies, directly taking 
     into account the terrorist attacks on the United States on 
     September 11, 2001, and the changed situation regarding 
     terrorism.
       (b) Recommendations.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit 
     to the President and Congress a report providing 
     recommendations for ways to enhance the ability of the 
     Department of Defense to provide support described in 
     subsection (a). The report shall address the recommendations 
     made by the Vice President in his report to the President on 
     the development of a coordinated national effort to improve 
     national preparedness, including efforts to combat terrorism, 
     as directed by the President in May 2001. The report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date on which the 
     Vice President submits to the President the report under the 
     preceding sentence.

     SEC. 1512. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ABILITY TO PROTECT 
                   THE UNITED STATES FROM AIRBORNE THREATS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the ability of the Department of Defense to protect 
     the United States from airborne threats, including threats 
     originating from within the borders of the United States. The 
     report shall identify improvements that can be made to 
     enhance the security of the American people against these 
     threats and shall recommend actions, including legislative 
     proposals, designed to address and overcome existing 
     vulnerabilities.

     SEC. 1513. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMBATING TERRORISM AS A NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY MISSION.

       Section 108(b)(2) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 
     U.S.C. 404a(b)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, including acts 
     of terrorism,'' after ``aggression''.

     SEC. 1514. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COORDINATION WITH FEMA AND 
                   FBI.

       The Secretary of Defense shall seek an agreement with the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 
     Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency that 
     clarifies the roles of Department of Defense Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Civil Support Teams in relation to both agencies 
     with respect to coordination of the roles and missions of 
     those teams in support of crisis management and consequence 
     management efforts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 246, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The September 11 
terrorist attack on the United States was a wake-up call for our 
country. It demonstrated the vulnerability of our Nation to attack on a 
magnitude unseen since Pearl Harbor. Thousands of innocent Americans 
lost their lives as a result of terrorist attacks that we failed to 
detect and prevent. This situation must never be allowed to happen 
again.
  Terrorists have declared war on the United States, and it is up to 
the Congress to ensure that the United States has the appropriate means 
to respond. H.R. 2586 provides nearly $6 billion to the Department of 
Defense for the purpose of combating terrorism. This amendment would 
authorize an additional $400 million as a down payment on additional 
improvements to ensure that our ability to detect, prevent and, if 
necessary, respond to terrorist attacks is strong and effective.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment would increase funds to the Department 
of Defense in a number of important areas that will strengthen our 
ability to combat terrorism. It would provide an additional $100 
million for improved intelligence.
  It includes an additional $150 million for antiterrorism initiatives. 
Force protection is an essential priority if we are to reduce existing 
vulnerabilities at military installations at home and abroad.
  An additional $100 million would be dedicated to improvements in our 
offensive counterterrorism capabilities. In addition, the amendment 
would add $50 million to improve DOD's ability to assist in the effort 
to deal with the consequences of a terrorist attack.
  Clearly, more than this will be needed to respond and to properly 
equip the Pentagon to deal with this new challenge. This amendment 
provides an initial down payment until the President can better assess 
the long-term needs.
  Finally, this amendment would grant the Secretary of Defense the 
flexibility he needs to apply these additional funds to the most 
critical priorities. The amendment also contains a number of 
legislative initiatives designed to improve DOD's overall ability to 
protect Americans against the threat of terrorism.
  This amendment has been carefully crafted with the support of the 
committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), 
and is well balanced; and I thank the gentleman for his cooperation. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I support this amendment because I 
believe it correctly sets out today's priorities for the Department of 
Defense. I have to say that this amendment represents an unusual, but 
successful, collaboration.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and I set out earlier 
this year to revise what we believed to be a disproportionate increase 
in the amount dedicated to missile defense. Members from both sides 
recognize the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) as a true 
authority on the subject with a grasp of detail which is astonishing. 
We believe that other items in the budget deserve a higher priority, so 
we proposed to move a substantial

[[Page 17929]]

amount from national missile defense into increased pay and improved 
family housing and counterproliferation efforts. And had matters turned 
out differently, this may have been a very spirited debate.
  Then America was struck with an abominable act that demanded a united 
response. Both parties, from the Speaker and the minority leader on 
down, agree whatever our differences are on this subject, the Nation 
would not be served by a divisive debate. So we reached a compromise.
  While I support missile defense, and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) supports missile defense, we have clear 
differences on how rapid and wide-ranging the research effort should 
be. But those differences pale next to our common goal of enhancing the 
security of our country from its most proximate threat.
  Today, that threat is acts of terror against the innocent by the 
inhuman. This revealed importance of fighting terrorism has joined us 
in common cause.
  The public is so often cynical about agreements in Congress, but we 
made an agreement; and this is one that aims toward the highest 
military priority, the fight against terrorism; and that is what this 
amendment does.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I, too, have high words of praise for the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who worked hard on 
this issue.
  However, I have to make mention that I think we are going in the 
right direction perhaps in reducing the amount of money allocated to 
national missile defense, but we are not going far enough. We would all 
love to throw an umbrella around this country and stop any type of 
missile projection coming in here; and if we could do that, there would 
not be a Member of Congress that would hesitate to vote for it.
  The fact of the matter is that we do not have a system that works 
that way, and every reputable scientist indicates that we will not have 
a system like that in the foreseeable future, if at all.
  The Pentagon's own operations office and research office and 
technical office has indicated that not only have the tests not been 
successful to indicate that a system would work, but that the regime 
for testing as we go forward is not adequate to ever give us the 
confidence that any system would be reliable. In essence, we would be 
buying a false sense of national security.
  We have to as a Nation set our priorities on this issue. We have been 
setting our priorities supposedly in line with what dangers, what 
risks, what threats may actually exist. But our intelligence services 
do not tell us that the primary risk threat to us is an 
intercontinental ballistic missile sent from a so-called rogue nation.
  It is, instead, something along the lines of what we experienced on 
September 11, and yet we do not align our national security budget in 
that direction. We are going to pay the price if we do not pay 
attention on that.
  There are a number of reasons why we should not go beyond just 
testing this system; and yet this budget calls for not only testing a 
national missile defense system, but actually deploying it and 
violating the ABM treaty in the process, something which many in this 
country do not think is wise, certainly our allies do not think is 
wise, and gives great concern to Russia and China, nations upon whom we 
are now calling for their cooperation, yet telling them at the same 
time that we are going to unilaterally violate an agreement, a treaty, 
binding their countries and ours.

                              {time}  1845

  It does not make sense, it is not good fiscal policy, and frankly it 
is not good national security policy. If we want to really protect this 
country and give our citizens some feeling that we are secure in our 
lives and in this land, we should organize our priorities, understand 
which risks really are threats of immediacy, and allocate our resources 
in that direction. Spending 60 to $100 billion on a system we have not 
yet proven can work and have not yet shown that we can have any 
confidence in its reliability is not the right direction.
  Putting resources into home front security, where we know now 
especially what our concerns are, knowing that we have some 40 agencies 
whose efforts have to be coordinated, knowing that we have to work 
diplomatically, through intelligence, through law enforcement, as well 
as the military, and we have to make sure we have cooperation of 
everyone throughout the world, we know that this is going to be 
expensive, and we know that we still have a domestic budget and items 
that we have to confront at the same time.
  We should get our priorities straight, Madam Chairman. We should not 
put this excessive money into national missile defense. Even those of 
us who think that we are nowhere near ready to go forward can get 
others to agree that we should just, at most, do testing and not move 
us into this dangerous path of starting to build before we are ready, 
before we have something that can be shown to work. We have done that 
in other programs, the F-22, the Osprey, at our great risk and 
disappointment and sometimes lives. We ought not to start down this 
particular path.
  We ask people to consider that when they vote on this particular 
amendment. It does not go far enough in cutting funds for national 
missile defense. It does not put our priorities in the proper order. It 
does not give us true national security but, rather, gives us a 
prospect of national insecurity.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. 
I rise to support his amendment and also support his intent.
  He talks about this being a down payment on what we are going to need 
to do to fight a war on terrorism, and it is. It is really just a 
placeholder, a down payment on what will be required in conference with 
the Senate. All of us know in this Chamber that with respect to 
fighting the war on terrorism, this bill is woefully inadequate. It is 
a pre-September 11 bill.
  I would like to highlight some of the things that we are going to 
have to do in conference with the Senate and with the assistance and 
the leadership of the President of the United States. Our job is to 
look forward at what are the capabilities we need to make sure are in 
place to defend this country when our men and women are called upon to 
defend this country. We need to establish in law the Office of Homeland 
Security. I am glad Governor Ridge will be taking up that 
responsibility. But we need to give him the support he will need to do 
the job.
  We are going to have to completely rebuild airport security in this 
country. What we have now is inadequate, and everyone who travels on 
our airlines knows it. We are going to have to fund the operations, 
readiness and munitions accounts at much higher levels. The assumptions 
in this bill on operational tempo do not take into account what we are 
currently asking our military to do. And, perhaps most importantly, the 
most gaping hole that has been shown to the world in the last 2 weeks 
is the gaping hole in domestic intelligence. Without even changing the 
laws on what the government can gather for information, we are not 
coordinating the information that we have now between the Border Patrol 
and Customs and local law enforcement and the FBI. Without doing that, 
we will never be able to provide the protection that we need that will 
come first and foremost from intelligence.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, this bill is inadequate with respect to what 
it funds for the National Nuclear Security Agency. We have authorized 
the refurbishment of four classes of weapons. Yet we do not fund that 
refurbishment. We have said that we want to have science-based 
stockpiled stewardship so we can have a safe, reliable nuclear weapons 
stockpile without nuclear testing, but we do not fund it. We are short 
$300 million in those accounts. We are short also on cybersecurity in 
the National Nuclear

[[Page 17930]]

Security Agency which the Cox report and the President's foreign 
intelligence advisory board have said is a major priority for this 
country. That total shortfall of over $800 million in the National 
Nuclear Security Agency must be remedied.
  We are going to have to make major changes in this bill in 
conference. I think all of my colleagues understand that.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Madam Chairman, on September 11, America was assaulted, attacked, not 
with missiles, but with knives. This amendment reflects that new 
reality. It reduces funds for programs that could violate the ABM 
treaty and shifts that money to counterterrorism and sends the message 
that America honors its commitment.
  Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird, who played a key role in the 
treaty's ratification under President Nixon, recently said, and I am 
quoting, ``An amended ABM treaty remains as relevant to peace and 
security today as it was 30 years ago. Deep-sixing the treaty instead 
of negotiating amendments would only create a less stable 
relationship.''
  Last week, there were reports that the U.S. was about to withdraw 
from the treaty, but since then, Secretary Powell has reaffirmed our 
commitment to a new understanding with Russia on missile defense. That 
is eminently wise. Russia will be a key ally in the days ahead as the 
administration attempts to create an international coalition to fight 
terrorism.
  So let us support those efforts and commit resources to the real 
threat we face today.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Madam Chairman, let me thank the chairman and obviously 
the Congress for looking very critically at this amendment. This is 
very, very important.
  I never served in the military. My father did. But one thing I know 
for certain, the responsibility of the Federal Government is to provide 
for national security and domestic tranquility. These two points of 
view that are shared in this bill are essential to that operation.
  I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and certainly of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and all the 
Members who have been active in military preparedness for this Nation. 
Yes, September 11 was a horrifying day. It woke this Member up to the 
fact that we are ill prepared to meet the challenge and this is vitally 
important.
  People have scoffed at missile defense, they have said it is not 
necessary, and they make the representation that the attack was by 
knives. I agree. There were issues in that attack that knives were 
used. But if we allow our safeguard to diminish, if we do not properly 
apply technology and we do not thoroughly fund this program, we will 
rue the day we were ill prepared to defend American soil.
  I applaud the manager's amendment, and I support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  First, we will have national insecurity, not national security if we 
start down the path of deploying and actually building and producing a 
system that is not yet workable. I do not think anybody can make a 
logical argument that this system is ready to work. I understand 
everybody would love to have it, but it just does not work that way. 
Our testing is not there. That is simply the argument here. Are we 
going to give in this budget so much money that it goes beyond testing 
and starts with building when it is not ready, therefore giving us 
national insecurity?
  Are we going to give ourselves just the amount that we need for 
testing and continue to do that until testing shows that we have 
something that is workable, or are we going to waste resources by 
building something and then have to go back to the beginning at far 
more expense, at possibly the expense of lives, because we relied on 
something that does not work? For $1.6 billion, we can put money into 
airline security that we choose to put it in this way, and that is 
wrong.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Madam Chairman, I rise in an attempt to 
try to set the record straight on some of the facts for those who have 
spent the time attending all the classified hearings and briefings and 
asking the questions of both the intelligence community and the members 
of the committee. I might say for the 6 years that I chaired the 
Research Committee, we opened up our briefings and hearings to every 
member. I do not know how many of those my colleague attended. I know I 
attended 160.
  So we can get up on the floor publicly and talk about something, but 
it is something else to sit in on all the classified briefings and ask 
the tough questions of the people who are making these decisions. I am 
not challenging the gentleman's motives because he has the right to do 
what he thinks is in the best interests of the country, but I also 
think we need to understand that many of our colleagues have sat 
through these briefings, and let us clarify some misinformation.
  First of all, we do not have an adequate testing program. It was this 
Congress for the past 6 years, 7 years, with an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan vote that called for more money for testing. It was this 
Congress, in spite of the objections of those who opposed missile 
defense, who now say we need more testing, who opposed us when we put 
more money in for testing. It was this Congress who led the effort to 
find a way to come together in a bipartisan effort to support a 
consensus around missile defense. It is this Congress that tomorrow 
will send 12 Members of Congress to Russia to seek very deliberate 
discussions to build a cooperative arrangement with the Russians that 
does not have them feel as though they are isolated.
  I invite my colleague to go with us. We still have room on the plane. 
I can get him a visa tomorrow so that he can support our effort which 
his colleagues will be a part of to meet with the Russian Duma leaders, 
to meet with the Russian defense ministry to show them that we do care 
about a cooperative arrangement as opposed to sitting on the floor of 
the House and in some cases, not particularly perhaps the gentleman, 
but in some cases demagoging this issue.
  Let us get down to the facts and let us talk about tests. The last 
time I checked, we had about 31 tests of our missile defense programs. 
Sixteen times, I will admit, we did not have successes. But that was 
not because of missile defense. It was because the contractors could 
not get the rocket in the atmosphere.
  Now, if the gentleman's argument is that that constitutes a failure, 
then he better shut down Cape Kennedy, because the same technology for 
stage separation, the same technology for launching a ballistic missile 
is the same identical technology for launching rockets. If you believe 
that is a reason to cancel missile defense, you better shut down our 
space program. It is the same technology.
  Of the 15 times that we had tests where we did get out to the 
atmosphere, we hit the target 13. We missed it twice. Thirteen of 15 
where the interceptor saw the target and hit it is not a bad track 
record. I ask for my colleague to dispute that with the facts. I will 
back mine up with ballistic missile defense organization numbers. So, 
in fact, our testing program has been successful.
  The point is, Madam Chairman, the colleague is saying we need more 
money for weapons of mass destruction. Cut me a break. If you check the 
facts of our defense bill, in each of these last 7 years, we have put 
more money into weapons of mass destruction than the President asked 
for. We have put more money into cyberterrorism, more money into 
detection systems by hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And my 
colleague says, well, an airplane is not going to be impacted by a 
missile defense system.

[[Page 17931]]

  Well, I hate to make the comparison here, but what do you think an 
airplane is? It is a large missile. It just so happens that these 
terrorists could use people on that plane because they did not have the 
technology ready to put that missile on a cargo ship off of our coast. 
We have no defense against that kind of capability. I can tell you, 
when the Iranians, when the Iraqis, the Syrians and Libyans have that 
capability, which they are very close to now, we are not going to have 
the capability to defeat it and then it will not be an airplane, it 
will be a missile without people in it.
  So I say to my colleagues, support the compromise. I am not happy 
with this. But the gentleman and the ranking member do what they have 
to. Support it. It is good policy and it is a good vote in favor of, I 
think, a logical solution.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume only because I do not want to let time pass between the 
gentleman's comments and reality.
  The fact of the matter is, I heard the word ``demagogue'' used in 
there, and I certainly hope that it was not pointed in this direction 
after what I just heard. The true fact of the matter is we only have to 
look at scientists. There are a number of people missing from this 
debate that would not be in favor of national missile defense. They are 
basically most scientists, our European allies and friends in other 
countries and a large part of our military.
  The fact of the matter also is that we do not rely on the same 
technology for NASA that we rely on for the missiles because if NASA 
fails, we understand that we need to go forward in there, we can have 
other attempts at this. If we are relying on a missile defense system 
and it fails, we are all dead. The fact of the matter is we need to 
test to make sure it works.
  As to further facts on that, I have been to classified briefings. You 
would think after 106, that that would settle in and the information 
would come out clearer. It does not take 106 to understand what is 
going on here and what is happening with the allocation of resources. 
This system has never fully tested the exact system that will be used 
ultimately. It has never shown that that would work. In fact, when 
there have been so-called successes here, it has usually been because 
there has been a beacon, because there has been some other sort of 
radar systems working other than the ones that will eventually come in. 
We have spent over $60 billion in the last several years on trying to 
design a national missile defense system that has not worked.

                              {time}  1900

  If we are going to continue to spend money, it ought to be testing to 
get to a system that we can then have some level of confidence in its 
reliability, not start building something that the Pentagon's own 
Office of Testing and Evaluation tells us has not been tested properly, 
has not been tested to show it is successful, and whose testing regime 
does not show that.
  It is not a lack of money. Colonel Welch on the panel says clearly, 
you can keep throwing money at this. Money is not the issue. The issue 
is doing the tests, doing them properly, and getting to a point where 
you have some success on that.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and for the opportunity to work with him on this. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), because in the time 
I have been in Congress, there are not many people as patriotic and 
concerned about defending America as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Weldon). I have had the chance to go to Russia with him and travel 
with him on many opportunities.
  We may not agree on this issue, but I do not doubt for a second the 
gentleman's commitment to this country. And I would ask that our 
commitment to our country not be doubted when we say that it is really 
time to look at missile defense with great skepticism. When we look at 
the events of the last 2 weeks, we have seen our President put together 
a coalition of countries from around the world, a world coalition that 
is going to challenge terrorism.
  I think that now, more than ever, we have an opportunity to build 
from this world cooperation; to get rid of nuclear weapons once and for 
all, which was the promise of the non-proliferation treaty, it was the 
promise of the ABM treaty, and the United States has a new opportunity 
here.
  I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right when he raises 
questions that go to the heart of national missile defense, because the 
truth of the matter is if we pursue national missile defense, we 
inevitably deconstruct the ABM treaty, which is a basis for bringing 
nations together. And that ought to be our effort now as we are in the 
21st century, at a time when democratic institutions are under attack.
  I rise in support of the amendment, because I think the amendment 
reflects the new priorities of our Nation in the wake of the terrorist 
attacks. And I appreciate the ranking member's work and the chairman of 
the committee for their work in crafting the amendment.
  The events of September 11, I would submit, have demonstrated that 
missile defense is ineffective in the threats facing the Nation today. 
Who can argue that a missile shield would have protected against the 
events of 2 weeks ago? We know that that attack on our country was so 
devastating, precisely because it was perpetrated anonymously and 
amorphously, disarming and instilling fear in our Nation.
  Aggressors employing this type of battle, what Pentagon experts have 
long known as fourth generational warfare, shun the conventional. 
Rather than intercontinental ballistic missiles, they employ car bombs; 
rather than armies, they target civilians and institutions. That is why 
this transfer of funds, from the development of an unproven, 
ineffective weapons system, to programs that will immediately help 
protect Americans citizens from attack, is so crucial.
  Madam Chairman, let me say there is no illusion here. This amendment 
is not nearly enough. The defense bill authorizes the expenditure of 
$343 billion. We must ask ourselves, will the expenditure of this money 
protect our Nation from the type of attack we faced 2 weeks ago?
  Madam Chairman, I believe we need a new set of principles to guide 
our national defense. We need a lighter, more mobile force, capable of 
adapting to changing circumstances, including the emergence of 
terrorists and other fourth generational threats. We need to recognize 
that people, not machines, are our most effective asset. It is not 
excusable that our armed service members go wanting for housing and 
proper equipment, while we sink money into an unworkable weapons 
system.
  We need to demand financial accountability from the Pentagon, which 
has not once passed the test of an independent audit. Similarly, we 
need a new comprehensive threat and risk assessment; and we need to 
combine these efforts to a comprehensive program to prevent attacks 
like we had 2 weeks ago.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, we have only one speaker remaining. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and I began with an amendment of $920 million to be taken out of 
ballistic missile defense and transferred into a pay raise, family 
housing, homeland defense, and counterproliferation, all urgent needs, 
none of which is fully met.
  It became apparent to us, particularly after September 11, that we 
were not going to be able to sell an amendment cutting this amount. So 
we, in the spirit of bipartisanship, made a deal. We agreed to lower 
the amount of the amendment to $400 million, of which $135 million had 
already been cut or reduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Hunter), the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this 
matter. That left $265 million to be taken from basically two places in 
the BMDO budget.

[[Page 17932]]

  First of all we took $120 million out of space-based lasers. Why? To 
put it in common parlance, we are simply saying, walk before you run. 
We have got an airborne laser system which has yet to prove itself. We 
should prove that technology on an airborne platform before we try to 
put it in outer space. This is a futuristic system, way over the 
horizon. Ballistic missile defense does not lose anything at all by 
that cut.
  Secondly, we took $145 million out of mid-course systems and 
particularly out of sea-based mid-course systems. Why? The Navy has two 
systems now which are ship based. One is an area-wide system called 
``lower tier,'' the other is a theater-wide system called ``upper 
tier.'' The area-wide system has just been slipped 20 months. The upper 
tier system has yet to make the first intercept. We are simply saying 
again, walk before you run, and, for goodness sake, do not start up a 
proliferation of programs that cannot be sustained in follow-on 
budgets. So we would trim there.
  We made the cuts discreetly. We did not make hand-fisted, meat-ax 
cuts; we made discrete cuts that will allow this program to go forward 
more, I think more efficiently and more effectively.
  Where did we put the money? Well, September 11 caught us nodding, and 
it also caught us focused on a threat, almost fixated on this threat, 
and ignoring other threats. So taking a page, a cue from the lesson of 
September 11, we took this $400 million and put $100 million into 
intelligence programs, $150 million into antiterrorism initiatives, 
$100 million into counterterrorism initiatives, and $50 million into 
consequence-management activities, the kind of activities that will 
have to occur in the wake of the next tragedy, God forbid that there be 
one.
  So we have made the cuts wisely and discretely. We have made the 
allocation of the savings wisely as well. This is a good compromise, it 
is a good amendment. I urge support for it.
  Madam Chairman, on September 6, 2001, Ranking Member Ike Skelton and 
I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee affecting the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) title of H.R. 2586, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
  The amendment would have taken less than one-third, $918 million, out 
of the $3 billion increase proposed for BMDO and transferred the money 
to three areas of urgent national security interest: $450 million for 
an additional 1 percent pay raise for military personnel; $250 million 
to address the most pressing family housing improvement needs; and $219 
million for homeland defense and counter-proliferation efforts. Even 
with our amendment, spending on ballistic missile defense (BMD) 
programs would have increased next year by $2 billion to $7.3 billion, 
or 38 percent.
  The largest cut in our amendment as originally filed would have come 
from Fort Greely, Alaska, and here's why:
  Greely is said to be part of the Pacific test bed, but in truth, no 
missiles can be launched and tested from the silos at Fort Greely, as 
the booster stages would separate and drop over populated areas.
  The booster on the missiles to be based at Fort Greely is not the 
objective booster; it's an improvised Minuteman booster. The kinetic 
kill vehicle that sits atop the booster is also a test article, far 
from being proven. Its configuration will surely change as a result of 
testing before the final production design is selected.
  The site at Fort Greely lacks an X-band radar for tracking incoming 
re-entry vehicles and guiding the interceptors as they close on their 
targets; a radar with this kind of range and resolution is essential to 
a mid-course intercept system.
  Finally, the system of Low-Earth Orbit, Space-Based Infrared Sensors 
known as ``SBIRS-Low'' is still years away from being deployed; any 
ground-based intercept system without X-band radar and SBIRS-Low is 
going to be an extremely limited system.
  BMDO argues that the 5 interceptors at Ft. Greely may give us an 
``early capability'' against an emerging threat. But with test article 
components and a subpar radar, this system will have little, if any, 
utility against a threat launched against the West Coast of the United 
States, and BMDO freely admits it will have no capability whatsoever 
against a missile launched at the East Coast.
  I felt then that given the unmet needs in this budget, it was not 
wise to sink so much money into these silos, for such little gain. 
Frankly, I continue to believe that. However, in the wake of the 
horrible events of September 11th, Members on both sides of the aisle 
have come together to seek a compromise on this issue.
  We have agreed not to cut funding for Ft. Greely, but in truth, many 
on this side of the aisle continue to have concerns about that 
proposal. In the interest of bipartisanship, we are putting aside this 
issue today, but I expect that we will revisit this issue in the next 
budget cycle. As a result, the amount of the cut contained in the 
compromise amendment is far below the level contained in the Skelton-
Spratt amendment. However, two important elements of our original 
amendment have been largely preserved. I want to thank Chairman Stump 
for his willingness to work on this with us.
  The compromise makes a total cut below the President's request for 
BMDO of $400 million. $120 million of this total is taken from Space-
Based Programs. This is the same amount as was cut by the Skelton-
Spratt amendment, and reflects the good government logic that this 
immature technology should be funded only at a concept development 
level.
  Another $145 million is taken from the Mid-Course Intercept program. 
I argued for this cut to come out of Sea-Based Mid Course intercept, 
which is where the Skelton-Spratt amendment would have taken it, but 
the agreement leaves the cut less specific. I believe the cut should be 
made out of the Sea-Based NMD account, and it is my hope we can make 
the cut more specific at a future time.
  A sea-based mid-course defense would entail an entirely new NMD 
platform, and before embarking on such an effort, BMDO should first 
demonstrate the maturity of the Navy's theater defense programs, which 
are technically less demanding. At present, however, the Navy Area Wide 
program has seen its schedule slip by 20 months, and the Navy Theater 
Wide program has yet to have a successful intercept. Until these 
simpler technological hurdles are cleared, it does not make sense to 
pour hundreds of millions into an even more challenging, and even less 
mature system like sea-based NMD.
  The balance of the $400 million is a cut of $135 million, based on 
the grounds that the funding could not be executed wisely in 2002.
  I have been saying for many years now that Congress needs to stop 
treating missile defense like a political totem. And while this 
compromise is disappointing to many on both sides, perhaps it 
represents a small step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Stump-Skelton amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Madam Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this 
amendment, not because in the current context I have any hesitations 
about it, but because I would rather that we have been having the 
fuller debate on this issue that a few weeks ago it looked like we 
could have. Obviously, we regret, all of us terribly, the circumstances 
that have compressed this.
  I believe that the continued expenditure on missile defense is 
gravely mistaken. I understand that to have a debate under these 
circumstances would not be in our interests on the broader aspects of 
this, because, frankly, given the impulse, the understandable and 
laudable impulse to show our unity and support, I think the project 
would get more votes than it might get in a calmer atmosphere. I look 
forward to our being able to debate this at a future time, because I 
think the leadership on our side, on the committee and on the Committee 
on Appropriations subcommittee, has done an excellent job of vetting 
this project. So I am going to vote for this amendment because it is 
the most reasonable thing to do in this context.
  But I want to repeat again what I think is a very important point to 
the President: there is an accommodation going forward here. There is 
less of a debate on this issue and less of an attempt to reduce it than 
would otherwise have happened in the interests of showing national 
unity.
  I hope we will see a reciprocal response, in particular at a time 
when we are trying to build an international cooperative coalition with 
Russia, with China, and with other nations. It would ill-behoove this 
Nation to take unilateral action to undermine the ABM treaty. It would 
be an error to use the fact that the House has said, okay, and the 
other body has said okay, we understand that this is not the 
appropriate time to have the full debate. I regret that, but I 
understand the decision.
  But I hope we will not see the executive branch take advantage of 
that to go forward with steps that would lead

[[Page 17933]]

to a fracturing of our efforts to build an international coalition and 
that would inappropriately unilaterally undermine the ABM treaty and 
the international cooperative framework.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, listening as this debate goes on to both the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who eloquently set forth 
his position, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who 
also did the same, I think they make convincing arguments about why, as 
much as many of us feel this does not go nearly as far as it should go, 
it may in this instance be all that we can get, as sad as that is to 
say.
  It is important that we spend the money on intelligence and that we 
spend it on antiterrorism and counterterrorism and consequence 
management. It is just amazing sometimes to some of us that we do not 
think to do that without extracting a price of overspending on a system 
that has not been tested, and starting to deploy a system that, I 
think, in many ways will work to our disadvantage; that we will have 
$2.9 billion, or 55 percent of an increase over current spending on 
this. That we would have initial deployment that would lead to the 
breaching of the ABM treaty is somewhat beyond comprehension.
  As I mentioned earlier, for $1.6 to $2 billion, we could secure 
Americans in their air travel. Yet we will put $2.9 billion instead on 
getting way ahead of ourselves, starting to build something before it 
is adequately tested, pursuant to the Pentagon's own operations and 
testing and evaluation firm.
  We are risking the stability internationally that this might present 
in unilaterally breaking that treaty. We are certainly going well 
beyond this Congress' intention, who said we should move forward only 
if it ever proved feasible. We are certainly failing to put our 
priorities in proper order. Where it is clear we are spending some $60 
billion to $100 billion on an item that has not been proven to work and 
our own intelligence services say falls well behind the needs for 
security against terrorism, it just does not seem to make sense.
  But I do want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for the work they 
have done on this. I was with them at the $920 million mark. I was a 
little beyond that, as were many, because that is what we really ought 
to be doing, being sensible.
  But I join in congratulating them for getting at least something from 
folks that do not seem to want to take a really objective look at this 
and see where we are going.
  I say that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is probably 
right. Let us see what we get for a reciprocal response. Let us hope 
that this administration can evaluate the entire situation and 
understand that this would not be the time to unilaterally violate this 
treaty. This would be the time to show good faith, and we can be 
responsible partners in cooperating with people as we ask for their 
cooperation internationally.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for putting together this compromise that allows us to 
stand united during this defense bill and not send out the wrong signal 
to the world, and yet continue to move forward on missile defense.
  It has been suggested that the question of the day is will we ever be 
attacked by ballistic missiles? Is it possible, is it imaginable that 
someday Americans will be killed by ballistic missiles?
  Well, that question has been answered. It was answered 10 years ago 
when 28 Americans were killed, the first American casualties, by 
ballistic missiles during Desert Storm.

                              {time}  1915

  They were killed by the slow ballistic missile known as the Scud, the 
Model-T of ballistic missiles, the ones that are proliferated around 
the world.
  So the facts are, we have been struck by ballistic missiles, they 
have killed Americans, they are a real threat, and Democrats and 
Republicans agree that we have to be able to stop these thousands of 
ballistic missiles that are proliferating around the world, some of 
them a function of military sales where countries like North Korea and 
China and Russia sell these missiles to countries and to groups that 
would aim them at us; and the other one as a result of information and 
technology now that is going to rogue groups, going to nations that are 
not our friends around the world which, indeed, will aim these systems 
at the United States.
  Now, let me just address this compromise and what it does. First, it 
has been suggested over and over again by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) that we do not want to use these things; we 
do not want to deploy a ballistic missile defense system until we know 
it works. That is the point. Most of the testing is for the so-called 
national missile defense system, that is, being able to stop the fast 
ballistic missiles that can go intercontinental. It is for testing.
  Now, we just had a test about a month ago, a successful test in which 
we shot our standard shot; and when we shot our standard shot, we 
launched a target missile from Vandenberg Air Base. It went west across 
the Pacific. It was hit, it went about 4,800 miles, it cleared Hawaii; 
and after it cleared Hawaii, we fired up an interceptor missile out of 
Kwajalein Island that hit it about 148 miles above the Earth's surface 
and killed it. Now, we fired that shot several times; and if we ask the 
ballistic missile defense program, can we make that shot, we can make 
that shot. With that angle, with that speed, with those physics, we can 
make that shot.
  But the critics of the system have said, wait a minute. There are 
other things we have to be able to do. How about the tougher angles? 
How about the faster closing speeds? How about the different closing 
speeds? How about all of those things that are variables?
  Well, the answer is to this cry for tough testing, we have to expand 
the test range to have tough testing; and that means we cannot have the 
same shot time after time where we shoot over Hawaii and we come up 
with an intercept from Kwajalein Island. We have to now have the 
Alaskan dimension. The Alaskan dimension is going to make the closing 
angles, the shooting angles. Just like we are shooting on a skeet 
range, instead of shooting at the clay bird going straightaway every 
time, we are now going to have to shoot one that is going at a fast 
angle. It is going to give us a variety of speeds that we have to shoot 
at. It is going to give faster interceptor speeds. It is going to make 
all the difficult challenges that our critics are telling us and that 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) alluded to when he 
talked about these commissions that have said we have to make tougher 
testing. It is going to give us tougher testing.
  So I would say to my colleagues, whether one is for missile defense 
or against missile defense, we certainly want to know what the outcome 
of these tough tests are going to be.
  Well, I have news for my colleague. There is not going to be any 
outcome for us to judge if we do not build the range. Most of the money 
that goes into this system goes to build the range.
  Now, let me just say with respect to the Soviet Union, because the 
ABM Treaty has been mentioned, and I think everybody has reflected on 
the effect of this strike on America with respect to our position in 
the world, our relationship with the Soviet Union. We told the Soviet 
Union, we did make the agreement, the ABM agreement, not to defend 
ourselves. That is an agreement not to defend ourselves. But we have 
always said to them, we are not just worried about you, we are worried 
about these other people. We are worried about all of these nations 
that are depicted here on this map of the world which are now building 
and developing ballistic missiles and none of these countries, none of 
these groups signed any treaty not to defend themselves. They did not 
sign the ABM

[[Page 17934]]

Treaty, and we are concerned about that. I think that the Russians now 
are looking at this more realistically, and I think the President has 
more credibility in his statement when he said we are truly worried 
about the unimaginable happening.
  For those people who said up until a few weeks ago a strike on the 
United States is unimaginable, a missile strike on the United States is 
unimaginable, it now becomes apparent to us that unimaginable things 
happen.
  So what we need is not just defense against people that take over 
airlines, it is not just defense at our borders against cargo 
containers coming in, it is not just defense against submarines and 
ships and guerrilla warfare and terrorism; it is broad capability 
against a number of threats. We live today, I say to my colleagues, in 
an age of missiles; and we are going to have to learn to defend against 
those missiles if we are going to maintain the national security.
  Our two leaders have put together a compromise that I do not fully 
agree with; it does make a $265 million cut from this missile defense 
budget. However, they did it in a spirit of compromise to get this bill 
moving, to move it into the conference, and to be able to work our will 
from that point. Because of that, and because of the need to let the 
world know that we stand together, that we are not fractured, I support 
this compromise. I urge everyone to vote for it.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Stump/Skelton 
amendment to combat terrorism. If there is one thing that we have 
learned from the tragedy of September 11, it is that the greatest 
threat to our Nation is not from high-tech weapons such as ballistic 
missiles being launched at our Nation. Therefore, the defense that is 
of the greatest priority to our Nation is not an $8.3 billion missile 
defense shield that has no guarantee to work. Instead, we need to 
protect ourselves from the modern threat of terrorism, protecting our 
airports and hubs of activity, seeking out those who are responsible 
for previous attacks, to be aware of and prepared for plans of future 
attacks, and to act appropriately with the intelligence we gather. This 
amendment takes away less than 9 percent of the increase for missile 
defense research and development, and only 3 percent of the entire 
missile defense budget. I believe that we should reprogram much more 
towards protecting our constituents from the real threats that our 
Nation is facing, and spend much less on some Star Wars program. This 
amendment supports that concept of refocusing our priorities on the 
true threats to our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment and I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for bringing 
it to the floor in a bi-partisan fashion. This amendment deserves our 
attention and support if we are to begin addressing our pressing 
national needs in combating the horrific practice of terrorism. The 
tragic events of September 11th prompt use to do more in this effort 
and this amendment gives us the opportunity to enact sound policy in 
this regard. By providing $400 million in new funding for intelligence, 
anti-terrorism and counter-terrorism initiatives, this amendment equips 
the Department of Defense with the resources needed to begin defending 
our nation against future terrorist aggression.
  Combating terrorism is and should be a national security concern and 
this amendment establishes it as such. This amendment is a significant 
step towards overcoming existing vulnerabilities, as it requires DoD to 
report on their ability to defend the nation against airborne threats. 
Furthermore, as assessment of DoD's ability to respond to terrorist 
attacks and provide support for Federal, State, and local consequence 
management activities as required by this amendment will ensure that 
our government is better prepared to handle any future terrorist 
crisis.
  This amendment addresses our national security needs with regards to 
terrorism without compromising our need to protect and defend the 
nation against ballistic missile attacks. As the individual in this 
body representing Guam, well within striking range of nations like 
North Korea, I am keenly aware of our Nation's vulnerability to the 
threat of a ballistic missile attack. But I am also acutely aware of 
our need to defend our people against terrorism.
  If we are to protect our nation, safeguard our democracy, and rid the 
world of terror, we must begin to vigorously combat terrorism. Passage 
of this amendment is a significant start towards this end and it is 
necessary if we are to reduce vulnerabilities at our military 
installations and facilities, not only within the continental United 
States, but also in Guam, and throughout the world.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Stump-Skelton 
amendment to take $400 million from the national missile defense 
program to fund intelligence, anti-terrorism, force protection, and 
counter-terrorism efforts. The funding shift in the amendment is a good 
start but more needs to be done.
  We must question spending an additional $2.5 billion next year and 
possibly $100 billion in the future to establish a national missile 
defense system when deadly terrorist attacks can occur with the 
purchase of an airline ticket.
  Don't get me wrong. I strongly support a theatre missile defense 
system to protect our troops and allies on the battlefield. But not a 
national missile defense system that threatens our world wide treaties. 
But, let's take this one step at a time in light of our many 
priorities. The enormous sum of $100 billion could be better spent on 
intelligence, diplomacy, rebuilding the military, and protecting 
America's ports of entry.
  My Congressional district includes several border crossings between 
the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. Customs agents at the border crossings 
are undermanned and underfunded even though they are on the frontline 
of protecting our Nation.
  For three years Customs has been attempting to upgrade its computer 
systems to enhance the inspection of goods crossing U.S. borders. 
Funding shortfalls have prevented the implementation of this critical 
system.
  Customs is only one example of where money could be better spent to 
protect Americans from terrorist attacks.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stump/
Skelton amendment. As our Nation is working to deal with the tremendous 
needs of our armed forces in the wake of the September 11 terror 
attacks, this is one amendment that is particularly important.
  The Stump/Skelton bipartisan amendment cuts $400 million from the 
President's request for National Missile Defense programs, and 
transfers these funds to intelligence and counter-terrorism 
initiatives. The Stump/Skelton amendment represents a consensus, 
compromise position that all of us should support.


  As a Nation, there are many lessons to be learned from the recent 
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One of the things 
that is underscored by the events of September 11 is how careful we 
must be about where we put our defense dollars and the priorities that 
we as a nation fund in our defense budget.
  The pursuit of a National Missile Defense is an expensive, unproven 
and destabilizing policy that should be rejected. There are so many 
more important needs to fund in our defense budget. While this 
amendment does not eliminate all of the funds the President has 
requested for a National Missile Defense system, it does make important 
reductions in that account and important increases in areas where we 
clearly need to make investments, particularly in our intelligence and 
counter intelligence efforts.
  The National Missile Defense as proposed would not be effective. It 
would be costly to deploy and easily circumvented. It could be confused 
with decoys. It could be bypassed with suitcase bombs and pickup trucks 
and sea-launched missiles or need I say it, wayward airlines. It would 
be billions of dollars down the drain. But it is not just a diversion 
of precious resources that we are told are not available for health 
care, for smaller class sizes, for modern school facilities, for 
securing open space or for taking care of America's veterans.
  It is worse than a waste. Simple strategic analysis will tell us that 
provocative yet permeable defenses are destabilizing and lead to 
reduced security.
  The U.S. has not been able to develop a workable missile defense 
system after 40 years of trying and spending $108 billion.
  Clearly this money is better spent in supporting up our intelligence 
and counter intelligence efforts. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 3 by Mr. Traficant of 
Ohio and amendment No. 4 by Ms. Sanchez of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.

[[Page 17935]]




                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Chairman, just looking around and counting, I am 
not sure that I reached the same conclusion that the Chairman did, and 
I am wondering if she might want to count again.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 173, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                               AYES--242

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sherman
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Turner
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Conyers
     Engel
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  1946

  Ms. McKINNEY, Ms. DeLAURO, and Messrs. INSLEE, HOLDEN, and DINGELL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. NORTHUP and Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, BURTON of Indiana, 
WATKINS of Oklahoma, LANTOS, SHIMKUS, AKIN, SPRATT, ISRAEL, DEUTSCH, 
BLUNT, ISSA, RYUN of Kansas, CARSON of Oklahoma, and REYNOLDS changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1945


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Sanchez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Sanchez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 217, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 357]

                               AYES--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)

[[Page 17936]]


     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Conyers
     Engel
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  1956

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, as the House is about to move to final 
passage on this defense authorization bill, I think it is appropriate 
that we take a moment to note that this will be the first defense bill 
in over 30 years that we have passed that Floyd Spence did not have a 
part in. Floyd had a hand in shaping and guiding all the defense bills 
for the last 3 decades, and particularly in the last 6 years where he 
served as chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services.
  Madam Chairman, there was not a stronger defender of our military, no 
truer friend of the men and women in uniform, and no tougher critic on 
those who allowed our defenses to deteriorate over the years. Floyd 
Spence had vision, he had sense of purpose, and he had a clear 
commitment to ensuring that the Congress fulfill its constitutional 
obligation to provide for the common defense.
  We all miss Floyd, but I did not want this moment to go without the 
record reflecting his leadership, his commitment, and his wise counsel 
on national security matters, which still burns bright in the many of 
us that were privileged to work with this quiet, unassuming and 
passionate American patriot.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUMP. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Chairman, I applaud the gentleman on his comments 
and his memory of Floyd Spence. He was truly a gentleman's gentleman, a 
true Southern gentleman, from his infectious laugh to his strong 
support of the troops. We will recall him very, very fondly; and I 
thank the gentleman for his remembrance of him.
  And for 19 years, I might say, sitting next to me on the Committee on 
Armed Services was our colleague Norm Sisisky, who made such a great 
contribution. At this moment, I would also like to pay tribute to his 
memory for the wonderful work that he did. And I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. STUMP. Madam Chairman, may I take a moment to thank our staff on 
both sides of the aisle for the tremendous job and the many late nights 
that they have spent here and put up with us and produced this good 
bill.
  Madam Chairman, I urge everyone to support the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, as a longtime critic of the manner in 
which we finance our nation's military, I had intended to oppose the 
legislation being considered today.
  This year's defense budget contains a number of deficiencies, the 
most glaring of which is this: it is not designed to equip our military 
for the task at hand. Written prior to the attack of September the 
11th, this legislation continues the mistakes of the past decade. It is 
designed to fight the cold war, but that war ended years ago, and as we 
saw all too brutally in New York and Washington, the world is a far 
more dangerous place.
  Furthermore, this bill leaves our military, on the eve of an epic 
undertaking, with a number of acute needs that have yet to be 
adequately addressed--needs we've known about for many years.
  As the chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on National 
Security, which has oversight jurisdiction over the entire Department 
of Defense, I have seen first hand the needs of our military. We need 
to do a better job attracting new enlistees and maintaining the 
necessary level of reenlistment. Our training has suffered in recent 
years. We lack the necessary munitions for new encounters. We are 
cannibalizing existing planes, tanks and other equipment for their 
parts, in order to make other equipment operational. Our soldiers, 
sailors, pilots and Marines are overworked and underpaid. At least this 
last part we have begun to address. And I strongly support the military 
pay raise included in this legislation.
  Regretfully, like its predecessors, this year's National Defense 
Authorization Act fails to cancel the procurement of expensive, 
unnecessary weapon systems; close unnecessary bases and depots, at home 
and overseas; and require our allies, particularly Europeans, to pay 
their fair share of stationing U.S. troops in their countries.
  So why will I vote for this bill? Because I strongly support the 
President of the United States and the campaign against terrorism on 
which we've embarked. And I don't want anyone, particularly our 
enemies, to misunderstand a No vote.
  Unlike the climate in which we debated past budgets, today our 
country is entering a new, uncharted period. In these trying times, I 
want to be certain we're providing the brave men and women of our 
military with every resource they will need in the difficult days, 
months and years to come.
  The Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security has conducted 
19 hearings on our preparedness against terrorist threats, chemical and 
biological defense programs, the Defense Department's role in homeland 
security, and proposals to reorganize our terrorism programs. We know 
waging the war on terrorism will require not only enormous 
expenditures, but also a fundamental reexamination of our changing 
national security needs.
  Unfortunately, this legislation provides the funding, but not the 
reforms. I pray future defense bills address these glaring needs, but

[[Page 17937]]

mostly I pray for the brave men and women going into battle.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of our armed forces that 
are preparing to deliver justice to the organizations who initiated the 
attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. However, I must 
still oppose the Defense Department Authorization bill before us today. 
This legislation simply fails to meet the mark for what is needed to 
defend our nation today.
  It does have several measures that I support including: pay raises 
for the average soldier and increased funding for medical benefits. 
However, all that's bad in this bill outweighs these positive 
components.
  Like previous defense authorization bills, it wastes billions of 
dollars on attack submarines, advanced destroyers, a National Missile 
Defense (NMD) System, and continues to fund the outdated F-22 program.
  The investment of hundreds of billions of dollars in aircraft 
carriers and ships has done little to protect American citizens from 
attack. It has only been used to line the pockets of big defense 
contractors who are more interested in profit margins than defending 
the United States. We continue to waste billions of dollars to build 
these ships at the cost of truly effective military investments like 
training in counter-terrorism, anti-guerrilla warfare tactics, and 
intelligence gathering--all of which would yield far greater benefits 
than the big ticket items currently included in the bill.
  The F-22 program is another wasteful program. We continue to fund 
this program despite its consistent cost overruns and failures to meet 
performance and production guidelines. This program made sense in the 
late 1990's when we were still preparing to defend against advanced 
Soviet technology, but today that is no longer the case. Our potential 
enemies are flying old Soviet fighters Su-22's and MiG-21's. These 
planes are on par with our old F-4 Phantoms which were the premier 
fighter when we were fighting in Vietnam.
  Finally it provides over $8 billion to continue to develop the 
National Missile Defense system. The attack on September 11th proves 
that any potential enemy would be far wiser to invest a couple million 
dollars to train people to fly a plane into the US to delivery weapons 
of mass destruction, rather than hundreds of billions of dollars to 
develop an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. In light of this 
reality, it seems foolish, wasteful and completely inappropriate to 
direct huge sums of money at a national missile defense system that has 
never been proven to work and is probably irrelevant to the dangers we 
face today.
  It is for these reasons that I must oppose this authorization bill.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2586, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY02. Among the many provisions 
included in this legislation are a number of measures that directly 
support Guam and its military infrastructure. Our nation's military 
readiness stands to benefit from over $66 million in new construction 
and improvements to Guam's military installations and facilities. The 
people of Guam welcome this funding as it strengthens U.S. military 
presence and national security in the Asia-Pacific region in addition 
to providing an economic boost for our island.
  Seven major military construction projects for Guam are included in 
this bill. Phase II of the Guam Army Guard Readiness Center will 
receive $7 million and $4 million is included for a training facility 
for the Guam Air National Guard. Other projects include $4.5 million 
for a Forward Operation Location War Reserve Material Facility at 
Andersen Air Force Base and $24 million for the upgrading of the Navy's 
Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and Public Works Waterfront Utilities. The 
bill also includes $20 million for the continued replacement of 
Andersen's hydrant fuel system. These projects are significant towards 
modernizing Guam's military infrastructure and equipping our troops 
stationed in the Western Pacific with the resources they need to meet 
our increased national security demands.
  In addition to military construction projects, the bill also provides 
for the conveyance of a water supply system at Andersen Air Force Base 
and the construction of a war memorial on Guam to honor the victims of 
the Yigo Massacre, which occurred during World War II. Guam was the 
only U.S. State or Territory with a civilian population to suffer 
occupation during World War II. Immediately following the liberation of 
Guam, decapitated bodies of 45 men were discovered in the village of 
Yigo. Today, it is presumed that these men were forcibly conscripted by 
the Japanese forces to be of service to them during their retreat. The 
story of these men has largely been forgotten since the time they were 
forcibly separated from their homes and families. The memorial included 
in this bill will commemorate the sacrifices made by these men and 
resurrect and preserve their story in history.
  I am also pleased that the House Armed Services Committee has 
addressed the issue of the Department of Defense's responsibility and 
duty to clean up former military sites. Guam was home to significant 
and tremendous military activity during World War II. Unexploded 
ordnance and other weaponry have been found on Guam in recent years as 
a result of this activity. The report accompanying this bill stresses 
the need for the Department of Defense to be more aggressive in their 
management and clearance of unexploded ordnance and other dangerous 
weaponry found on Guam. This language is essential in ensuring that the 
proper attention is devoted towards the cleanup of our island.
  In conclusion, this bill goes a long way towards improving our 
nation's military readiness and supports Guam role in contributing to 
our national security. The people of Guam welcome the forthcoming 
military construction activity and look forward to doing their part in 
providing for the national defense.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I have worked for more than a decade to 
reorient federal budget priorities so they better reflect the needs and 
wants of average Americans.
  I have also been a vocal advocate for taking a serious look at the 
spending priorities within the Department of Defense (DOD). I have 
regularly drafted legislation and amendments to force the Pentagon to 
reevaluate and justify how it spends taxpayer money.
  We demand accountability from all other federal agencies. We should 
demand no less of the DOD. After all, the $343 billion authorized in 
this legislation represents one of every two dollars in discretionary 
spending that can be appropriated by Congress.
  There are clearly significant flaws with H.R. 2586. While the basic 
needs of many of our young men and women in uniform have not been met, 
this legislation provides tens of billions of dollars to fund weapons 
systems that are of dubious necessity, over-budget, behind schedule, 
and fail to meet performance requirements.
  For example, at G.I. Joe's in Eugene, Oregon, I met a dad who was 
buying a waterproof bag for his son in the Marines. He told me his son 
was issued an expensive radio without any waterproof protection. All 
the Pentagon supplied was a plastic garbage bag.
  The legislation provides around $8 billion for an ill-defined, 
unworkable national missile defense system. This represents more than a 
50 percent increase over current spending levels. American taxpayers 
have already generously provided more than $60 billion over the last 
two decades to develop this system with little to show for it.
  Even if the system could be made to work consistently, it doesn't 
address the most significant threat our nation faces. As I've said in 
debates over NMD in past years, given our awesome retaliatory power, 
one of the least likely threats confronting the U.S. is an 
intercontinental missile with a return address. In those previous 
debates, I went on to raise concerns about the money NMD was diverting 
from our preparation for more likely attacks by terrorists with 
primitive delivery systems like rental trucks, freighters, or even 
suitcases.
  The legislation continues to fund the development of three new 
fighter jets when one should do, and continues to fund an oversized 
nuclear stockpile.
  I am concerned that the spending priorities reflected in this bill 
are oriented to fighting the last war, not meeting the threats our 
nation faces today.
  That said, I am going to support this legislation. I do not make this 
decision lightly. The world changed on September 11, 2001. The 
terrorist strikes on U.S. soil have created a sense of urgency to 
guarantee our troops are adequately supplied and supported in order to 
respond and defend our country.
  Some of the funds in this legislation and the emergency package 
approved by Congress last week will go to make sure our men and women 
in uniform have everything they need to deal with the current crisis. 
However, I fully intend to revisit the spending priorities of the 
Pentagon next year and look forward to reviewing Secretary Rumsfeld's 
plans for retooling our nation's military to more adequately meet the 
threats of today.
  But, that critical debate can wait for another day. In this time of 
crisis, I will vote in favor of this legislation in order to stand 
firmly behind our young men and women in uniform who may soon be put in 
harm's way.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chairman, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave 
his farewell address in 1961, he spoke about the ``military-industrial 
complex.'' He said, ``In the councils of government, we must guard 
against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or 
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the 
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.''
  It is forty years later, and yet his words still ring true. The 
corporations and organizations

[[Page 17938]]

that profit so much from military build-ups are unaccountable to the 
American people. That was true in 1961, it was true on September 10th, 
2001, and it remains true today. In America, the nation's military 
priorities ought to be set by the people.
  For that reason, I have been a harsh critic of our nation's military 
budget.
  I have regarded its priorities as misplaced.
  I have vehemently opposed deploying National Missile Defense.
  I have disagreed with the decision to build the F-22 Raptor.
  I have questioned the need for new attack submarines, battleships and 
guided missile destroyers.
  I lament our failure to adequately compensate the men and women who 
serve in the Armed Forces and our failure to keep our promises to our 
nation's veterans.
  I decry the failure to fully fund our non-proliferation efforts and 
nuclear disarmament programs.
  I have opposed every defense authorization and defense appropriation 
bill put before me since I came to Congress.
  And I would expect to do so again in the future, if I am not able to 
have greater influence on their content, their magnitude and their 
priorities.
  But today is different. I have struggled with this vote as I have 
struggled with no other. Here is where that struggle has brought me. I 
regard my two central duties at this unprecedented time to be the 
protection of American lives and the protection of the American way of 
life--our freedoms of speech, our expectation of privacy, our right to 
due process.
  I do not know what our President is being told by our intelligence 
agencies or by the criminal investigators. I do not know what tools our 
President will need to protect our families from further attacks and 
threats. I could not accept the responsibility for denying those 
charged with protecting our immediate safety and security with the 
tools they need. The Administration has told us that these are the 
tools they need. Not knowing what they know, I take them at their word.
  No one should interpret this vote as any indication that I will not 
continue to question and criticize policy that I believe is wrong. No 
one should take this vote as an indication that we should not push to 
reconfigure, rethink and reprioritize our national defense program.
  In this unprecedented time, we give our President what he has 
requested in order to protect American life. At the same time, I do not 
forget General Eisenhower's caution that we must guard against the 
acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial 
complex.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, in these times of extreme pressure on 
our national security team, we want to be assured that America is 
properly prepared. This defense authorization bill has much that I find 
commendable. It provides funding for providing the essential defense 
requirements that will assure that the United States continues to have 
the most powerful armed forces anywhere in the world, far and away 
superior to the next seven countries combined. There are many 
improvements that are made to quality of life for our fighting men and 
women including increased resources for their pay and for their housing 
which are critical and which I strongly support. It also recognizes 
work that I've been championing to have the military clean up after 
itself and deal with unexploded ordnance and other military pollution. 
Having an inventory of these contaminated sites is an important step 
forward and I appreciate the work that Committee leadership and staff 
have done in that regard.
  I reluctantly vote in opposition to this defense authorization 
because of the continued clear misallocation of resources it includes 
for national missile defense. In fact, I have grave reservations about 
several of our patterns in military technology and hardware. For 
example, we are still developing three new tactical aircraft systems 
simultaneously. It is critical that we deal with the meat and potatoes 
of our nation's defense and the support of our military retirees before 
launching forth with some of these troubling weapons systems. The most 
problematic of them all is missile defense. There is nearly $8 billion 
in this bill for a system that was demonstrated two weeks ago to not be 
our top priority. We were caught flat-footed with a severe act of 
domestic terrorism illustrating that we need to be doing more to 
protect against conventional threats: intelligence on the ground and 
improving civilian capacity to assist our citizens. It is ill-advised 
to continue to feed money into a system for remote risks that are far 
into the future which may not even work and may further destabilize the 
world balance of power.
  We need to focus our efforts now more than ever before on making sure 
that our armed forces are equipped to deal with today's threats and 
responsibilities, not what we wish they would be in the future or know 
they were in the past. Missile defense is the worst example of both 
these premises.
  I hope that we will be able, in the course of this Congress, to do a 
better job of effectively evaluating our threats and redeploying our 
resources to protect our citizens and support our fighting men and 
women.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Madam Chairman, as you may know, the Senate has 
authorized another round of military base closures. I rise in 
opposition to any attempts to weaken our national defense through 
another round of base closing.
  Another round of base closing will subject the future of our national 
defense to a political and arbitrary process of back-room-deals and 
broken promises. All of the past BRAC rounds have been full of last-
minute games, empty promises, false cost savings and unreliable data.
  At a time when our nation has been attacked by terrorist forces, 
further base closures would make our country look weak and further 
undermine the security of the American people. Closing additional 
military installations will make our remaining bases easier targets.
  Why should we be shutting down existing bases when we are only 
beginning to understand the extent of our enemies evil wishes?
  Why should we be shutting down existing bases when we are still 
learning of our enemies' ability to completely surprise even our best 
defenses?
  Why should we be shutting down existing bases when we need all of our 
people and materials to fight against the terrorist enemy?
  I rise in strong opposition to another round of base closing and 
encourage our conferees to do the same.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Chairman, I had urged that this Department of 
Defense spending bill be brought up without including the controversial 
missile defense program. It was my belief that we, as a Congress, would 
be best served by taking up a bill that most of us could vote for, 
which could then be followed with the controversial missile defense 
bill about which so many of us disagree.
  Last week, on the floor, I had occasion to discuss the missile 
defense plan with a Congressman from across the aisle. There has been a 
lot of that lately, discussions among Republicans and Democrats that 
are respectful. He said he would vote for ``missile defense'' if it 
would save one American city from nuclear annihilation.
  Well, so would I. But this missile defense program won't do that. It 
won't make us safer. The technology doesn't work. Further, in order to 
proceed, we also have to abrogate treaties just at the time when we 
need international allies in the war against terrorism.
  As the September 11 attacks on our country showed us so terribly, we 
need more and better defenses. Some of those defenses need to be in the 
Department of Defense and in the Department of Justice, and I favor 
increased funding to enhance those capabilities. Enhancement of our 
intelligence capabilities is also called for along with better 
coordination and communication between intelligence and law 
enforcement. Improved airport and airline safety is also a necessity.
  But spending billions on missile defense, in my view, will not make 
our country safer. It wouldn't stop the terrorists who attacked us on 
September 11th and it won't work to stop ``nuclear terrorism'' either. 
Unfortunately, the technology isn't even advanced enough to stop the so 
called rogue nations that are identified to be its target.
  I favor additional funding for avionics, parts, upgraded technology 
and military pay. I wish I were able to vote for such good things 
separately from this flawed missile defense plan.
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
language in this bill concerning the future of the Puerto Rican island 
of Vieques.
  The United States Navy has trained in Vieques for more than sixty 
years.
  The effects of that training on the environment of the island and on 
the lives of its 9300 residents are painfully clear.
  Thousands of acres on that beautiful topical island are devastated, 
bearing witness to the presence of hundreds of thousands of tons of 
metals, chemicals and materials that have been shown to increase the 
incidence of cancer and other diseases.
  Vieques, which was once a thriving, albeit developing agricultural, 
fishing and tourist society of 12,000 residents, has been mired in 
poverty, unemployment, forced migration and underdevelopment for 
several decades, because the largest ``tenant'' on the island--the U.S. 
Navy--who occupies close to two thirds of the total land mass of the 
island, prevents the development of any significant economic activity 
in Vieques.
  After the accidental death of David Sanes--a civilian security guard 
from Vieques--the people of Vieques, supported by the people of Puerto 
Rico and by many people from the United States declared that they had 
enough

[[Page 17939]]

of the bombing, enough of the contamination, enough of the constraining 
of their lives hopes and aspirations by the U.S. Navy. Together with 
the religious, civic, political, and labor leadership of Puerto Rico, 
the people of Vieques began a sustained campaign of peaceful protest 
and peaceful civil disobedience to put a stop to the abuses of their 
land by the Navy.
  Madam Chairman, last year President Clinton and this Congress 
attempted to mediate in the dispute.
  I believe that President Clinton, as commander-in-chief under our 
Constitution could have resolved the issue the same way President Ford 
had resolved the matter of Culebra in 1975, or President Bush had 
resolved the issue of Kahoolave in 1991, by simply ordering his 
subordinates in the U.S. Navy to cease operations in Vieques.
  He chose, instead, to do a combination of Executive orders and 
Congressional action.
  That is now known as the Clinton-Rossello agreement.
  I opposed that ``compromise'' precisely because I suspected that what 
is happening here today--that Congress is literally going back on its 
word given to the people of Vieques and the people of Puerto Rico could 
happen. That is why I called on President Clinton to resolve the matter 
once and for all.
  Madam Chairman: The people of Vieques have expressed their 
aspirations for peace in every peaceful manner possible. They have 
protested peacefully, the have engaged in peaceful civil disobedience . 
. . and they voted-overwhelmingly, 70 percent of the vote--for the Navy 
to leave them in peace.
  And this Congress had promised them that the Navy would indeed leave, 
if--we told them last year--you vote in a federally sponsored 
referendum to be held at a date of the Navy's choosing, for the Navy to 
leave.
  That referendum, that opportunity for the people of Vieques to once 
again express their wish to live in peace and free of contaminants and 
threats to their lives and their safety, was going to take place on 
November, on the date chosen by the Navy.
  But the Navy and their allies in Congress now know what I always 
said, that the people of Vieques, whom the Navy was called their 
``neighbors'' no longer want the Navy in their land.
  So, what do we do when the people of Vieques are about to beat the 
Navy at a game whose rules were designed by the Navy and its political 
allies in Congress? We will now change the rules, to prevent the people 
of Vieques from winning fair and square.
  In this time of crisis, we are all feeling a growing sense of 
patriotism. I am pleased and proud that the people of our nation are 
rallying to our country and about what it stands for. Sadly, what this 
Congress intends to do to the people of Vieques does not represent the 
best of America. It disrespects the clearly and democratically 
expressed will of the majority of the people of Vieques.
  Madam Chairman, tonight I will vote for this DOD authorization bill, 
because, despite this and many other disagreements I have with this 
bill, its enactment is necessary for the defense of our country and of 
our democracy.
  But I want to make clear for the record that we are committing a 
grave injustice to a peaceful people who have the right, the same right 
as any of my constituents or any of the constituents represented in 
this body to live in peace, free of fear, free of deadly contamination 
with a hope for a decent future for themselves and their children. I 
vote for this bill to support that defense of our nation--and despite 
language regarding Vieques that is unjust and counterproductive.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation, which authorizes appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for a total of $343 billion in budget authority, consistent 
with the President's amended defense budget request.
  H.R. 2586 provides the men and women in our nation's armed forces 
with the tools needed to address the challenges our country will face 
in the next decade and beyond. This legislation provides much needed 
increases in weapons procurement; research and development; operations 
and maintenance; and a 32 percent increase in military construction and 
family housing. This legislation also addresses military health care by 
fully funding lifetime health care for military retirees and their 
eligible family members. I am pleased that this bill contains the 
largest military pay raise since 1982 and provides significant 
increases in funding for key military readiness accounts. The bill also 
makes great strides in beginning to address our aging military 
infrastructure and makes a modest down payment toward the next 
priority--the modernization of our fleet of combat equipment. Perhaps 
most importantly, this bill takes critical steps toward ensuring that 
the United States is ready to meet the challenges that lie ahead, 
including the challenge of meeting and defeating international 
terrorism.
  I also want to express my strong support for the Stump/Skelton 
managers amendment to transfer $400 million from missile defense to 
intelligence and anti-terrorism measures. From the bill's $8.2 billion 
authorization for missile defense programs, the amendment would direct 
$100 million to offensive counter-terrorism initiatives; $100 million 
for enhanced intelligence programs; $150 million for increased security 
at U.S. military bases, and $50 million for consequence management 
activities. The amendment would also require the Defense Department to 
assess its capability to respond to terrorist attacks; require a DoD 
assessment report on airborne threats and establish counter-terrorism 
as a national security priority. I believe this amendment offers a 
reasonable approach to counter the growing threat of terrorism on our 
soil, while providing the funds necessary to continue development of 
the missile defense program. In fact, the funds provided under the 
underlying bill for missile defense are 55 percent more than the amount 
appropriated for FY2001. As such, I believe the $400 million transfer 
included in the Stump/Skelton amendment is a reasonable trade-off to 
bolster our nation's intelligence and counter-terrorism initiatives, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  As we all know, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon have forever changed our nation. This 
horrible incident removed forever the belief that Americans here at 
home were safe from the kinds of attacks that have occurred against our 
citizens, our military personnel, and our allies overseas. It is clear 
that the United States itself is a target, and that terrorists will not 
hesitate to use whatever means at their disposal to kill innocent 
Americans on a massive scale. Our response to the terrorist actions 
must be deliberate and calculated. As we consider this bill today, our 
armed forces are preparing again to defend our nation--this time from 
the scourge of terrorism. While I have no doubt that they will respond 
effectively, we must make sure that they have the necessary tools and 
resources to do the job. To that end, this legislation authorizes $6 
billion for Department of Defense programs to combat terrorism.
  While this bill is carefully balanced to address the most critical 
needs of our military forces, we must be prepared to provide additional 
resources, if needed. The war against terrorism cannot be won in a 
single year, and we must be prepared to provide the funding necessary 
to get the job done. We must also recognize that our responsibility to 
protect the citizens of the United States against other emerging 
threats cannot be assured with a single year of defense increases. The 
effort to improve our nation's defenses and our people's security must 
be significant and it must be sustained. With that in mind, the funding 
levels provided in this legislation may not be sufficient to support 
the level of effort that the DoD must undertake to track down the 
perpetrators of last week's terrorist attack. The Administration in 
consultation with the Pentagon are working to identify the additional 
resources required and we stand ready to address these needs in the 
near future.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this critical legislation. 
By enacting this legislation today, we are reaffirming our commitment 
to our national security, and to the men and women who so ably serve 
and defend our nation.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this important 
bill. Since 1987, my first year in the House of Representatives, 
perhaps no defense authorization vote has been more timely or more 
significant, and I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor as we 
consider this legislation.
  The health care provisions of this bill are key. In an effort to 
fully meet America's promises to the military, last year Congress 
created a Senior Pharmacy Benefit that took effect last April 1, and 
authorized expanding TRICARE to Medicare-eligible retirees and their 
dependents. Starting Oct. 1, 2001, all military retirees and their 
dependents who are age 65, or who are otherwise eligible for Medicare 
will be able to use TRICARE as a second payer. This year's bill 
authorizes full funding for these programs, a necessary and important 
step that our military retirees and their spouses deserve.
  In the past, military retirees who reached the age of 65 lost their 
TRICARE eligibility and were required to purchase supplemental 
policies, which are often prohibitively expensive, to cover Medicare's 
deductibles and coinsurance. By expanding TRICARE to the 65 years of 
age and older population, Congress can ensure that these men and women 
who served our nation are eligible for the best health care this nation 
can offer.
  There is one more step that Congress should take as soon as possible 
to ensure that

[[Page 17940]]

every Medicare-eligible retiree can access the health care benefits to 
which they are entitled. I recently became aware of an inequitable 
situation facing many military retirees. Under current law, seniors who 
failed to enroll in Medicare Part B when they first became eligible are 
subject to a premium penalty of 10 percent for every year they did not 
enroll, effectively increasing the monthly premium for a 70-year old 
first-time enrollee from $50 to $75 for the rest of his or her life. 
Because military retirees could not have anticipated how their benefits 
would change, tens of thousands of retirees are now subject to these 
late penalties.
  On June 6, 2001, the 57th anniversary of D-Day, I introduced the 
TRICARE Retirees Opportunity Act, legislation to waive the penalty for 
military retirees who enroll between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 
2002. There is another barrier to full participation facing our 
military retirees. Current law permits late enrollees to sign up only 
during Medicare's annual open enrollment period--January 1 through 
March 31--with benefits beginning on July 1. My legislation will create 
a continuous open enrollment period through the end of 2002 for 
military retirees so that these prospective beneficiaries may access 
their new coverage immediately.
  Because the cost of this bill--a scant $10 million a year, as scored 
by the Congressional Budget Office--would affect the Medicare Part B 
Trust Fund, this authorization bill is not the appropriate venue to 
correct this inequity. However, I want to urge Congress to adopt this 
provision with all deliberate speed this year.
  Madam Chairman, this country has done a good job of meeting the 
health care needs of our active duty military. The Floyd A. Spence 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001 was a milestone 
in our efforts to help the military retirees who devoted years of their 
lives to defend this nation. This year's authorization bill builds upon 
that work. My bill takes one more important step to ensure that these 
retirees, their spouses, and their survivors have full access to the 
benefits we enacted for them last year. I urge all my colleagues to 
join me in support of this key legislation so that we may truly fulfill 
our promise to the nation's military retirees this year.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Chairman, last year a single group of veterans 
in my district, the 6th District of Ohio, volunteered to perform 
military honors at over 60 funerals. They perform this solemn duty out 
of the kindness of their hearts and with the deepest respect for our 
nation's fallen heroes. A sad fact is that many of these same veterans 
lack the financial resources necessary to purchase the appropriate 
uniform for a full rendering of military honors.
  The Department of Defense (DoD) implemented important provisions with 
the FY00 Defense Authorization Act, providing support for honor guard 
details performing military honors to veterans. The bill specifies the 
Secretary of Defense may provide material, equipment, and training to 
support non-governmental organizations as necessary to support honor 
guard details.
  However, in discussion with DoD about their proposed plans to 
implement these provisions, I have been told that no uniforms will be 
provided to a veteran performing military honors. The DoD has even said 
no to the idea of providing uniforms to veterans who can demonstrate 
financial hardship. This decision by DoD is arbitrary and indefensible.
  I am pleased that the committee leadership accepted my amendment as 
part of the en bloc amendment which passed on September 20, 2001. This 
provision will require the DoD to supply the appropriate civilian 
uniforms to those veterans performing an honor guard program who 
demonstrate a financial need for such support. Posing little 
difficulty, this authority gives the DoD broad discretion in developing 
a policy of which we all can be proud.
  On another matter, I would like to bring to your attention a 
provision in the Senate Defense Authorization Act that is of importance 
to workers and their survivors who were made ill as a result of their 
employment in the nations' nuclear weapons facilities and beryllium 
suppliers to the energy Department across the nation. One of these 
facilities, the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, enriched uranium 
for the nation's nuclear deterrent and naval propulsion programs in my 
district.
  The Senate included technical corrections to the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000--a compensation 
program that was included in Title 36 of the FY 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act. These changes embodied in Section 3151 of the Senate 
Committee report include:
  Expanding the definition of a ``survivor'' for uranium miners and 
nuclear weapons workers to eliminate a requirement that survivors must 
have been under the age of 18 when the covered worker died.
  Adjusting definition of the disease ``silicosis'' to conform to the 
medically accepted definition of 1/0.
  Setting a 10% cap on attorney fees for contested compensation claims 
beyond the 2% cap for the initial filing of compensation claim.
  Clarifying that rights of third party tort claimants to receive 
federal benefits who did not receive any recovery from these suite 
prior to the date of enactment of the FY'02 Defense Authorization Act.
  Requring a study on residual radiation and beryllium contamination in 
facilities that supplied materials to the Department of Energy for use 
in nuclear weapons.
  Clarifying that leukemia will be covered without regard to age of 
occupational exposure to radiation (currently the law only covers those 
exposed after age 20) for those in a Special Exposure Cohort.
  These amendments were accepted on a biparitsnan basis in the Senate 
and the costs estimated at $100 million are covered within direct 
spending authorized for the Defense Authorization Act as part of the 
FY'02 budget resolution.
  These amendments respond to concerns that were raised by hundreds of 
participants at over 50 field meetings conducted by the Department of 
Labor in its implementation of the EEOICPA. It is my understanding that 
the Department of Labor has no formal position on these amendments, and 
has not raised any specific objections.
  In conclusion, I hope the Armed Services Committee will agree to 
include in these amendments in the final legislation.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Chairman, the devastation wreaked by terrorists on 
September 11, 2001 was horrendous. But had the terrorists used nuclear 
weapons, the death and destruction would have been even worse. The one 
essential element terrorists lack in making nuclear weapons is fissile 
materials, and we should make every effort to ensure that they do not 
obtain them. Only days before September 11, smugglers were apprehended 
in Turkey trying to move weapons-grade uranium out of Russia. This was 
not the first instance, and there is no doubt that terrorists and their 
sponsors are trying. There is however, reason to doubt that we are 
doing all that we should to keep such materials and nuclear know-how 
out of their hands.
  The Department of Energy shares the non-proliferation campaign with 
the Department of Defense and focuses on its particular realm of 
expertise: nuclear materials. Despite the gravity of this mission, this 
bill follows President Bush's request, and without explanation, cuts 
the DOE budget for stopping the spread of nuclear materials.
  The Department of Energy oversees several programs to stem the spread 
of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. All told, 
the DOW non-proliferation budget for FY 2001 is $874 million. The 
President cut those programs in his FY 2002 budget request by $101 
million, a cut of almost 12 percent. The committee's original mark did 
not restore this cut at all, even though the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees added $71 million and $106 million, 
respectively, to the President's budget. The manager's amendment to the 
bill before us today restores only $10 million, leaving the DOE's non-
proliferation budget $90 million below the 2001 level, and well below 
the appropriated levels in the House or Senate.


              DOE's Non-Proliferation and Verification R&D

  Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory have been involved for years in developing sensors placed on 
U.S., satellites to monitor the production, testing, or use of nuclear, 
biological, or chemical weapons. Before 1991, the program was diffuse 
and unfocused. This changed in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf when 
U.N. inspectors discovered that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
programs were far more advanced than the U.S. intelligence community or 
anyone else had anticipated. Shortly after the Gulf War, Congress 
established a specific line in the DOE budget for non-proliferation and 
verification to develop technologies that detect the production, 
testing, transfer, or use of such weapons.
  The President's budget request for this critical research in FY 2002 
is $170 million, which is $57.5 million (25 percent) below the 2001 
level of $227.5 million. The bill ratifies the administration's 
request--not one dime is added to restore this cut. Here are examples 
of items that will not be funded if these cuts are not reversed:
  New seismic monitoring devices that will help ensure that Russia, 
China, or others are not improving their nuclear weapons by conducting 
underground tests with a nuclear yield below 1 kiloton.
  The Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System (``BASIS'') 
which is designed to detect a bio-terrorism attack within a few

[[Page 17941]]

hours so that public health agencies can react quickly and effectively 
to stop the spread of the agent. We do not have this capability in 
hand, but it is maturing: BASIS was field-tested at Salt Lake City in 
March 2001. This cut will slow down the development of a promising 
technology.
  Devlopment of new sensors that can detect atmospheric nuclear 
explosions. Our satellites that have such sensors are retiring. We do 
not have any of the old sensors on hand--they were all custom built. 
This cut may delay the effort to build new sensors in time to be placed 
on replacement satellites. If not built on time, the U.S. will not be 
assured of the ability to detect an atmospheric nuclear explosion.
  New sensors specifically geared to go on platforms to detect the 
production, testing, transfer, or use of WMDs. The sensors detect 
various ``signatures''--tell-tale clues that may be chemical, 
electromagnetic, infrared, optical, or radio-nuclide in nature--all 
absolutely critical to improving the ability of the U.S. intelligence 
community to keep watch on what countries like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, 
and Libya are doing.
  Although the threat of WMDs is seen as the gravest threat facing the 
U.S., we are depriving our intelligence community of the resources to 
improve the technical means to gather information and track the threat 
if this cut stands.
  Another victim of this cut is people. Dr. John Browne, Director of 
Los Alamos, was in my office a few weeks ago. Besides the programmatic 
impacts I just described, Dr. Browne is worried that these cuts will 
force long-time employees to seek employment elsewhere. And when they 
leave, they will leave for good. They will not come back to their work 
when the funding comes back, and not only will we lose their expertise, 
we will lose their ability to pass their expertise on to the next 
generation of scientists and engineers at the national labs.
  That's way these cuts are so shortsighted and the exact opposite of 
what we should be doing. I had an amendment in committee that would 
simply have restored funding to the 2001 level, and I sought, to no 
avail, to do the same through my BMD amendment included in the 
managers' amendment. We should not be so single-minded, so focused on 
the threat of ballistic missiles that we allow cuts like these to stand 
while bestowing a 49 percent increase on BMD.


              Summary of DOE Non-Proliferation Activities

  Non-Proliferation and Verification Research and Development--This 
program develops technologies to help the U.S. meet four primary goals:
  1. Detecting nuclear weapons development efforts. The labs develop 
sensors that detect the tell-tale signatures of a nuclear weapons 
development program--which can be chemical, infrared, optical, 
radionuclide, or electromagnetic in nature.
  2. Monitoring Nuclear Explosions. The labs develop methods to detect 
nuclear explosions, either atmospheric events or underground, low-yield 
events that require seismic detection.
  3. Deterring the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. The labs develop 
technologies needed to improve the detection and tracking of fissile 
materials. These technologies include hand-held devices for border 
security forces and autonomous sensing devices that can be stationed at 
fissile material holding areas.
  4. Responding to Chemical and Biological Attacks. The labs are 
developing technologies that will quickly identify the exact nature of 
a chemical or biological weapon. Quick identification is essential to 
providing first responders the information they need to treat victims 
and to contain the damage caused by such weapons.
  Arms Control--The Office of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation 
includes several programs well known to Congress: the longstanding 
Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR) program, the 
Nuclear Cities Initiative, and the Initiatives for Proliferation 
Prevention. The office also provides DOE expertise to ensure that 
nuclear reductions are transparent, improve export controls, and 
generally strengthen existing nonproliferation agreements. The major 
responsibilities of this office include:
  1. Nonproliferation in the Newly Independent States (NIS). The DOE 
tries to make sure that nuclear materials and human expertise in 
nuclear weapons resident in the NIS do not spread to other countries, 
such as North Korea, Iran, or Iraq. Two recent programs to stop such 
proliferation are the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) and the 
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP). The IPP tries to 
prevent ``brain drain'' from the ten major laboratories and engineering 
institutes that were involved in the former Soviet Union nuclear 
weapons programs. IPP establishes projects that gainfully employ these 
scientists, engineers, and technicians. Some of the projects are joint 
ventures with U.S. industry. The Nuclear Cities Initiative is a 
``sister'' program to IPP that focuses exclusively on the closed 
nuclear cities of the former Soviet Union, creating new jobs through 
economic diversification at these closed cities.
  2. Nuclear Nonproliferation throughout the World. The Arms Control 
office supports programs that aim to curb the ability of countries to 
convert spent nuclear fuel into nuclear weapons. Activities include: 
(i) a major program to control and protect spent fuel in Kazakhstan; 
(ii) implementation of the agreement with North Korea to switch to 
nuclear reactors that produce little weapons-grade fissile materials; 
and (iii) the Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor program 
(begun by the Eisenhower Administration) to ensure that spent fuel from 
test and research reactors throughout the world is not used for 
military purposes.
  3. Export Controls. DOE is active in U.S. government efforts to 
internally improve and enforce export controls on nuclear materials, 
and to help train other nations in detecting/interdicting illegal 
exports of nuclear materials.
  4. International Safeguards and Treaties. DOE helps verify that other 
countries are living up to various nonproliferation agreements and 
treaties. The Arms Control Office is the principal U.S. entity for 
assessing and proposing new treaties and agreements, and the means to 
verify and enforce them.
  Material Protection, Control, and Accounting (MPC&A)--This program 
was established by provisions that I helped write in the FY 1994 
Defense Authorization Act. MPC&A helps Russia improve security at the 
95 sites identified as having nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. 
These sites contain about 850 metric tons of weapons-usable fissile 
materials, and many are poorly protected. These sites include 53 Navy 
sites, 11 MinAtom sites, and 31 civilian sites. To date, MPC&A has 
completed security upgrades at 37 of these sites which contain about 
400 metric tons of weapons-usable fissile materials. Security 
improvements are underway at many, but not all, of the remaining 58 
sites.
  HEU Transparency--DOE is in charge of the 1993 Highly Enriched 
Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement between the U.S. and the Russian 
Federation. Under this agreement, the U.S. is to purchase civilian 
reactor fuel derived from 500 tons of weapons-grade HEU over a 20-year 
period. This activity verifies that the fuel the U.S. is buying is 
indeed from former Soviet nuclear weapons, and supports reciprocal 
monitoring by Russia to ensure that the U.S. is using the HEU for fuel. 
Through December 30, 2000, this program has resulted in the purchase of 
111.3 metric tons of NEU.
  Fissile Material Control and Disposition--The DOE is in charge of 
safely disposing of surplus U.S. fissile materials (plutonium and HEU) 
as well as helping Russia get rid of its surplus stocks. Both countries 
have agreed to track each other's progress toward elimination of these 
materials, so that both can be confident the other will not be able to 
quickly expand its stock of nuclear materials (a ``break-out'' 
scenario) and gain strategic dominance in nuclear weapons. These U.S. 
efforts with Russia are currently focused on plutonium disposition, 
since the 1993 agreement on HEU is already underway. U.S. and Russia 
have to convert much of their respective plutonium (34 metric tons 
each) into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel to be burned in civilian nuclear 
reactors. The U.S. also plans to vitrify (also known as ``immobilize'') 
approximately 13 of its 47 or so metric tons of plutonium because these 
materials are not in a form suitable for easy conversion into MOX.
  International Nuclear Safety--This program helps Russia and the NIS 
prevent another Chernobyl disaster. There are 66 operating nuclear 
powered reactors at 21 sites in Russia and 7 NIS countries. Many of 
these reactors are either identical to the Chernobyl reactors or have 
their own serious design defects. This program helps these nations 
improve the training of their operators and create safety procedures 
for these plants, which still operate far below international safety 
and operational standards.
  Program Direction--This pays the salaries of the Nuclear 
Proliferation workforce, as well as the expenses normally charged to 
salary and expense accounts. The workforce is comprised of 233 Full-
Time Equivalents (FTEs) at DOE headquarters, 34 FTEs in field offices, 
and 25 FTEs in offices located abroad.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of the Defense 
Authorization Act (H.R. 2586), and in support of our armed forces and 
the service men and women who defend our great country. In this time of 
national awareness of the very real threat of terrorism, I believe it 
is our responsibility as lawmakers to ensure the readiness and quality 
of life of our military by providing these forces with the necessary 
resources, equipment and training to defend our nation's interests and 
to keep the American people secure.

[[Page 17942]]

  I am encouraged that the Armed Services Committee, the Administration 
and our joint Congressional leaders have crafted legislation that 
firmly addresses many of our military's most pressing needs. I am 
firmly committed to maintaining a strong national defense, especially 
during this time of domestic and international crisis. I am also very 
pleased we have not forgotten our equally important responsibility of 
improving the quality of life of our military personnel. The current 
defense budget includes significant commitments to military salaries, 
health care, housing allowances and housing construction opportunities. 
We need to assure our military that as we continue to support their 
readiness capabilities, we remember the personal well being of the men 
and women in uniform as well as their families.
  While I am supporting passage of this authorization, I am 
particularly concerned that we are placing too high an emphasis on an 
untested and unproven method of defense. Specifically, I am opposed to 
provisions in this bill that authorize an increase in funding for 
national missile defense. By moving forward with a costly national 
missile defense system, we are investing billions of scarce federal 
dollars in an unproven and dangerous scheme. Deployment and testing of 
the proposed missile defense system will jeopardize our obligations 
under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that has served our nation and 
the world well for nearly three decades. In addition, evident by the 
recent attacks on our country, we must consider the possibility that an 
anti-missile system completely fails to address one of our most serious 
threats of attack the introduction of chemical, biological or nuclear 
weapons by non-state actors through as pedestrian means. The proposed 
missile defense system not only does not make our nation more secure, 
it diverts resources away from the very real human investments needed 
to keep our military, intelligence agencies and domestic security 
agencies strong.
  Before we add billions of additional dollars to untested and unproven 
programs that destabilize relationships with allies and undermine our 
treaty obligations, let's use this appropriation to focus on 
strengthening our home security and providing our citizens with the 
appropriate resources necessary to ensure the events of September 11th 
never happen again on American soil.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and urge my 
colleagues to support this important measure.
  This year, we lost two great friends on the House Armed Services 
Committee, our former Chairman, Floyd Spence from South Carolina, and 
Norm Sisisky from Virginia. Both of these men dedicated the majority of 
their time here in Congress to ensuring the defense of our Nation, and 
they are deeply missed on the Committee and in this Congress. Their 
tremendous contributions to our national defense serve an as example to 
this Congress as we look to strengthen our military and continue to 
improve living and working conditions for our men and women in uniform.
  I would like to recognize Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Skelton 
for their astute leadership of this Committee and for the bipartisan 
manner in which they have crafted a bill to address the immediate needs 
of our Armed Forces. In the venerable tradition of the Armed Services 
Committee, these gentlemen have worked side by side, across party 
lines, to provide our military with the means to defend our Nation.
  I would also like to commend my good friend and colleague, Jim 
Saxton, Chairman of the Military Installations and Facilities 
Subcommittee, whom I have been so fortunate to work closely with, both 
on Armed Services and the Resources Committees. His sincere concern for 
the quality of life of our troops, as well as his truly bipartisan, 
cooperative leadership, have guaranteed an equitable bill that directly 
answers the pressing needs of our military infrastructure.
  Finally, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless 
work and invaluable expertise. I would especially like to thank the 
Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee professional staff, 
George Withers and Phil Grone, who is leaving the Committee to serve as 
an Administration official at the Pentagon.
  As Ranking Member of the Military Installations and Facilities 
Subcommittee, I am particularly proud of the remarkable boost this bill 
will give to our military housing and infrastructure. The Military 
Construction provisions build upon a healthy budget proposed by the 
President, and I am gratified to see that when it comes to taking care 
of our service members and their families, we are all unified in 
opinion. Our people, and their living and working conditions, must 
continue to be our number one priority.
  The unspeakable events of September 11, 2001, should not alter our 
commitment to quality of life initiatives. Five carrier battlegroups 
are currently underway, preparing for potential offensive operations. 
The President has authorized mobilization of up to 50,000 Ready 
Reservists. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we show our 
appreciation for those who volunteer to go in harm's way. Even in light 
of extreme uncertainty about the future, these young men and women 
pledge to support and defend American democracy, both at home and 
abroad. We owe it to them, and to their families, to keep our promise 
of increased safety and morale in the home and in the workplace.
  This bill does just that. It authorizes $10.3 billion for 
construction and renovation of critical infrastructure and family 
housing, approximately $350 million more than the Administration's 
request. Our bill includes $1.2 billion to build 51 new barracks and 
dormitories for single and unaccompanied service personnel. Often, our 
junior, single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines get overlooked in 
the rush to raise the standards on quality of life. This Committee has 
taken substantive steps to remedy this inequity, through improved 
living accommodations and a significant pay raise. The bill authorizes 
$1.1 billion for new construction and modernization of 6,800 family 
housing units--a down payment on our commitment to eradicate 
deteriorating, World War II-era living conditions. It also makes 
permanent the authorities in the Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative that use private sector expertise and capital to accelerate 
improvement of government-owned housing and help eliminate a serious 
shortage of quality affordable housing. Of special note, the Committee 
has responded to the concerns of our modern military families by 
recommending $36.2 million for six child development centers--a 
critical need for couples who both work as well as single parents.
  Our achievements in Military Construction will be an ongoing effort 
aimed at providing quality living and working facilities for our entire 
military family, stationed at home and overseas. I know that under Mr. 
Saxton's excellent stewardship, the Subcommittee on Military 
Installations and Facilities will continue to focus on raising the 
living and working standards for our Armed Forces. They have 
volunteered to protect our freedom. Now we must protect them by 
building safe, modern facilities for the 21st century military.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Madam Chairman, Puerto Ricans will continue to 
support this great nation and President George W. Bush in efforts to 
fight against the horrific elements of terrorism. Let no one question 
our commitment. Governor Calderon and I have reached out to support 
those directly impacted by the cowardly acts on September 11, 2001. 
Some 800 Puerto Ricans died that day. We stand in steadfast support of 
efforts to realize justice and to heal the many wounds inflicted on 
America. I am concerned however about language contained in the 
Chairman's mark that would, if enacted, alter the commitment of the 
Navy to find sufficient alternative training grounds to Vieques by May 
1, 2003. I am also concerned about how this change in policy will be 
received in Puerto Rico should it become law. We reaffirm our support 
of President Bush's position that there is no need for another 
referendum and that the Navy depart Vieques on or before May 1, 2003.
  Furthermore, since Navy Secretary Gordon England stated in this 
letter dated September 24, 2001, to Senate Armed Services Committee 
Chairman Levin that the Navy would meet its goal of May 1, 2003, there 
is no need to change the existing commitment. Such a change would 
create confusion and distrust in Vieques. We do not need that at this 
time of national unity.
  I want my colleagues to appreciate how committed Puerto Ricans are to 
our national defense. All the recruitment goals of the armed services 
have been surpassed in Puerto Rico over the last four years. Even as 
the divisive issue surrounding Vieques continues to be at the forefront 
of our conscience, young Puerto Ricans enlist to serve our nation in 
numbers that increase year after year and exceed recruiting goals of 
our armed services, including the Navy.
  Furthermore, Congress should remember that in 1990, then President 
George Bush issued an executive order that called for the immediate 
cessation of bombing on Kaho'olawe, Hawaii. President Bush, despite 
protestations from the Navy that mirror those used today concerning 
Vieques, signed the executive order on the eve of the Gulf War.
  Puerto Rico's support to this nation is unconditional. However, I 
believe that the Administration can still meet the commitment to find 
alternatives to Vieques by May 1, 2003.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I would like to lend my strong support 
for Mr.

[[Page 17943]]

Stump's manager's amendment to the Defense authorization bill. This 
important provision adds $10,000,000 to the National Nuclear Security 
Agency (NNSA)'s vital defense nuclear nonproliferation activities.
  The tragic events of September 11 and repeated incidents of groups 
trying to purchase unsecured Russian nuclear material, demonstrate in 
no uncertain terms that groups hostile to the United States may seek to 
cause wide-scale destruction to our nation using weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The increased funding in Mr. Stump's amendment will enable the NNSA 
to continue to develop technologies to detect weapons of mass 
destruction, from a small nuclear device concealed in a ship's cargo-
hold to anthrax spores hidden in a suitcase. These threats are elusive 
and hard to counter, but our national laboratories, through the NNSA, 
are working on critical technologies to make our nation less 
vulnerable.
  Madam Chairman, I remain concerned that the overall defense 
authorization bill does not restore the President's cuts to the 
Department of Energy's vital non-proliferation activities. These 
programs are instrumental in downsizing Russia's aging nuclear weapons 
complex, accounting for and securing Russia's nuclear material, and 
preventing the outflow from Russia of nuclear weapons expertise.
  I am pleased, however, that Mr. Stump's amendment takes a step toward 
improving our ability to counter the threat of weapons of mass 
destruction and I will work in conference to fully restore the funding 
to this year's level. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Biggert, Chairman 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. 2586) to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 246, she 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 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. Bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. 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. Bonior moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2586 to the 
     Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Strike section 331.
       At the end of title III, insert the text of subtitle G of 
     title III (Service Contracting Reform) of the bill, as 
     reported (page 71, line 12, through page 81, line 15).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying, if this motion is 
adopted, we will immediately vote on final passage without further 
delay. It is reported back forthwith or immediately back to the House. 
So we will vote on final passage immediately following this vote no 
matter what the outcome of this vote is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit simply reinstates the original provision on 
the question of service contracting processes that was adopted on a 
bipartisan basis in the Committee on Armed Services.
  The motion to recommit will make the service contracting process at 
the Department of Defense more fair to Federal employees and more 
accountable to taxpayers. It will save an enormous amount of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, less than 1 percent of defense contracts 
allow Federal employees a chance to openly compete for their work 
before it goes to the private sector. Less than 1 percent. That is not 
fair. When given a chance to compete, Federal employees actually win 60 
percent of the contracts. Why? Because they do a great job, and they do 
it for less money. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.
  Too often what happens at our bases, and those of you who have 
facilities know this, private contractors get the work, they fail to do 
the job; and then when the Federal Government has to take over, the 
employees are gone. Their work experience is gone. Competition for 
defense contracts can reduce costs and give workers a chance to compete 
for their jobs before they are contracted out.
  This would not prevent the Department of Defense from contracting out 
as long as it is done fairly. DOD is given the maximum flexibility and 
can waive the requirement if it is threatened by national security.
  This motion to recommit is a win for the Department of Defense, a win 
for Federal employees, and I think a win for the taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate again, it is like voting on an 
amendment. It will be brought back forthwith whether it passes or does 
not pass. It is a good amendment for Federal employees, for saving tax 
dollars and to make sure we have competition in this sector.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if a military base is deciding whether or 
not to contract out car washing at that military base, this amendment 
says before they can make that decision to take those jobs away from 
public employees, they must give those public employees a fair chance 
to compete for and win the contract.
  Mr. Speaker, the record shows that privatization is often a failure. 
It means lower quality at a higher price. It means taking jobs away 
from people with benefits and giving them to people without benefits 
for private profit. But this motion is not anti-privatization. It is 
pro-competition and it is pro-taxpayer and it is pro-Department of 
Defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge a vote in favor of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to recommit. I am a 
strong supporter of the contracting community. I have a very vibrant 
contracting community in my district. They perform an invaluable 
service for the defense of this Nation, in my case, for the United 
States Navy.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) have stated it well. What we want is we want a 
competition which will produce the best product for the best price. 
What this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is 
adding simply says that in the competition we will not exclude Federal 
employees who were doing the job now. If they lose that competition, 
the job will be contracted out as it ought to be.
  On the other hand, if they win the competition, and the competition 
shows that the Federal employees can do it cheaper and better, then it 
ought to be done in-house because that is what the taxpayer would want.
  I think that is good for America. I frankly think it is good in the 
final analysis for contractors, and it clearly is fair to our Federal 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time in 
support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. BONIOR. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that basically what we 
are

[[Page 17944]]

saying to Federal employees is, we will not take your job away without 
letting you make your case. Then we will decide based on your 
opportunity to make your case. That is all this does. It is fair. It is 
supported on a bipartisan basis in committee. As I said, it will not 
kill this bill or send it back to committee. It will come forthwith 
back to the House. I hope Members will vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) is 
recognized for 5 minutes in opposition to the motion to recommit.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have served on the Committee on Armed Services for 15 
years, and I love that committee because we are a bipartisan committee. 
I have as much respect for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) because the two gentlemen work 
in concert on every issue.
  We have had a bipartisan approach under Floyd Spence, under Ron 
Dellums, and under Les Aspin. We have worked together to reach 
compromises that may not be what we want at the time, but in the end 
worked to the best interest of our military and our personnel. We 
worked out our differences.
  The amendment my colleague seeks to offer today was offered 
identically by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in the 
committee. The amendment has some problems. Despite what my colleague 
has said, the Pentagon has estimated it will cost $100 million a year 
to implement this.
  Despite what my colleague has said, it will require us to establish a 
new classification system that will require every private contractor to 
open their records, and we do not even know what it will look like.
  My colleague knows that I am a friend of labor. I have been with my 
colleagues on that side of the aisle on some key labor issues. I do not 
want anyone thinking I am not in favor of equal competition for 
workers.
  Mr. Speaker, what bothers me about this motion to recommit is we sat 
down, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairmen of the subcommittees, the ranking 
members from the other side of the aisle, we worked out a good-faith 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will notice the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) is not offering this amendment. The gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie) told me on the way over that the gentleman did not 
even talk to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) about this 
amendment.
  My friend and my colleague on the other side knows full well that we 
reached an agreement to solve a problem that the gentleman from Hawaii 
(Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Jones) raised that I agree with; but this is not the solution.
  This Congress 1 year ago in our defense authorization bill with a 
bipartisan vote established a task force, which organized labor has a 
member of that, will report back in March on a plan to correct the A-76 
process.
  My amendment that we offered with the support of the gentleman from 
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in the en bloc amendment puts a moratorium of 
50 percent of all A-76 work through that time.
  We also require that there must be a 10 percent threshold met. It was 
a good-faith compromise that the administration reluctantly accepted.
  Now my colleague comes up on the final vote, without consulting with 
the members of the leadership of his own party on the committee, and 
seeks to undo the bipartisan spirit of trying to resolve the A-76 
process which I agree needs to be changed and modified. This is not, in 
my opinion, a good-faith effort on behalf of working people.
  This is a chance to perhaps have Members of the other side score 
points when we had a good-faith agreement with the leadership on the 
other side of the aisle on the committee, a unanimous agreement to move 
forward and resolve this problem.
  I ask my friends and colleagues to follow the request of the 
leadership of this committee, the leadership of the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Stump), the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Ortiz), the leadership of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), 
the leadership of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and 
the other Members on both sides of the aisle and allow us to enact this 
bill and reject this amendment and do the right thing for the military 
in this country and move on to resolve the problems with the A-76 
process.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the Ambercrombie language is not included in the Defense 
Authorization bill, and I support the motion to recommit so that it may 
be restored.
  Representative Abercrombie's amendment was an effort to ensure that 
the most knowledgeable and experienced individuals are contracted with 
to do the work for the Department of Defense. And his amendment was 
adopted in Committee by a bipartisan majority.
  But what the other side wants to do is contract out these projects 
which does not guarantee the best workers for the job, it does not 
guarantee that the work will be done at a lower cost. All it does is 
jeopardize the jobs of thousands of federal employees and put the lives 
of Defense employees on the line.
  The language was intended to place Federal employees on equal footing 
as private contractors.
  It does not say that the Federal government cannot contract out but 
rather that the best people must be employed to do the job. The 
government must look at all the options.
  The recent events have illustrated that our federal employees are 
constantly on the front line. We should be doing everything possible to 
protect them and their jobs.
  I urge that my colleagues support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, is there a way to respond to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, is there a way to respond to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, who has made allegations and has thrown names around 
in this House before this vote? Is there a way to respond to the 
inaccurate statements of the gentleman from Pennsylvania with respect 
to the leadership of my own party here on the committee?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a Member to question the 
good faith of a colleague? It is fine to disagree with his position, 
but the good faith of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) was 
questioned, which I think is outrageous.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot rule on the words. The 
words were not taken down.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken 
down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's request for the words to be 
taken down is not timely.
  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. HOYER. 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 final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 221, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               AYES--197

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop

[[Page 17945]]


     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Engel
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Nadler
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  2031

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 398, 
noes 17, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               AYES--398

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns

[[Page 17946]]


     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--17

     Blumenauer
     Conyers
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Frank
     Jackson (IL)
     Lee
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller, George
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Schakowsky
     Stark
     Tierney
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Berman
     Cubin
     Engel
     Gallegly
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Nadler
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  2042

  Mr. GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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.

                          ____________________